It's cool that you point to one lobby that may be marginally losing net members, but this does not exactly counter my point, nor does this somehow render lobbies as a whole adequately accountable to the general public will or bind them to the national interest.
It's not that the NRA is just losing members, but that they're losing a constituency that has been one of their core ones traditionally. And this is directly related to their focus on guns above all else.
But, as others have pointed out, the concept of lobbying is not inherently a bad one - it only becomes a problem when the lobby can distort the legislative process. The NRA isn't a problem because they support gun rights, they're a problem because they can play kingmaker. But in turn, that's a two-edged sword - they've supported "pro-gun" candidates that were at odds with their native constituents in other ways, and in turn have lost the support of those people, weakening their base.
The government would better serve the public if it were partially taken out of the public eye. C_SPAN should be taken out of the capital building and committee votes and deliberations should be closed to the public. Elected leaders should be insulated in areas where open access has empowered special interests to pressure them but has not actually engaged the attention of the general public.
Read anything about Stalinist Russia.
Yes. I seem to recall how we were a Bolshevik dictatorship before C-SPAN.
There was public exposure of government before C-SPAN.
Transparent government is good unless you're in favor of dictatorships.
I disagree. There is utility and cost in everything. In some cases the opening politicians to accountability has limited utility and high cost.
Representative government does not work as well when the representatives are disincentivized from actually debating ideas and compromising.
There is a great deal too much room for the energized, organized small minorities with one or two issues to dominate the national discourse at the expense of the larger majority who are not organized or energized but who would otherwise be represented by congress people courting 51+% of the vote.
Cato on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
A trend has emerged since late 60's/70's to open up the inner workings of government to public scrutiny and accountability. Sunlight being the best disinfectant and all that.
The downside of this has been that such open access, instead of empowering the public at large who are generally too preoccupied with the business of living their own lives, has empowered lobbiests and economic/ideological interest groups which increasingly dominate national government. Politicians face extreme pressure from them to support a position uncompromisingly and as a consequence the incentives are lined up such that real debate aside from slogan shouting is discouraged and compromise is widely condemned as selling out.
The government would better serve the public if it were partially taken out of the public eye. C_SPAN should be taken out of the capital building and committee votes and deliberations should be closed to the public. Elected leaders should be insulated in areas where open access has empowered special interests to pressure them but has not actually engaged the attention of the general public.
Germany's "sunshine laws", which were implemented mostly as a bulwark against the governmental excesses and failures of previous iterations are much more expansive than ours, and have gone far in squelching corruption from private interests. I'd argue that our "open government" laws simply don't go far enough, and leave private money and meddling hidden under the shadows of accounting schemes, private "advisors" and executive privilege.
I'm not against all government accountablity, that would be madness. I simply think that contentious issues would be better debated out of the hot light of public scrutiny.
Contentious issues are those that need the most scrutiny as they are generally the issues that affect people the most deeply or involve the largest disparity in power.
The Federal Reserve performs its job very well and consistently enjoys roughly 50% higher ratings of public confidence than congress. This is because it is insolated from political pressures. The Supreme Court is another body that benefits from being insolated politically.
I can't help but read that as you wanting to insulate politicians from political pressures, but that's exactly what politicians are there for. If you remove the only tool that the common citizen has available, then the lobby groups and large businesses still have all of their other tools to hand. You'll create a system where lobby groups and special interests have more power, not less
If you want to pevent misuse of the system, then either clamp down on methods that only the lobby groups possess or extend openess to make it more obvious to the people how much contact politicians have with each group.
Germany's "sunshine laws", which were implemented mostly as a bulwark against the governmental excesses and failures of previous iterations are much more expansive than ours, and have gone far in squelching corruption from private interests. I'd argue that our "open government" laws simply don't go far enough, and leave private money and meddling hidden under the shadows of accounting schemes, private "advisors" and executive privilege.
I'm not so sure. I don't think we want to make it to where a politician can't take a piss without it becoming public record, which is what bans against things like private advisors would do. I think an elected official should be allowed to seek private council in certain situations to either advise his conscience or educate himself on a matter. Moreover, there are certain questions that need to be asked in some situations that are less likely to be asked if the government is always under a spotlight. Politics is not always pretty, and that ugliness can be harvested to score cheap political points.
Maybe more transparency in certain places is a good idea, but you seem to be suggesting that every politician must live and work in glass houses.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It's cool that you point to one lobby that may be marginally losing net members, but this does not exactly counter my point, nor does this somehow render lobbies as a whole adequately accountable to the general public will or bind them to the national interest.
It's not that the NRA is just losing members, but that they're losing a constituency that has been one of their core ones traditionally. And this is directly related to their focus on guns above all else.
So they are not losing members then?
But, as others have pointed out, the concept of lobbying is not inherently a bad one - it only becomes a problem when the lobby can distort the legislative process. The NRA isn't a problem because they support gun rights, they're a problem because they can play kingmaker. But in turn, that's a two-edged sword - they've supported "pro-gun" candidates that were at odds with their native constituents in other ways, and in turn have lost the support of those people, weakening their base.
So you are arguing that the NRA, despite not losing members, is somehow rendered accountable for their activities to whether they are serving the national interest? Because I would not say that is so, and I would not say it is a very good argument that special interests are not a problem. If that is indeed the argument you are trying to make.
Do you really need me to cite proof that bodies like the congress have become more ideologically driven and deadlocked than they were previously? I had thought this was a common observation.
I do. I would like very much to see proof that things are more ideologically driven and deadlocked in comtemporary times than in the days of Tammany Hall and 'masters of the senate.' Particularly since my currently very closed/obfuscated government isn't really working all that well. Unless you're very good friends with Mayor Daley, of course. Corruption certainly does get things done and gets them done quick (especially when compared with today), but you have to wonder if that's really what you wanted or if you wanted something to be done right.
I would also like to be made aware of when it was that the halls of Congress were the only place where governmental deliberation can take place to the exclusion of 'Al's Steakhouse' &c.
The fact that people don't routinely follow what their elected representatives are up to doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to. I don't know how it typically goes in the US, but over here politicians are routinely ripped to shreds in the press, and most of the time lose their jobs at the slightest hint of impropriety.
If lobby groups are the problem, limit the power of the lobby groups. Don't toss out the whole idea of accountability as unworkable.
Moreover, there are certain questions that need to be asked in some situations that are less likely to be asked if the government is always under a spotlight. Politics is not always pretty, and that ugliness can be harvested to score cheap political points.
Maybe more transparency in certain places is a good idea, but you seem to be suggesting that every politician must live and work in glass houses.
I think the problem here is that, ideally, we do want politicians who can live in glass houses, but it's going to take more than forcing them to make them suitable. As long as there is a continuous move towards greater transparency and a press/citizenry taking a greater interest, then you could reach a stage where politicians can gain as much funding and power from appealing to the population as appealing to big business.
I'm not against all government accountablity, that would be madness. I simply think that contentious issues would be better debated out of the hot light of public scrutiny.
Contentious issues are those that need the most scrutiny as they are generally the issues that affect people the most deeply or involve the largest disparity in power.
They are issues that affect the most people most deeply. So do you think the best policy is going to come out of a real debate of ideas that involves compromise or people shouting slogans at eachother because they unduly pressured by uncompromising interest groups?
The problem is that we don't trust legislators in part because they act like idiots who rely on and are pressured by special interests. So we disempower them in an effort to get them to act right, which only puts them more at the mercy of special interests and makes them act stupider.
You can see the pattern in your post. You don't trust legislators to do their job honestly because you have faith that their inclination is to do inside deals with lobbiest contrary to the public interest. So you open them more to lobbiest pressure with public disclosure laws and they end up validating your assessment of them. It's a vicious circle.
At some point we need to address the point that opening everything up doesn't empower "the public" to oversee politicians. People just don't come home from work and spend two hours checking what their legislator said and did that day. Even though the information is open to all, it is sought and used disproportionately by people who are intimately involved in certain issues for reasons of self-interest or ideology. These people exert undue pressure on the government compared to their actual numbers and government becomes disfunctional as politicians respond to the pressure brought by these splintered interest groups.
I fail to see how removing accountability from the equation would do anything to decrease the amount of corruption and pandering. Lobbyists would still be the only with the time and motivation to effect change. They would still pay politicians money and would expect a return. The only diffrence is that the public at large wouldn't have less information about what their elected officials were voting for.
I think it might help to prevent poorly though through feel good legislation. USA Patriot Act, flag burning non-sense, English as a national language, retard immigration stuff, drug legislation and such. Without worrying about public opinion, they would be free to vote against it based on the actual merits of the bill. I don't even come close to trusting them to do that.
From a sheerly ideological standpoint, I'm pretty massively biased against any sort of closed source system.
Meh, it's Cato posting. Pretty much the Ron Paul of D&D, holding ideas so ridiculously unfounded in reality that one would almost assume he was either an anthropomorphic strawman or a troll.
Do you really need me to cite proof that bodies like the congress have become more ideologically driven and deadlocked than they were previously? I had thought this was a common observation.
I do. I would like very much to see proof that things are more ideologically driven and deadlocked in comtemporary times than in the days of Tammany Hall and 'masters of the senate.' Particularly since my currently very closed/obfuscated government isn't really working all that well. Unless you're very good friends with Mayor Daley, of course. Corruption certainly does get things done and gets them done quick (especially when compared with today), but you have to wonder if that's really what you wanted or if you wanted something to be done right.
I would also like to be made aware of when it was that the halls of Congress were the only place where governmental deliberation can take place to the exclusion of 'Al's Steakhouse' &c.
Maybe you could point out to me how Tammany Hall and Mayor Daley were destroyed by the opening of government to greater public scrutiny in the 70s.
I have no evidence to suggest that closing my access to congresscritters' actions will make them LESS accountable to lobby groups, however. I fail to see how ME not being able to pressure them as easily somehow removes their desires to please people willing to slip them the proverbial 20 in whatever way is currently allowed under ethics rules.
I highly doubt they're sitting in fear of me watching them on CSPAN, as much as in fear of their lobby interests finding out what they said behind closed doors or how they voted on a certain bill. Which would happen without a camera present anyways.
kildy on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
You can see the pattern in your post. You don't trust legislators to do their job honestly because you have faith that their inclination is to do inside deals with lobbiest contrary to the public interest. So you open them more to lobbiest pressure with public disclosure laws and they end up validating your assessment of them. It's a vicious circle.
I fail to understand why increased disclosure opens up politicians to more special interest pressure. It seems to me that special interests will always have the inside track on politicians voting records and current legislation, regardless of public disclosure laws. It's not as though keeping the general public benighted is going to make this go away. If anything, public disclosure laws force politicians to justify their positions and resist lobbyist pressure.
I mean at the end of the day, you seem to be advocating a system in which officeholders are less accountable to public sentiment or pressure. This seems to undercut the central premise and benefit of democracy.
I fail to see how removing accountability from the equation would do anything to decrease the amount of corruption and pandering. Lobbyists would still be the only with the time and motivation to effect change.
They would not be able to exert as much pressure.
You know, public financing of elections is another expression of this dyanmic. You insulate politicians from accountability to the private interests who would otherwise exert undue influence on them. Part of that is not allowing private contributions - essentially blocking them from individual's ability to lobby them. The loss in accountability to those among the public who are interested enough to give money is balanced by the gain in independent judgement.
Meh, it's Cato posting. Pretty much the Ron Paul of D&D, holding ideas so ridiculously unfounded in reality that one would almost assume he was either an anthropomorphic strawman or a troll.
Do you really need me to cite proof that bodies like the congress have become more ideologically driven and deadlocked than they were previously? I had thought this was a common observation.
I do. I would like very much to see proof that things are more ideologically driven and deadlocked in comtemporary times than in the days of Tammany Hall and 'masters of the senate.' Particularly since my currently very closed/obfuscated government isn't really working all that well. Unless you're very good friends with Mayor Daley, of course. Corruption certainly does get things done and gets them done quick (especially when compared with today), but you have to wonder if that's really what you wanted or if you wanted something to be done right.
I would also like to be made aware of when it was that the halls of Congress were the only place where governmental deliberation can take place to the exclusion of 'Al's Steakhouse' &c.
Maybe you could point out to me how Tammany Hall and Mayor Daley were destroyed by the opening of government to greater public scrutiny in the 70s.
So you don't actually have any proof and are just going off of 'conventional wisdom' that things are worse today than back in ye olden days when men were men and legislators were looking out for the best interest of the public in their heart of hearts. Gotcha. Well I'll agree that all those hippies need to get off the nation's front lawn.
Also, public vetting of public apointments who hired people for public jobs &c. brought about an end to patronage.
I have no evidence to suggest that closing my access to congresscritters' actions will make them LESS accountable to lobby groups, however. I fail to see how ME not being able to pressure them as easily somehow removes their desires to please people willing to slip them the proverbial 20 in whatever way is currently allowed under ethics rules.
Lobbiests are currently pressuring them without having to slip them the proverbial 20.
I think it is against the evidence to suppose that they are inherently all determinedly corrupt instead of simply responding to the system of incentives and disincentives that prevail in Washington.
Cato on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I fail to see how removing accountability from the equation would do anything to decrease the amount of corruption and pandering. Lobbyists would still be the only with the time and motivation to effect change.
They would not be able to exert as much pressure.
You know, public financing of elections is another expression of this dyanmic. You insulate politicians from accountability to the private interests who would otherwise exert undue influence on them. Part of that is not allowing private contributions - essentially blocking them from individual's ability to lobby them. The loss in accountability to those among the public who are interested enough to give money is balanced by the gain in independent judgement.
But see, public financing implies that the central responsibility of a politician is to his or her constituency, not his or her financiers. In my view, the central problem with American Democracy is that we've somehow taken the ideal of "voting with your dollars" to be more important and fundamental than "voting with your votes"
I have no evidence to suggest that closing my access to congresscritters' actions will make them LESS accountable to lobby groups, however. I fail to see how ME not being able to pressure them as easily somehow removes their desires to please people willing to slip them the proverbial 20 in whatever way is currently allowed under ethics rules.
Lobbiests are currently pressuring them without having to slip them the proverbial 20.
I think it is against the evidence to suppose that they are inherently all determinedly corrupt instead of simply responding to the system of incentives and disincentives that prevail in Washington.
The system won't change with a lack of accountability, however.
If I'm pressured by lobby X to vote Y on bill Z, if cspan covers it or not, I'm going to be pressured by lobby X to vote Y on bill Z.
Effectively, you're stuck in a wierd spot:
How exactly is a rarely watched CSPAN making people more vulnerable to lobby efforts that a thin curtain would somehow prevent?
Your voting record will catch up to you, unless you remove names from that record entirely, which would completely remove accountability at all. And anything lacking accountability for it's actions has serious problems.
So you don't actually have any proof and are just going off of 'conventional wisdom' that things are worse today than back in ye olden days when men were men and legislators were looking out for the best interest of the public in their heart of hearts. Gotcha. Well I'll agree that all those hippies need to get off the nation's front lawn.
Come on now. What metric do you want. You've seen the way Congress behaved in dealing with Richard Nixon's wrong doing. Has it behaved the same with Bush or have the Republicans blindly circled the wagons? Look at how Reagan, Tip O'Neil and Bob Dole worked together to deal with Social Security. Do you see that anymore?
I'm sure you've read and heard the same politicians talking about the breakdown of collegiality and decorum in the Congress that I have.
Cato on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
How exactly is a rarely watched CSPAN making people more vulnerable to lobby efforts that a thin curtain would somehow prevent?
The introduction of CSpan has created some odd byproducts, like congresspeople giving long-winded speeches to empty chambers and some degree of grandstanding when pragmatic negotiation (which is later done behind closed doors in committee) is really what's called for.
I guess I'm of the view that a more open government might force the voting population to accept democracy more as it is - ugly difficult compromises and all - rather than the nearly fictionalized view of it that we currently have. Politicians should be forced to account for their compromise votes, and the public should get used to the fact that they're necessary.
I fail to see how removing accountability from the equation would do anything to decrease the amount of corruption and pandering. Lobbyists would still be the only with the time and motivation to effect change.
They would not be able to exert as much pressure.
You know, public financing of elections is another expression of this dyanmic. You insulate politicians from accountability to the private interests who would otherwise exert undue influence on them. Part of that is not allowing private contributions - essentially blocking them from individual's ability to lobby them. The loss in accountability to those among the public who are interested enough to give money is balanced by the gain in independent judgement.
But see, public financing implies that the central responsibility of a politician is to his or her constituency, not his or her financiers. In my view, the central problem with American Democracy is that we've somehow taken the ideal of "voting with your dollars" to be more important and fundamental than "voting with your votes"
But we don't expect it to be effective in altering the incentives of politicians because it sends a symbolic message.
We expect it to be effective because politicians have been insolated from interested parties who would otherwise exert disproportionate influence. You close off the avenue for individuals to pressure the congressmen, making them less accountable to whoever might want to donate money.
Cato on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I fail to see how removing accountability from the equation would do anything to decrease the amount of corruption and pandering. Lobbyists would still be the only with the time and motivation to effect change.
They would not be able to exert as much pressure.
You know, public financing of elections is another expression of this dyanmic. You insulate politicians from accountability to the private interests who would otherwise exert undue influence on them. Part of that is not allowing private contributions - essentially blocking them from individual's ability to lobby them. The loss in accountability to those among the public who are interested enough to give money is balanced by the gain in independent judgement.
But see, public financing implies that the central responsibility of a politician is to his or her constituency, not his or her financiers. In my view, the central problem with American Democracy is that we've somehow taken the ideal of "voting with your dollars" to be more important and fundamental than "voting with your votes"
But we don't expect it to be effective in altering the incentives of politicians because it sends a symbolic message.
We expect it to be effective because politicians have been insolated from interested parties who would otherwise exert disproportionate influence. You close off the avenue for individuals to pressure the congressmen, making them less accountable to whoever might want to donate money.
Exactly. It prioritizes votes and public accountability and deprioritizes private money and donor accountability.
How exactly is a rarely watched CSPAN making people more vulnerable to lobby efforts that a thin curtain would somehow prevent?
The introduction of CSpan has created some odd byproducts, like congresspeople giving long-winded speeches to empty chambers and some degree of grandstanding when pragmatic negotiation (which is later done behind closed doors in committee) is really what's called for.
I guess I'm of the view that a more open government might force the voting population to accept democracy more as it is - ugly difficult compromises and all - rather than the nearly fictionalized view of it that we currently have. Politicians should be forced to account for their compromise votes, and the public should get used to the fact that they're necessary.
I think what virtue their is in out government comes from taking people as they are known to exist as the starting point and working outward from there.
Cato on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
How exactly is a rarely watched CSPAN making people more vulnerable to lobby efforts that a thin curtain would somehow prevent?
The introduction of CSpan has created some odd byproducts, like congresspeople giving long-winded speeches to empty chambers and some degree of grandstanding when pragmatic negotiation (which is later done behind closed doors in committee) is really what's called for.
I guess I'm of the view that a more open government might force the voting population to accept democracy more as it is - ugly difficult compromises and all - rather than the nearly fictionalized view of it that we currently have. Politicians should be forced to account for their compromise votes, and the public should get used to the fact that they're necessary.
I think what virtue their is in out government comes from taking people as they are known to exist as the starting point and working outward from there.
If we were going to mold government around the mood of the current public, we'd just craft an elaborate, dynamic and entertaining mock government concealing an autocracy. Yes, we want a government that reflects the public, but we also want to fundamentally maintain a democracy. Democratic representatives have to make difficult choices at times, and they should have to stand to account for them.
I fail to see how removing accountability from the equation would do anything to decrease the amount of corruption and pandering. Lobbyists would still be the only with the time and motivation to effect change.
They would not be able to exert as much pressure.
You know, public financing of elections is another expression of this dyanmic. You insulate politicians from accountability to the private interests who would otherwise exert undue influence on them. Part of that is not allowing private contributions - essentially blocking them from individual's ability to lobby them. The loss in accountability to those among the public who are interested enough to give money is balanced by the gain in independent judgement.
But see, public financing implies that the central responsibility of a politician is to his or her constituency, not his or her financiers. In my view, the central problem with American Democracy is that we've somehow taken the ideal of "voting with your dollars" to be more important and fundamental than "voting with your votes"
But we don't expect it to be effective in altering the incentives of politicians because it sends a symbolic message.
We expect it to be effective because politicians have been insolated from interested parties who would otherwise exert disproportionate influence. You close off the avenue for individuals to pressure the congressmen, making them less accountable to whoever might want to donate money.
Exactly. It prioritizes votes and public accountability and deprioritizes private money and donor accountability.
But the votes of committees and sub-committees are another arena, like money, in which we gain by frustrating the private interests.
I've never in my life cast a vote based on anything a politician has done in sub-committee and I very much doubt you have either. I have cast my vote based on how a senator voted in senate votes though. The same with Congressmen.
How much useful legislation never even made it to our attention though, because it was killed by the pressure of special interests in committee? In votes of the whole senate on a bill, our attention makes politicians take our wishes into account. But whose attention is on the sub-committees? Whose wishes to politicians deal with in that arena? Who applies the pressure there?
So you don't actually have any proof and are just going off of 'conventional wisdom' that things are worse today than back in ye olden days when men were men and legislators were looking out for the best interest of the public in their heart of hearts. Gotcha. Well I'll agree that all those hippies need to get off the nation's front lawn.
Come on now. What metric do you want. You've seen the way Congress behaved in dealing with Richard Nixon's wrong doing. Has it behaved the same with Bush or have the Republicans blindly circled the wagons? Look at how Reagan, Tip O'Neil and Bob Dole worked together to deal with Social Security. Do you see that anymore?
I'm sure you've read and heard the same politicians talking about the breakdown of collegiality and decorum in the Congress that I have.
I have, but that doesn't make their statements truthful and is not solely based on the opening up of the process. I've heard a lot of those complaints based mostly on members of the House getting promoted to the Senate while still acting like the bastards who are able to get elected into the House somehow. I've also heard a lot of it based primarily on the fact that MC's only have so much time in the day and the public you don't know will always come after the public you do. (You might like Our Culture of Pandering by Sen. Paul Simon. A more collegial and respected senator rarely existed.) That isn't going to change by barring the doors to the smoke filled rooms.
For two; Reagan, Tip, and Bob Dole (plus Biden and some other guy) worked together with Social Security after all these dastardly sunshine laws you are opposed to were put into effect so I fail to see how that supports your point. I would say that the punditocracy is more to blame for shouting matches than public disclosures, and they wouldn't disappear from smoke filled rooms either. You'd need a reform of news agencies for that, which they obviously are aware of what with all their bitching about being 'forced' to cover Brittney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith.
For thee; Just how collegial is it considered to break a cane over Sen. Charles Sumner's head? If Sen. Chuck Shumer were to be caned today, would that be an improvement?
I'm not against all government accountablity, that would be madness. I simply think that contentious issues would be better debated out of the hot light of public scrutiny.
Contentious issues are those that need the most scrutiny as they are generally the issues that affect people the most deeply or involve the largest disparity in power.
They are issues that affect the most people most deeply. So do you think the best policy is going to come out of a real debate of ideas that involves compromise or people shouting slogans at eachother because they unduly pressured by uncompromising interest groups?
Nice try. I'm saying that decisions on these issues are those that most need justification and public scrutiny. Abortion is contentious and plenty of people would vote depending on a candidates stance on the issue.
The problem is that we don't trust legislators in part because they act like idiots who rely on and are pressured by special interests. So we disempower them in an effort to get them to act right, which only puts them more at the mercy of special interests and makes them act stupider.
Not trusting them is a reason to keep public scrutiny. You've yet to show that public scrutiny has put politicians at the power of special interests.
At some point we need to address the point that opening everything up doesn't empower "the public" to oversee politicians.
The point will come straight after the point where you prove you assertion that open government helps lobbyists and hurts the public.
People just don't come home from work and spend two hours checking what their legislator said and did that day. Even though the information is open to all, it is sought and used disproportionately by people who are intimately involved in certain issues for reasons of self-interest or ideology. These people exert undue pressure on the government compared to their actual numbers and government becomes disfunctional as politicians respond to the pressure brought by these splintered interest groups.
Removing the one way that the public has to keep a check on their government just means that the only people pressuring politicians will be the special interest groups. You will increase the disparity in power, not reduce it.
If special interest groups are out of control, then restrict them, not the public.
I fail to see how removing accountability from the equation would do anything to decrease the amount of corruption and pandering. Lobbyists would still be the only with the time and motivation to effect change.
They would not be able to exert as much pressure.
You know, public financing of elections is another expression of this dyanmic. You insulate politicians from accountability to the private interests who would otherwise exert undue influence on them. Part of that is not allowing private contributions - essentially blocking them from individual's ability to lobby them. The loss in accountability to those among the public who are interested enough to give money is balanced by the gain in independent judgement.
But see, public financing implies that the central responsibility of a politician is to his or her constituency, not his or her financiers. In my view, the central problem with American Democracy is that we've somehow taken the ideal of "voting with your dollars" to be more important and fundamental than "voting with your votes"
But we don't expect it to be effective in altering the incentives of politicians because it sends a symbolic message.
We expect it to be effective because politicians have been insolated from interested parties who would otherwise exert disproportionate influence. You close off the avenue for individuals to pressure the congressmen, making them less accountable to whoever might want to donate money.
Exactly. It prioritizes votes and public accountability and deprioritizes private money and donor accountability.
But the votes of committees and sub-committees are another arena, like money, in which we gain by frustrating the private interests.
I've never in my life cast a vote based on anything a politician has done in sub-committee and I very much doubt you have either. I have cast my vote based on how a senator voted in senate votes though. The same with Congressmen.
How much useful legislation never even made it to our attention though, because it was killed by the pressure of special interests in committee? In votes of the whole senate on a bill, our attention makes politicians take our wishes into account. But whose attention is on the sub-committees? Whose wishes to politicians deal with in that arena? Who applies the pressure there?
In a system of increased openness, the dealings of subcommittees would be writ large, and the politicians would be accountable to the public (as opposed to interested parties and donors) for the dealings in these.
It's funny, because we seem to be arguing exactly the same point, but somehow you're advocating the exact opposite thing that I am.
I fail to see how removing accountability from the equation would do anything to decrease the amount of corruption and pandering. Lobbyists would still be the only with the time and motivation to effect change.
They would not be able to exert as much pressure.
You know, public financing of elections is another expression of this dyanmic. You insulate politicians from accountability to the private interests who would otherwise exert undue influence on them. Part of that is not allowing private contributions - essentially blocking them from individual's ability to lobby them. The loss in accountability to those among the public who are interested enough to give money is balanced by the gain in independent judgement.
Well, my point was that it would disproportionately remove the accountability to the public, compared with that of lobbyists. I feel they should be accountable to the public.
Lobbyists would have the resources to find other ways of learning about votes. They have close contact with the politicians. They can look at things like who attends a vote. They would have to gather and sort through the intelligence that they can gather, rather than just looking directly at the vote results. It just makes things slightly more fuzzy for them, they only think they know who voted for what.
These resources would not be available to the public, so now the lobbyists hold an even greater amount of the accountability than the public. It would further unbalance things.
When less information is available, those who have access to that little bit and have the wherewithal to understand it have a significant advantage.
How exactly is a rarely watched CSPAN making people more vulnerable to lobby efforts that a thin curtain would somehow prevent?
The introduction of CSpan has created some odd byproducts, like congresspeople giving long-winded speeches to empty chambers and some degree of grandstanding when pragmatic negotiation (which is later done behind closed doors in committee) is really what's called for.
I guess I'm of the view that a more open government might force the voting population to accept democracy more as it is - ugly difficult compromises and all - rather than the nearly fictionalized view of it that we currently have. Politicians should be forced to account for their compromise votes, and the public should get used to the fact that they're necessary.
I think what virtue their is in out government comes from taking people as they are known to exist as the starting point and working outward from there.
If we were going to mold government around the mood of the current public, we'd just craft an elaborate, dynamic and entertaining mock government concealing an autocracy. Yes, we want a government that reflects the public, but we also want to fundamentally maintain a democracy. Democratic representatives have to make difficult choices at times, and they should have to stand to account for them.
Let's hold them accountable for the prominent full senate votes, full house votes that we know the public watches then. Let's hold them accountable where the public actually holds them accountable.
Let's not open them to accountability where only the interest groups are watching though. Then we injure their ability to work in the national interest.
I think the problem here is that, ideally, we do want politicians who can live in glass houses, but it's going to take more than forcing them to make them suitable. As long as there is a continuous move towards greater transparency and a press/citizenry taking a greater interest, then you could reach a stage where politicians can gain as much funding and power from appealing to the population as appealing to big business.
Obviously, I'm not talking "done by June."
I don't that, ideally, we want politicians who exist in some wonkish version of Real World for their entire tenure. In addition to the problems I already outlined, it also facilitates politics of character, which is a fucking blight on our government. I don't much give a shit if Joe Senator said a naughty word during deliberation or was rude to the fucking checkout girl. I care that he pushes the right policies. You know what I need in order to determine if he's pushing the right policies? I need to know his voting record. Really, that's about it.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
How exactly is a rarely watched CSPAN making people more vulnerable to lobby efforts that a thin curtain would somehow prevent?
The introduction of CSpan has created some odd byproducts, like congresspeople giving long-winded speeches to empty chambers and some degree of grandstanding when pragmatic negotiation (which is later done behind closed doors in committee) is really what's called for.
I guess I'm of the view that a more open government might force the voting population to accept democracy more as it is - ugly difficult compromises and all - rather than the nearly fictionalized view of it that we currently have. Politicians should be forced to account for their compromise votes, and the public should get used to the fact that they're necessary.
I think what virtue their is in out government comes from taking people as they are known to exist as the starting point and working outward from there.
If we were going to mold government around the mood of the current public, we'd just craft an elaborate, dynamic and entertaining mock government concealing an autocracy. Yes, we want a government that reflects the public, but we also want to fundamentally maintain a democracy. Democratic representatives have to make difficult choices at times, and they should have to stand to account for them.
Let's hold them accountable for the prominent full senate votes, full house votes that we know the public watches then. Let's hold them accountable where the public actually holds them accountable.
Let's not open them to accountability where only the interest groups are watching though. Then we injure their ability to work in the national interest.
You're assuming that, behind closed doors, politicians will do the real work of advancing the public interest in spite of the many temptations of power and money and job security. I am unconvinced that this is the case, and I think that the last seven years have provided a pretty clear case of what happens to a government that isn't immediately accountable to critical public opinion.
Part of the reason that the American public is so very misinformed about politics, aside from simple disinclination, is the byzantine and obfuscatory subcommittee system and the intense logrolling and mechanations hidden behind appellations like "The Farming Bill" or "The Patriot Act".
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited October 2007
That is, Joe Senator voting "yes" on the 2000 page "Bill to Establish March as National Puppy-Kisses Month" isn't likely to meet a lot of public scrutiny, in spite of the fact that this bill could contain many horrible provisions inserted subrosa in subcommittee. This is the problem with focusing exclusively on full senate votes.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I think the problem here is that, ideally, we do want politicians who can live in glass houses, but it's going to take more than forcing them to make them suitable. As long as there is a continuous move towards greater transparency and a press/citizenry taking a greater interest, then you could reach a stage where politicians can gain as much funding and power from appealing to the population as appealing to big business.
Obviously, I'm not talking "done by June."
I don't that, ideally, we want politicians who exist in some wonkish version of Real World for their entire tenure. In addition to the problems I already outlined, it also facilitates politics of character, which is a fucking blight on our government. I don't much give a shit if Joe Senator said a naughty word during deliberation or was rude to the fucking checkout girl. I care that he pushes the right policies. You know what I need in order to determine if he's pushing the right policies? I need to know his voting record. Really, that's about it.
I basically agree with you, but the voting record should be clear and obvious (which it rarely is due to the unnecessary complexity of most bills with their thousand riders etc), and influences and obligations to private parties should be explicitly and clearly defined.
That is, Joe Senator voting "yes" on the 2000 page "Bill to Establish March as National Puppy-Kisses Month" isn't likely to meet a lot of public scrutiny, in spite of the fact that this bill could contain many horrible provisions inserted subrosa in subcommittee. This is the problem with focusing exclusively on full senate votes.
Or all the stuff that never makes it out of committee, there would be no, instead of little, public record that a large number of issues are being spoken to at all.
For two; Reagan, Tip, and Bob Dole (plus Biden and some other guy) worked together with Social Security after all these dastardly sunshine laws you are opposed to were put into effect so I fail to see how that supports your point.
I don't think they are dastardly and I don't think all of them are having a bad effect. I just think they should be evaluated in terms of what information actually gets to the public at large and how much independence that costs legislators.
At to the point about Reagan - the growth of lobbying and the effect it has on Washington is progressive. Google "number of lobbiests" and almost every article will include a mention of how a long term trend in greater lobbying efforts, the number of lobbiests and their pay began to increase in the 1970s. Not an accident.
For thee; Just how collegial is it considered to break a cane over Sen. Charles Sumner's head? If Sen. Chuck Shumer were to be caned today, would that be an improvement?
Do you really think that the lead up to the civil war is a good sample to draw conclusions from?
That is, Joe Senator voting "yes" on the 2000 page "Bill to Establish March as National Puppy-Kisses Month" isn't likely to meet a lot of public scrutiny, in spite of the fact that this bill could contain many horrible provisions inserted subrosa in subcommittee. This is the problem with focusing exclusively on full senate votes.
Yeah, it's almost as if the only way to get legislation passed is to pile a bunch of stuff into a bill no one can vote against.
I'd say that itself is symptomatic of the increased partisan splintering promoted by heavy special economic and ideological interests that dominate the process of legislating. "I can't vote against agricultural subsidies unless I'd also be voting against funding children's medical care."
Some of this accountability medicine is just making the patient sicker. Maybe at some point if you get extreme enough in terms of accountability you come out the other side. You stop taking half measures like making people dislose who their political donors are and you just institute public financing. But unless the dynamic is recognised that politicians are people who operate with a certain set of incentives and that broad trends in their behavior don't stem from their personalities or alleged personal corruption there is no way to evaluate whether applying new accountability rules is going to make things better or worse.
Posts
It's not that the NRA is just losing members, but that they're losing a constituency that has been one of their core ones traditionally. And this is directly related to their focus on guns above all else.
But, as others have pointed out, the concept of lobbying is not inherently a bad one - it only becomes a problem when the lobby can distort the legislative process. The NRA isn't a problem because they support gun rights, they're a problem because they can play kingmaker. But in turn, that's a two-edged sword - they've supported "pro-gun" candidates that were at odds with their native constituents in other ways, and in turn have lost the support of those people, weakening their base.
I disagree. There is utility and cost in everything. In some cases the opening politicians to accountability has limited utility and high cost.
Representative government does not work as well when the representatives are disincentivized from actually debating ideas and compromising.
There is a great deal too much room for the energized, organized small minorities with one or two issues to dominate the national discourse at the expense of the larger majority who are not organized or energized but who would otherwise be represented by congress people courting 51+% of the vote.
Germany's "sunshine laws", which were implemented mostly as a bulwark against the governmental excesses and failures of previous iterations are much more expansive than ours, and have gone far in squelching corruption from private interests. I'd argue that our "open government" laws simply don't go far enough, and leave private money and meddling hidden under the shadows of accounting schemes, private "advisors" and executive privilege.
Contentious issues are those that need the most scrutiny as they are generally the issues that affect people the most deeply or involve the largest disparity in power.
I can't help but read that as you wanting to insulate politicians from political pressures, but that's exactly what politicians are there for. If you remove the only tool that the common citizen has available, then the lobby groups and large businesses still have all of their other tools to hand. You'll create a system where lobby groups and special interests have more power, not less
If you want to pevent misuse of the system, then either clamp down on methods that only the lobby groups possess or extend openess to make it more obvious to the people how much contact politicians have with each group.
I'm not so sure. I don't think we want to make it to where a politician can't take a piss without it becoming public record, which is what bans against things like private advisors would do. I think an elected official should be allowed to seek private council in certain situations to either advise his conscience or educate himself on a matter. Moreover, there are certain questions that need to be asked in some situations that are less likely to be asked if the government is always under a spotlight. Politics is not always pretty, and that ugliness can be harvested to score cheap political points.
Maybe more transparency in certain places is a good idea, but you seem to be suggesting that every politician must live and work in glass houses.
Sub-committee votes certainly. Perhaps committee votes as well. Not all votes.
So they are not losing members then?
So you are arguing that the NRA, despite not losing members, is somehow rendered accountable for their activities to whether they are serving the national interest? Because I would not say that is so, and I would not say it is a very good argument that special interests are not a problem. If that is indeed the argument you are trying to make.
I do. I would like very much to see proof that things are more ideologically driven and deadlocked in comtemporary times than in the days of Tammany Hall and 'masters of the senate.' Particularly since my currently very closed/obfuscated government isn't really working all that well. Unless you're very good friends with Mayor Daley, of course. Corruption certainly does get things done and gets them done quick (especially when compared with today), but you have to wonder if that's really what you wanted or if you wanted something to be done right.
I would also like to be made aware of when it was that the halls of Congress were the only place where governmental deliberation can take place to the exclusion of 'Al's Steakhouse' &c.
If lobby groups are the problem, limit the power of the lobby groups. Don't toss out the whole idea of accountability as unworkable.
I think the problem here is that, ideally, we do want politicians who can live in glass houses, but it's going to take more than forcing them to make them suitable. As long as there is a continuous move towards greater transparency and a press/citizenry taking a greater interest, then you could reach a stage where politicians can gain as much funding and power from appealing to the population as appealing to big business.
Obviously, I'm not talking "done by June."
They are issues that affect the most people most deeply. So do you think the best policy is going to come out of a real debate of ideas that involves compromise or people shouting slogans at eachother because they unduly pressured by uncompromising interest groups?
The problem is that we don't trust legislators in part because they act like idiots who rely on and are pressured by special interests. So we disempower them in an effort to get them to act right, which only puts them more at the mercy of special interests and makes them act stupider.
You can see the pattern in your post. You don't trust legislators to do their job honestly because you have faith that their inclination is to do inside deals with lobbiest contrary to the public interest. So you open them more to lobbiest pressure with public disclosure laws and they end up validating your assessment of them. It's a vicious circle.
At some point we need to address the point that opening everything up doesn't empower "the public" to oversee politicians. People just don't come home from work and spend two hours checking what their legislator said and did that day. Even though the information is open to all, it is sought and used disproportionately by people who are intimately involved in certain issues for reasons of self-interest or ideology. These people exert undue pressure on the government compared to their actual numbers and government becomes disfunctional as politicians respond to the pressure brought by these splintered interest groups.
I think it might help to prevent poorly though through feel good legislation. USA Patriot Act, flag burning non-sense, English as a national language, retard immigration stuff, drug legislation and such. Without worrying about public opinion, they would be free to vote against it based on the actual merits of the bill. I don't even come close to trusting them to do that.
From a sheerly ideological standpoint, I'm pretty massively biased against any sort of closed source system.
Meh, it's Cato posting. Pretty much the Ron Paul of D&D, holding ideas so ridiculously unfounded in reality that one would almost assume he was either an anthropomorphic strawman or a troll.
Maybe you could point out to me how Tammany Hall and Mayor Daley were destroyed by the opening of government to greater public scrutiny in the 70s.
I highly doubt they're sitting in fear of me watching them on CSPAN, as much as in fear of their lobby interests finding out what they said behind closed doors or how they voted on a certain bill. Which would happen without a camera present anyways.
I fail to understand why increased disclosure opens up politicians to more special interest pressure. It seems to me that special interests will always have the inside track on politicians voting records and current legislation, regardless of public disclosure laws. It's not as though keeping the general public benighted is going to make this go away. If anything, public disclosure laws force politicians to justify their positions and resist lobbyist pressure.
I mean at the end of the day, you seem to be advocating a system in which officeholders are less accountable to public sentiment or pressure. This seems to undercut the central premise and benefit of democracy.
They would not be able to exert as much pressure.
You know, public financing of elections is another expression of this dyanmic. You insulate politicians from accountability to the private interests who would otherwise exert undue influence on them. Part of that is not allowing private contributions - essentially blocking them from individual's ability to lobby them. The loss in accountability to those among the public who are interested enough to give money is balanced by the gain in independent judgement.
. . .
You realize I'm Shinto, right?
So you don't actually have any proof and are just going off of 'conventional wisdom' that things are worse today than back in ye olden days when men were men and legislators were looking out for the best interest of the public in their heart of hearts. Gotcha. Well I'll agree that all those hippies need to get off the nation's front lawn.
Also, public vetting of public apointments who hired people for public jobs &c. brought about an end to patronage.
Lobbiests are currently pressuring them without having to slip them the proverbial 20.
I think it is against the evidence to suppose that they are inherently all determinedly corrupt instead of simply responding to the system of incentives and disincentives that prevail in Washington.
But see, public financing implies that the central responsibility of a politician is to his or her constituency, not his or her financiers. In my view, the central problem with American Democracy is that we've somehow taken the ideal of "voting with your dollars" to be more important and fundamental than "voting with your votes"
Power corrupts. Fact.
Government members are humans too, and they are just as likely to make bad decisions. Fact.
Given these two facts, it is in the public's best interest to hold the government under severe scrutiny.
The system won't change with a lack of accountability, however.
If I'm pressured by lobby X to vote Y on bill Z, if cspan covers it or not, I'm going to be pressured by lobby X to vote Y on bill Z.
Effectively, you're stuck in a wierd spot:
How exactly is a rarely watched CSPAN making people more vulnerable to lobby efforts that a thin curtain would somehow prevent?
Your voting record will catch up to you, unless you remove names from that record entirely, which would completely remove accountability at all. And anything lacking accountability for it's actions has serious problems.
Come on now. What metric do you want. You've seen the way Congress behaved in dealing with Richard Nixon's wrong doing. Has it behaved the same with Bush or have the Republicans blindly circled the wagons? Look at how Reagan, Tip O'Neil and Bob Dole worked together to deal with Social Security. Do you see that anymore?
I'm sure you've read and heard the same politicians talking about the breakdown of collegiality and decorum in the Congress that I have.
I guess I'm of the view that a more open government might force the voting population to accept democracy more as it is - ugly difficult compromises and all - rather than the nearly fictionalized view of it that we currently have. Politicians should be forced to account for their compromise votes, and the public should get used to the fact that they're necessary.
But we don't expect it to be effective in altering the incentives of politicians because it sends a symbolic message.
We expect it to be effective because politicians have been insolated from interested parties who would otherwise exert disproportionate influence. You close off the avenue for individuals to pressure the congressmen, making them less accountable to whoever might want to donate money.
Exactly. It prioritizes votes and public accountability and deprioritizes private money and donor accountability.
I think what virtue their is in out government comes from taking people as they are known to exist as the starting point and working outward from there.
If we were going to mold government around the mood of the current public, we'd just craft an elaborate, dynamic and entertaining mock government concealing an autocracy. Yes, we want a government that reflects the public, but we also want to fundamentally maintain a democracy. Democratic representatives have to make difficult choices at times, and they should have to stand to account for them.
But the votes of committees and sub-committees are another arena, like money, in which we gain by frustrating the private interests.
I've never in my life cast a vote based on anything a politician has done in sub-committee and I very much doubt you have either. I have cast my vote based on how a senator voted in senate votes though. The same with Congressmen.
How much useful legislation never even made it to our attention though, because it was killed by the pressure of special interests in committee? In votes of the whole senate on a bill, our attention makes politicians take our wishes into account. But whose attention is on the sub-committees? Whose wishes to politicians deal with in that arena? Who applies the pressure there?
I have, but that doesn't make their statements truthful and is not solely based on the opening up of the process. I've heard a lot of those complaints based mostly on members of the House getting promoted to the Senate while still acting like the bastards who are able to get elected into the House somehow. I've also heard a lot of it based primarily on the fact that MC's only have so much time in the day and the public you don't know will always come after the public you do. (You might like Our Culture of Pandering by Sen. Paul Simon. A more collegial and respected senator rarely existed.) That isn't going to change by barring the doors to the smoke filled rooms.
For two; Reagan, Tip, and Bob Dole (plus Biden and some other guy) worked together with Social Security after all these dastardly sunshine laws you are opposed to were put into effect so I fail to see how that supports your point. I would say that the punditocracy is more to blame for shouting matches than public disclosures, and they wouldn't disappear from smoke filled rooms either. You'd need a reform of news agencies for that, which they obviously are aware of what with all their bitching about being 'forced' to cover Brittney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith.
For thee; Just how collegial is it considered to break a cane over Sen. Charles Sumner's head? If Sen. Chuck Shumer were to be caned today, would that be an improvement?
Nice try. I'm saying that decisions on these issues are those that most need justification and public scrutiny. Abortion is contentious and plenty of people would vote depending on a candidates stance on the issue.
Not trusting them is a reason to keep public scrutiny. You've yet to show that public scrutiny has put politicians at the power of special interests.
The point will come straight after the point where you prove you assertion that open government helps lobbyists and hurts the public.
Removing the one way that the public has to keep a check on their government just means that the only people pressuring politicians will be the special interest groups. You will increase the disparity in power, not reduce it.
If special interest groups are out of control, then restrict them, not the public.
And if only some members of the government, interested parties, hold politicians accountable in some areas of legislation like sub-committees?
Who has the power then and doesn't it corrupt them?
In a system of increased openness, the dealings of subcommittees would be writ large, and the politicians would be accountable to the public (as opposed to interested parties and donors) for the dealings in these.
It's funny, because we seem to be arguing exactly the same point, but somehow you're advocating the exact opposite thing that I am.
Well, my point was that it would disproportionately remove the accountability to the public, compared with that of lobbyists. I feel they should be accountable to the public.
Lobbyists would have the resources to find other ways of learning about votes. They have close contact with the politicians. They can look at things like who attends a vote. They would have to gather and sort through the intelligence that they can gather, rather than just looking directly at the vote results. It just makes things slightly more fuzzy for them, they only think they know who voted for what.
These resources would not be available to the public, so now the lobbyists hold an even greater amount of the accountability than the public. It would further unbalance things.
When less information is available, those who have access to that little bit and have the wherewithal to understand it have a significant advantage.
yes.
Let's hold them accountable for the prominent full senate votes, full house votes that we know the public watches then. Let's hold them accountable where the public actually holds them accountable.
Let's not open them to accountability where only the interest groups are watching though. Then we injure their ability to work in the national interest.
I don't that, ideally, we want politicians who exist in some wonkish version of Real World for their entire tenure. In addition to the problems I already outlined, it also facilitates politics of character, which is a fucking blight on our government. I don't much give a shit if Joe Senator said a naughty word during deliberation or was rude to the fucking checkout girl. I care that he pushes the right policies. You know what I need in order to determine if he's pushing the right policies? I need to know his voting record. Really, that's about it.
You're assuming that, behind closed doors, politicians will do the real work of advancing the public interest in spite of the many temptations of power and money and job security. I am unconvinced that this is the case, and I think that the last seven years have provided a pretty clear case of what happens to a government that isn't immediately accountable to critical public opinion.
Part of the reason that the American public is so very misinformed about politics, aside from simple disinclination, is the byzantine and obfuscatory subcommittee system and the intense logrolling and mechanations hidden behind appellations like "The Farming Bill" or "The Patriot Act".
I basically agree with you, but the voting record should be clear and obvious (which it rarely is due to the unnecessary complexity of most bills with their thousand riders etc), and influences and obligations to private parties should be explicitly and clearly defined.
Or all the stuff that never makes it out of committee, there would be no, instead of little, public record that a large number of issues are being spoken to at all.
I don't think they are dastardly and I don't think all of them are having a bad effect. I just think they should be evaluated in terms of what information actually gets to the public at large and how much independence that costs legislators.
At to the point about Reagan - the growth of lobbying and the effect it has on Washington is progressive. Google "number of lobbiests" and almost every article will include a mention of how a long term trend in greater lobbying efforts, the number of lobbiests and their pay began to increase in the 1970s. Not an accident.
Do you really think that the lead up to the civil war is a good sample to draw conclusions from?
Yeah, it's almost as if the only way to get legislation passed is to pile a bunch of stuff into a bill no one can vote against.
I'd say that itself is symptomatic of the increased partisan splintering promoted by heavy special economic and ideological interests that dominate the process of legislating. "I can't vote against agricultural subsidies unless I'd also be voting against funding children's medical care."
Some of this accountability medicine is just making the patient sicker. Maybe at some point if you get extreme enough in terms of accountability you come out the other side. You stop taking half measures like making people dislose who their political donors are and you just institute public financing. But unless the dynamic is recognised that politicians are people who operate with a certain set of incentives and that broad trends in their behavior don't stem from their personalities or alleged personal corruption there is no way to evaluate whether applying new accountability rules is going to make things better or worse.