Legislative Transparency and Efficiency Act

Purpose:
To establish clear guidelines and limitations on legislative processes to improve transparency, prevent unrelated provisions in bills, and ensure lawmakers have adequate time for review and debate.


Outline

1. Title and Purpose of Legislation

  • Clearly state the primary purpose of the bill and provide a title that reflects its content.
  • Any provision within the bill must directly relate to this stated purpose.

2. Scope and Limitations of Bills

  • Single-Issue Requirement: Legislation should address a single, clearly defined topic.
  • Prohibition of Unrelated Provisions: Additional sections, clauses, or amendments must be relevant to the primary subject matter of the bill.
  • Scope of Amendments: Amendments should be limited to those that refine, clarify, or directly improve upon the bill’s original purpose without introducing unrelated content.

3. Length and Format Requirements

  • Page Limitations: Encourage concise, specific language. A reasonable maximum page limit (e.g., 500 pages) may be set for standard bills, with exceptions for omnibus or budget bills requiring extended provisions.
  • Plain Language Requirement: Bills should be written in accessible language to ensure comprehension by all lawmakers and the public.
  • Summary Requirement: Every bill must include a concise summary at the beginning, outlining key objectives, provisions, and anticipated impacts.

4. Mandatory Review Periods

  • Initial Review Period: A minimum of 14 days for review before the bill reaches the committee stage.
  • Committee Review Time: Committees must have at least 7 days for debate and analysis.
  • Public Disclosure: Full text of bills must be publicly accessible online at least 7 days before any final vote.
  • Extended Review for Large Bills: Bills exceeding a specified length (e.g., 500 pages) should have an extended review period, potentially up to 30 days.

5. Committee Oversight and Transparency

  • Open Committee Meetings: All committee meetings related to proposed legislation must be open to the public, with meeting minutes made available online.
  • Public Commentary Period: Allow a public comment period for input from constituents, organizations, and experts on proposed legislation.
  • Amendment Transparency: Any amendments proposed must be made publicly available in written form, with an explanation of their relevance and intent, at least 48 hours prior to any committee vote.

6. Accountability for Closed-Door Negotiations

  • Disclosure Requirement: Legislators involved in closed-door negotiations related to legislation must disclose the purpose, participants, and outcomes of those meetings within 24 hours, ensuring accountability and transparency.
  • Limitations on Private Deals: Restrict the inclusion of provisions that result from undisclosed or privately negotiated agreements, enforcing transparency of all legislative decision-making.

7. Enforcement Mechanisms

  • Legislative Review Committee: Establish a nonpartisan Legislative Review Committee tasked with auditing bills for compliance with these transparency and single-issue standards.
  • Penalties for Non-Compliance: Bills that violate these guidelines may be sent back for revision, and individual legislators who repeatedly attempt to introduce unrelated provisions may be subject to review or disciplinary actions by the committee.

8. Implementation Timeline

  • Phased Implementation: This proposal would be gradually introduced over two legislative sessions, providing lawmakers and committees with time to adjust.
  • Annual Review and Reporting: The Legislative Review Committee must report on the effectiveness of these reforms annually, providing feedback and recommending adjustments as necessary.

Conclusion:
The Legislative Transparency and Efficiency Act would ensure that each bill remains focused on a single issue, allowing lawmakers sufficient time for review, preventing unrelated provisions from being added, and increasing transparency and accountability in legislative processes.

2 Likes

Excellent proposal. My only disagreement would be that in rare cases, multiple bills may need to be combined. An example might be bill A is going to spend $20B and it will be paid for by bill B which requires a tax on X to raise the $20B. This is a crude example but you get the idea. We also are seeing an example right now with the Johnson bill. I definitely think the vast majority of bills should be single purpose, stopping the saving up of bills leading to an omnibus bill which includes lots of pork.

1 Like

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback! I completely see where you’re coming from—there are certainly cases where multiple bills are inherently linked, especially when funding mechanisms are tied directly to policy initiatives. A strict single-issue rule could create unintended roadblocks in situations like the one you mentioned, where a spending bill and its corresponding revenue source need to move in tandem.

One possible solution could be allowing for “Linked Legislation” clauses—where bills that are functionally dependent on each other (e.g., a spending bill and its designated funding source) can be considered together but must be clearly identified as such. This would ensure transparency while still preventing the kind of legislative bloat we see in omnibus bills stuffed with unrelated provisions. These linked bills could still be required to meet review and transparency standards separately, rather than being buried within massive legislative packages.

The goal is to strike a balance: keeping legislation focused and manageable while allowing necessary connections where they genuinely serve the public interest. I’d love to hear your thoughts—do you think a linked-bill approach would be a fair middle ground?

Very good solution. I admit I don’t understand the reconciliation process of passing a bunch of things apparently having to do with making sure the government stays in business. That may be another that needs multiples (or not!)