The Issue
Following the passage of a well-supported bill that contained half a dozen riders, corruption watchdog groups are lobbying the government to take action against the use of these unrelated addenda in lawmaking.
The Debate
- "This is unacceptable," says legislative clerk Alexei al-Zahawi, peeking out from behind a wall of 3-ring binders. "It paves the way for corporate corruption, eats up all our time and money, and, quite frankly, is exhausting! We must require each bill to have one - clearly defined - purpose and be able to state that purpose in a concise title. That way we won't have any more defense spending bills with addenda about cheese processing regulations. The industry will hate it, but if I have to read through one more schizophrenic morass, I'll quit!"
- "Yes, these riders can be a threat to the democratic process," begins Party Majority Leader Lara de Groot, "But to ban them outright is simply foolish. We need the ability to amend bills, and sometimes those attachments aren't always clearly connected. Therefore, I propose we grant the legislature the ability to veto any rider by a simple majority vote. That way, necessary riders can still be attached and this other tom-foolery can be nipped in the bud."
- "Look, this is how things have always worked," says Harry Mistletoe, the CEO of Cheesemongers Unlimited, Ltd. "Representatives' time is both finite and valuable. Do you have any idea how many bills there'd be if each one could only have one aim? Legislation would come to a stand-still! Yes, it can be prone to corruption, but find me a government that's corruption free and I'll eat my shoe!"
- "Can't trust the government to do anything right," scolds economic analyst Thomas Bush, glancing up from a worn copy of The Fountainhead. "We've given it a fair chance, it's failed, and now the private sector will have to swoop in to fix it. If you privatize the legislature, I can assure you it'll be humming efficiently and in the black by this time next year!"
