WASHINGTON, D.C. — The long-standing legislative ideal that "each bill should stand alone"—meaning every policy should be debated and voted on based strictly on its own merits—has been largely abandoned in the modern Congress, replaced by a reliance on massive, complex measures that force lawmakers into impossible choices.
This practice, which critics call the "tyranny of the omnibus," is widely viewed as a fundamental driver of Washington's opacity and the perfect breeding ground for special interest provisions, or "corruption."
The principle that a bill should stand alone is rooted in the idea of accountability. When a bill addresses a single subject, constituents and lobbyists know exactly which representatives voted for or against that policy. In current practice, however, legislative measures frequently become "omnibus" or "Christmas tree" bills, combining dozens of unrelated policy items and funding priorities into a single, massive package.
The Death of Debate and the Rise of "Riders"
By bundling diverse measures, Congress effectively shields unpopular or controversial policies from genuine debate. This is achieved primarily through the use of three tactics:
- Omnibus Bills: A single bill is used to combine numerous diverse policy areas and appropriations measures. This forces votes, meaning lawmakers must vote "yes" on the entire package, even if they oppose large sections of the contents, if the bill contains must-pass items like government funding.
- Logrolling: This is the practice of vote-trading where a legislator agrees to vote for another's bill (even if they oppose it) in exchange for the other's vote on their own bill. Bundling diverse items makes logrolling easier, allowing unpopular measures to pass with minimal public support.
- Riders and Earmarks: These are unpopular, unrelated, or special-interest provisions (often hidden subsidies or legislative favors) that are attached to necessary spending bills. These provisions are "riding" into law on the back of essential legislation, shielding them from scrutiny and debate.
A Crisis of Accountability
Forcing an "all-or-nothing" vote fundamentally compromises a lawmaker's ability to represent their district. The recent Republican infighting over a government spending bill containing a last-minute ban on hemp-derived products illustrates this dilemma perfectly:
Lawmakers who needed to vote to fund the government to prevent a shutdown were simultaneously forced to vote for a provision they viewed as a corrupt and economically damaging favor to a competitor. The only alternative—voting against the entire bill to oppose the corrupt rider—risked being blamed for shutting down the government.
By combining critical funding with contentious, unrelated policy, the legislative process effectively shields special interests and powerful figures from genuine debate, allowing backroom deals to become law without ever "standing alone" on their own merits. As long as Congress relies on this tactic, critics warn that accountability will remain elusive.
HARP ON THE TRUTH