As for the electorate holding politicians accountable for not reading the bills they pass, there are a whole host of reasons (owing in part to election laws, and explained in part by public choice theory and game theory) why the electoral remedy has been rendered null and void for all practical purposes. Real change at the ballot box is simply no longer possible. This is why we are pursuing a strategy of applying relentless, inescapable, mind-numbing pressure on Congress to change its behavior.

Perry Willis
Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

So what? The best part of the RTBA is it’s potential to slow Congress down… even if just for long enough to read an entire bill, collect all the affidavits, and move to a vote.

And even if this only marginally slows Congress, it also adds incentive to write shorter, less cryptic bills.

Lastly, let an irresponsible member of Congress lie on an affidavit. It just makes for that much more evidence for a challenger to take advantage of.

We enforce it the same way teachers enforce the reading they assign their students. Students assume they will be held responsible for not knowing it.

Sure, we can’t formally test politicians like students. However, politicians would know that if they were ever asked about why they supported a particular provision in a bill, they wouldn’t be able to claim they were unaware of it.

One would hope that the electorate would already hold politicians accountable who don’t read the bills without a law. How would this unenforceable law make that different?

We enforce it the same way teachers enforce the reading they assign their students. Students assume they will be held responsible for not knowing it.

Sure, we can’t formally test politicians like students. However, politicians would know that if they were ever asked about why they supported a particular provision in a bill, they wouldn’t be able to claim they were unaware of it.

(Non-techies can search on the acronym RTFM).