End the practice of omnibus bills: any bill must pertain to one subject only, and that subject should be in the title. The proliferation of omnibus bills, encompassing multiple disparate provisions within a single legislative package, undermines the fundamental principles of transparency and accountability in the legislative process. This practice often leads to opaque decision-making, as lawmaker

The Argument

End the practice of omnibus bills: any bill must pertain to one subject only, and that subject should be in the title. The proliferation of omnibus bills, encompassing multiple disparate provisions within a single legislative package, undermines the fundamental principles of transparency and accountability in the legislative process. This practice often leads to opaque decision-making, as lawmakers may be compelled to support or oppose entire bills based on individual provisions unrelated to the bill’s primary purpose. To illustrate the significance of this issue, one can look back to the founding principles of legislative governance. The framers of the Constitution envisioned a deliberative process where each piece of legislation was scrutinized on its own merits, ensuring that lawmakers and the public could fully understand and assess the implications of proposed laws. However, the advent of omnibus bills has deviated from this intent, allowing for the inclusion of unrelated provisions that may bypass thorough scrutiny and debate. Furthermore, the use of omnibus bills has historically been associated with instances of legislative overreach and political maneuvering. By bundling unrelated measures into a single bill, lawmakers may seek to obscure controversial provisions or circumvent opposition, thus undermining the democratic process and eroding public trust in government institutions. The first major omnibus bill enacted in the United States was the Compromise of 1850, which had five disparate provisions designed by Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky. His purpose was to pacify sectional differences that threatened to provoke the secession of the slave states. The Fugitive Slave Act was the most infamous of the five compromise components, and was almost universally excoriated by abolitionists, the chief exception being Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, who prioritized preservation of the Union. Senator Thomas 37 HOW DO WE REPAIR THE DAMAGE DONE BY MODERN PARTISANSHIP? Hart Benton, a Missouri slaveholder, opposed the omnibus compromise as an “unmanageable mass of incongruous bills, each an impediment to the other.” While this bill did not pass as the official Compromise of 1850, it got the ball rolling. To satisfy members of Congress, Stephen A. Douglas separated the Compromise back into five separate bills and got it passed. Ultimately, disunion and civil war were delayed for a decade. Interestingly, it was the 1861 Constitution of the Confederate States that first attempted to ban omnibus legislation, requiring that every bill “shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.” Since the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, omnibus budget bills have become the norm, streamlining multiple appropriations into one package. However, this approach poses risks to legislative clarity and financial prudence. Congress has only managed to pass its appropriations on schedule four times since then, often delaying even the preliminary budget blueprint. The comprehensive size of omnibus bills leaves little time for detailed examination, allowing for the inclusion of unrelated or contentious policy riders. The necessity to approve the bill in its entirety also forces legislators to endorse items they may not support, to avoid being blamed for potential government shutdowns. Such practices compromise the democratic process, restricting debate and the chance for amendments, and facilitate fiscal recklessness by concealing spending increases and pet projects, diminishing public oversight and accountability. This corrupted process makes it almost impossible to reign in the budget deficit as legislatures are incentivized to include funding for their personal pet projects. REVIVING OUR REPUBLIC 38