A Citizen’s Guide To Politics In America – How the System
Works & How to Work the System, by Barry R. Rubin (M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New
York/London; 1997-2000)
p.57: “Beyond
Legislation: Implementing the Law”
“For every page of federal laws
there are dozens of pages of regulations and administrative interpretations of
the law. For every legislator (every member of Congress or state legislature)
there are thousands of bureaucrats busily writing regulations and implementing
the laws those legislators pass. These bureaucrats toil in the executive or
administrative branch of government and are in many ways the source of the
greatest power in any government. It is no surprise, therefore, that issue
advocates devote considerable attention to influencing and persuading them. But
what do bureaucrats do? They, and the agencies and departments and offices for
which they work, interpret, enforce, and administer the law.”
“The
thousand daily decisions bureaucrats make administering laws can cause issue
advocates more consternation – and require more time and attention – than the
legislative process. Hard-fought legislative success can turn to pyrrhic
victories in the hands of an unfriendly or unresponsive bureaucracy. Indeed,
issue advocates who win legislative battles barely have time to pop the
champagne corks before they must turn their attention to how the law, for which
they fought so hard, will be implemented. Or those who thought they had tamed
the legislative process may learn that the executive branch has implemented
policy changes that accomplish the goals they sought to avoid. As one
commentator observed: ‘Nothing in law ever seems finally settled because there
is always one more step in the process where both winners and losers may try to
negotiate different terms.’”
p. 60: “Administrative discretion may be broad, but it is
far from absolute. First, administrative action is limited to the authority
afforded the agency by the legislative branch. By contrast, Congress is limited
in its lawmaking activities only by the Constitution.”
“Second,
agencies afford the public opportunities to make their views known to, and
considered by, the agency. Congressional committees may choose to hold public
hearings on legislation, but they need not do so, and they are free to ignore
all the witnesses and all the evidence presented to them.”
“Third,
agency action, as we saw in the last section, can be reviewed by the courts to
ensure the actions comply with all applicable laws and procedures. When
Congress passes a law, it can be challenged in court only on the grounds that
it violates the Constitution.”
“The main
vehicle to control agency discretion at the federal level is the Administrative
Procedures Act. The law requires agencies to make most decisions in the open and
to afford the public meaningful opportunities to comment on proposed agency
actions. It also allows those who disagree with the agency decisions to ask
courts to invalidate them if they are not in accordance with applicable law and
procedure or if they are not solidly grounded on the facts and the law.”
“These
limitations on administrative discretion reflect the fact that agencies can
exercise their discretionary powers by issuing rules or regulations. These
‘minilaws’ codify administrative interpretations and establish clear guidelines
for bureaucrats and the public.”
“….The
broad policy discretion afforded bureaucrats provides issue advocates good
reasons to attempt to influence how laws are enforced and administered. And the
processes of administrative decision making – the requirement that, for the
most part, it be open to the public and subject to judicial review – provide
advocates important tools to accomplish that goal….”
“…The
courts are most often the last resort of those who seek to influence public
policy. Litigation is costly and time-consuming, appeals can drag on for years,
and tangible results are often hard to achieve. Yet, the federal and state
courts provide critical outlets – safety valves – for issue advocates who are
unable to get a full and fair hearing before the administrative or legislative
branch of government.”
“The doors
of the courthouse are open to all. Legislatures are accountable only to the
electorate and only at the ballot box. Bureaucracies can be slow and unresponsive.
But advocates who seek redress in the courts are guaranteed a hearing by an
impartial arbiter who will decide a case on its merits.”
p. 76: “…Would public support for sending American troops
pass what Senator John Glenn termed the ‘Dover test’? Dover Air Force Base in
Delaware would be the point of return for the bodies of American troops who
died on foreign soil. Would American’s, who initially supported sending troops,
maintain their support after American soldiers died? How reliable were polls that
showed people supporting these actions? No American politician wanted to rely
on poorly formed public opinion that did not recognize and accept that
Americans might die in Somalia or Haiti. The quality and reliability of the
public’s opinion mattered.”
p. 126: “Finding
Words that Work.”
“Words and symbols can shape public
attitudes about issues. The right ones can position an issue so that it
favorably resonates with prevailing public concerns and attracts a broad and
deep base of diverse supporters.”
p. 132: “A coalition
is an alliance, usually limited in time and purpose, between organizations with
different agendas, working together for a common policy advocacy goal. The term
coalition encompasses a great diversity of alliances formed to advance a shared
public policy goal. Coalitions can be formal or informal, permanent or
temporary.”
“Coalitions can unite diverse civil
rights or environmental groups as they formulate and advance complex, long-term
agendas. Or they can provide a mechanism to coordinate short-term activities,
such as opposing a Supreme Court nomination…or supporting the balanced budge
amendments to the Constitution…”
“Networks often precede coalitions,
just as individuals or organizations sharing information and common concerns
may gradually coalesce into an association or organization – an interest group
– designed to influence policy.”
“A coalition is an alliance between
organizations, each of which brings its own agenda and decision-making
processes to the coalition table. Since coalition members are organizations,
not individuals, they do not have the same freedom of movement that individuals
have. Interest groups that join coalitions must be sure that the coalition
shares the fundamental goals of the organization and its members.”
“…Coalitions are at the mercy of their members and can
achieve only what the members permit them to achieve. Their only
resources-people and money – are those that members provide.”
“Large, permanent coalitions, such
as trade associations, have permanent staff, office space, and resources, all
dedicated to achieving the coalition’s goals. Member organizations pay
substantial dues to support the coalition and its infrastructure.”
“But most coalitions are ad hoc,
voluntary assemblages of organizations, with little power to compel the member
organizations to commit time and resources to the coalition or to fulfill their
coalition commitments. They are usually staffed by ‘volunteers’ from the member
organizations, some of whom may even be detailed to work exclusively on
coalition projects.”
“The all coalitions are composed of
different organizations with different agendas working together, there are
numerous ways to organize and manage coalitions. The best coalitions are
flexible enough to adapt to their members’ needs and the common goal that has
brought them together…”
p.140: “Coalitions
begin with organizations whose issue agendas largely overlap. The initial
recruitment process locates those whose agendas, while different, still show
substantial areas of agreement. Finally, coalitions attempt to recruit
organizations whose agendas rarely overlap with those of core coalition
members. In some cases, core coalition members may even try to persuade other
organizations to stretch their issue agendas to include the coalition’s issue.”
“Why would coalitions recruit so
widely for allies, even going so far as to include organizations with whom they
have never worked on any issue? Just imagine the reaction of a legislator who
opens his office door only to find lobbyists on both sides of the abortion
issue working together on another issue. ‘Unlikely alliances’ make decision
makers and the public sit up and take notice: If people who disagree on so many
things agree on this issue, then maybe there’s some merit in their position.”
No comments:
Post a Comment