How is it possible that foreign aid and a TikTok bill are in the same bill. That to me sounds like having to vote to accept one thing but also another thing that is completely unrelated.
In: Other
It’s one way to get a coalition of votes together for items that otherwise might not pass because of congressmen who don’t care strongly about an issue. Some state legislatures don’t allow bills on more than one subject, but it doesn’t result in very different outcomes. They still logroll (trading votes on one bill to get votes on another), it just isn’t refelcted in the bill that comes up for a vote.
I don’t live in the USA but obviously US politics has international interest at the moment. After watching some election news, I started watching some of the senate and congress. I have absolutely no idea how the US governs because, to me, it seems a confusing shambles. I actually have a similar question about the bills.
Laws are written with words.
I can write a sentence that talks about the weather today and a giant flying blue wale, even if those things are completely unrelated.
To prevent that you could try to make a heuristic that says “laws have to be about only one thing” — but then who gets to define what “one thing” is? If I call the law “The 2024 Protecting Sovereignty Act” — well, foreign aid is protecting sovereignty (not necessarily US sovereignty, but I didn’t call the Law US sovereignty), and arguably banning tiktok, a major spreader of disinformation, is ALSO about protecting sovereignty (in this case, US Sovereignty, and our ability to limit disinformation, in an upcoming election).
The above claims dont even have to be agreed by everyone, but as long as I can SAY it is about one topic, how would you stop that from being a legitimate “law”?
In some legislatures (and the US Congress is one of them), additional provisions can be attached to bills under consideration and these provisions need not be related to the bill at all. Generically, these are called “riders”. In other legislatures such “riders” not related to the main bill are disallowed.
This is how lots of stuff gets voted on nowadays. There used to be some rules limiting these kind of riders but these are self imposed (eg parliamentary rules). Sometimes, it is just a more efficient way of doing things. For example, lots of stuff are not very controversial and just has to be renewed every cycle. Rather than taking each one and voting on it separately, it can all be lumped together (so called omnibus bill) or they can be attached as riders. For example an appropriations bill (authorization to spend) may have dozens or hundreds of items (water sanitation, paying for AC, repairing roads, janitorial services etc) and it makes no sense to vote each line item separately even though each item is not really related.
Other times, it is a political compromise. One sides gets something they want in exchange for something another side wants.
It’s a feature of our two party system. In order for one side to get what they want, they hold the other sides wants hostage to get it.
If there was just a Tik tok ban vote, it would be struck down by not garnering enough votes against it… Because that’s the way our parties are set up. But if you tie it together with foreign aid bill… Me and my lackeys will vote for it…There’s probably like 30 other things snuck into the bill as well.
The historical significance is pretty easy: you don’t have time to vote on every single thing a government decides on separately. So it is quite sensible to bundle together:
1) things that are related in topic
2) things that are bound to pass anyways where everyone thinks the vote is just a formality
Over time this became a tool to find coalitions. Say you need another 80 votes for your bill and 80 representatives agree to vote for it if your people vote for their bill in turn. So to make sure noone goes ‚psych you voted for line but i won’t vote for yours‘ you bundle em together.
From there on this tool got used in more and more cynical/strategic/obscure ways landing where we are today.
Because there’s no law that prevents them from doing so.
If you’re wondering why they do it, it’s a means of compromise so that different members of congress can all get things they want.
It’s a tactic that is used both ways.
If I want something and you want my vote, you can put what I want in your bill. So I can vote for my thing and yours at the same time. It would force me to vote yes on something I might otherwise vote no on a piece of it.
If I *don’t* want something, you can put it in a bill with something else I want. It would force me to vote no on the package even though I would vote yes on a piece.
Where that line is depends on the person and the situation. Knowing where the line is with other people is the basis of politics.
It is possible because there is no rule to prevent it.
In some situations it is useful. To make an analogy, I need to buy some food for the week. I need a new pair of shoes. I need to get paper for my printer. I could go to the shops, buy food, come home, put it away, then go out to the shops buy a pair of shoes, come home and put them away, then go out and buy some paper, come home and put it away. Or I could go to the shops, buy some food, then buy a pair of shoes, then buy some paper, and then come home and put it all away. By combining these three unrelated things into one trip to the shops, I save time.
In some situations it is not useful. Suppose I need to buy a new pair of shoes, and a family member wants a new iPhone. I can afford the shoes, but I can’t afford the new iPhone. The family member says, “you can’t go to the shops unless you come back with the iPhone”. So unless disobey them, I’m not getting new shoes.
In this instance, they are not the same bill — they are four bills being voted on simultaneously.
But yes — Congress often does what is called an “omnibus” bill of stuff that is fairly routine and or not very controversial simply for the sake of logistics. It’s easier to just lump it all together if no one is particularly opposed to doing it that way for a particular set of items.
edit: the 2022-24 cycles are getting fuck-all done, but that’s an exception historically rather than a rule
Latest Answers