VentureBeat made a valid point that an earlier version of the Senate's financial reform bill created a big problem for venture-funded startups, by requiring an SEC filing and associated 120 day waiting period for all companies seeking funding. http://venturebeat.com/2010/03/26/angel-investing-chris-dodd...
However, this language was removed during the floor amendment process, but Arrington doesn't mention that small example of the state acting sensibly (the Senate, no less--which is arguably the most dysfunctional institution in the whole apparatus.) http://www.techjournalsouth.com/2010/05/senate-approves-fina...
That's one sentence in a wide ranging essay on policy and he properly qualified it with "that could have".
It's hardly "acting sensibly" when something that would have devastated angel funding was even on the table, let alone that it took a major effort to mostly fix it with a comprise that will remove a bunch of angels from the game.
It well supports his thesis and especially his preceeding sentence: "Our government is just way too interested in mucking around in Silicon Valley by creating and enforcing rules based on little or no understanding of the consequences."
It's hardly "acting sensibly" when something that would have devastated angel funding was even on the table, let alone that it took a major effort to mostly fix it with a comprise that will remove a bunch of angels from the game.
It well supports his thesis and especially his preceeding sentence: "Our government is just way too interested in mucking around in Silicon Valley by creating and enforcing rules based on little or no understanding of the consequences."