[nilptr]

Incredibly vague, but what it means is that state AG's in incredibly conservative states will not be as easily able to target LGBTQ+ resources.

The federal bureaucracy is often marginally more sane than the state ones because the politics are less localized.

[spondylosaurus]

That's roughly what I assumed about the state/federal split, although hedging our bets on federal bureaucracy's long-term sanity certainly seems... risky, lol. Especially now.

[jjjjj55555]

I read it as the LGBTQ+ group got whatever concession or pay off they were demanding and now they're giving their blessing to an otherwise awful bill.

[wolverine876]

Do you have evidence of that? I mean, the article says they got a concession, if you mean it this way: the bill was changed to meet their needs. That's how democracy is supposed to work.

[jjjjj55555]

Bills are supposed to be modified to meet the demands of interest groups?

If we didn't have interest groups we couldn't have a democracy (actually a republic)?

Why does this particular interest group get to decide the fate of a bill and not, for instance some group that you and I create?

[wolverine876]

> Bills are supposed to be modified to meet the demands of interest groups?

Yes! Who else's interests should they serve? I know interest groups are demonized - by powerful people who want to grab power unimpeded, but those powerful people are really tiny (but wealthy!) interests groups themselves.

Basically, interest groups represent the interests of a group of citizens. The senators can't know nearly everything themselves; they must ask people on the ground or even with the best intentions they will clumsily hurt lots of people. Who else in the population should representatives listen to? They should listen to individuals but that only represents one person.

Think of veterans groups. How does the senator understand how a bill would affect veterans? Asking one veteran helps, but not a lot. Asking someone whose career involves speaking to veterans and veterans groups nationwide for years, knows tens of thousands of them, knows their concerns inside and out, and whom they pay to represent their interests in Washington - that seems like a good step. It's not everything, but it seems really valuable.

With any interest group, there is a legitimacy question. I could start the Atlantic Deep-Sea Fishing group and claim to represent such people, but I don't know a thing about them. The legitimacy question is solved by seeing who has influence - whose voice do LGBTQ or veterans or deep-sea Atlantic fisherpeople listen to? Who do they show up for? That's the person they respect and the person with influence.

> Why does this particular interest group get to decide the fate of a bill and not, for instance some group that you and I create?

On a bill with a close support margin, lots of groups have influence and lots had influence here. Our group could too, if we represented enough people. That's a good thing. Our government should carefull craft bills to meet everyone's interests - that's by design.

[jjjjj55555]

> With any interest group, there is a legitimacy question. I could start the Atlantic Deep-Sea Fishing group and claim to represent such people, but I don't know a thing about them. The legitimacy question is solved by seeing who has influence - whose voice do LGBTQ or veterans or deep-sea Atlantic fisherpeople listen to? Who do they show up for? That's the person they respect and the person with influence.

Interest groups should pick people that the people show up for? That's what elections are for!

You've basically recreated the legislature, except you've removed the voting and the supposed accountability and transparency. You've added a layer of shadowy groups in between the people and their representatives.

[wolverine876]

What is the alternative? How do the senators learn about the legitimate needs of their constituents and of various groups?

The senator can't talk to millions of people individually.

> You've basically recreated the legislature

The legislature is not the be-all and end-all of democracy. It's part of the daily mechanism; so are citizens.

[tzs]

> Why does this particular interest group get to decide the fate of a bill and not, for instance some group that you and I create?

Because your group didn't provide any feedback on the draft bills?

[jjjjj55555]

My group is the congresspeople who I'm able to elect and who are supposed to be held accountable.

I don't see any reason to add an extra layer that's even less transparent and less accountable.

[leotravis10]

I guarantee that they got paid off, there's no other way to describe it.

[jrflowers]

Exactly. The LGBTQ Group LLC has once again accepted a pile of cash at their headquarters (the UN building)

[jjjjj55555]

They're probably not an LLC but some other kind of entity. Their HQ is probably in DC. The payoff probably comes in some form other than a bag full of cash.

Other than that it's as absurd as you make it sound. Why does a group no one knows about have any say in what happens in the senate?

[jrflowers]

> Why does a group no one knows about have any say in what happens in the senate?

This is a great question. All we know about them is that the LGBTQ Group may or may not be an LLC, they have a physical headquarters in DC, and accept money (maybe cash or crypto?) in exchange for either making or not making laws. This is not a fabrication because on Facebook my uncl

[wolverine876]

> The federal bureaucracy is often marginally more sane than the state ones because the politics are less localized.

The feds are much more sane on LGBTQ issues, where some states are now maximize oppression. If Trump wins, however, he has a detailed plan to replace functionaries with political activists loyal to him. In that case, at least some states could be safe using the original idea.