I understand that legislators are voted in as a popularity contest, and that new legislators especially may not be good at the craft of writing laws. However, I feel like if we can't even trust these elected officials to be able to recruit and manage capable individuals who can write good laws, how can we expect our elected officials to recruit and manage capable individuals who can critically evaluate proposed model legislation?
If we can, I don't see how the skill set of the legislator is substantially different in these two cases. If we can't, then we are essentially admitting that interest groups should be able to convince legislators to pass laws on merits other than the bill's quality. In that case, I don't know what role the legislators are even performing in this system.
In my view, the point of democracy and its ideals of equality (e.g. one person, one vote) are to protect less powerful classes from more powerful ones. If our solution to the problem of model legislation is to throw our own money in the other direction, we will just end up with rich groups fighting battles with each other with little oversight from the rest of the population.
I have no problem with interested organizations writing draft bills and publicizing those. What I do have a problem with is politicians taking those whole-cloth and implementing them in law without consulting other stakeholders, especially when money or influence changes hands.
I lack the resources to compete with large corporations.
Are you arguing that we must all join large well funded organizations in order to have a voice in our laws?
Sure, oftentimes special interest groups will understand an issue in much more detail than a legislator (who almost by definition must be a jack-of-all-trades). But, it should also be clear that lobbying groups will very often use this knowledge for their personal gain, at the expense of other stakeholders. In my opinion, a good legislator would critically evaluate legislation, make changes, consult with other stakeholders, etc. Changes to the legislation imply an interest in the effects of the legislation (good or bad). But to instead allow legislation to be signed with your name with no, or few, changes to the text, shows that the legislator is willing to give the lobbyist everything they want, with no deliberation or push back.
That feels particularly suspect to me.
If Chevron + Exxon + BP pool their resources to write model legislation, they can very likely create 'bulletproof' protections for themselves that can be pushed to all 50 states simultaneously (or as many as have receptive legislatures). If they're on a state-by-state negotiation, it adds friction that I personally feel is very healthy.
This is a similar argument about Citizen's United -- everyone has a right to speak but Goldman Sachs can afford much more speech than the average person...
ALEC is evil, like the Koch brother's legislative activities, evil in that they only serve the interests of wealthy monied groups, perpetuating their power.
Politicians are good at getting elected, and OK at being, at least for some limited tenure, broadly receptive to some set of identifiable principles or goals that people vote for. But that doesn't mean they're good at drafting the actual laws, or, for that matter, recruiting and managing the people who are.
And as regards the malign influence of corrupt special interests --- at least model legislation is potentially traceable. How is it better for a chemical company and a legislative staff to strike a deal in a smoke-filled back room and then have the staff write a bill de novo?