Today, the Wall Street Journal came out in favor of the REINS Act (introduced last year and sure to be introduced again) which would require all new major regulations – regardless of their benefit to the public – go before Congress before taking effect. The bill is an attempt by conservative lawmakers to further mess up the regulatory process and halt new public protections. (Congress can’t even pass a budget on time; does anyone think they have the capacity to debate and approve dozens of individual rules every year?)

The Journal says that new regulations would not be subject to filibuster in the Senate. But Wake Forest law professor and Center for Progressive Reform scholar Sid Shapiro argues that nefarious Senators could interpret the REINS Act in such a way that a filibuster could be in order. While the so-called resolutions of approval are subject to limited debate, the motion to proceed to the resolution may not be.

The other, and likely bigger, problem is the committee process. Approval resolutions, like bills, would first have to be cleared by (or discharged from) Senate committees. The vast majority of bills introduced in Congress die in committee, and we have no reason to believe that new regulations wouldn’t suffer the same fate.

So, despite the Wall Street Journal’s claims, the bill does not “guarantee an up-or-down vote” nor does it “require the active participation of Congress.”

The Journal also praises the REINS Act as a way to make the regulatory process more political. “Political give and take,” the paper suggests, would be a good thing.

It’s incredibly inappropriate to mix the scientific and technical judgments made by agencies with the political and electoral considerations always at the forefront of lawmakers’ minds. The current system, in which Congress delegates power to the Executive Branch to flesh out the details of federal law, attempts to erect a barrier between the political and the evidential. The system is by no means perfect, but on the whole, it works.

“The REINS Act would turn this system on its head, opening the door for pure politics to operate even in situations where science indicates that the public is endangered,” Shapiro says. “Corporate lobbyists could ensure that no regulation ever saw the light of day by funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to legislators who oppose regulations of interest to their clients.”

And that’s what the REINS Act comes down to. It would create another opportunity for special interests to undermine public protections.