President Joe Biden caught flak a few weeks ago when he released his infrastructure plan and named it the American Jobs Plan.
Republicans said he was being misleading by stretching the definition of “infrastructure,” and they questioned his claims about the number of jobs the proposal would create. It’s neither an infrastructure nor a jobs plan, they groused.
Controversy over legislative bill names isn’t new. Politicians have long used bill titles as a marketing vehicle, concocting sometimes misleading and outlandish monikers to get media attention, drum up support and frame the conversation around the bill before their opponents do.
Sometimes the whole point of legislation is to get a conversation going and show the public that a lawmaker or a political party cares about an issue. These so-called “messaging bills” won’t pass, but they give lawmakers a chance to hold press conferences and hearings.
U.S. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., in 1997 introduced a bill called the “No Private Contracts to Be Negotiated When the Patient Is Buck Naked Act,” which became known as the Stark Naked Act. It was designed to highlight the problem of doctors asking patients to pay more money when they were “in an exposed condition.” It never got a vote.
President George W. Bush took things a step further, introducing proposals with names that were the opposite in substance to what their names indicated. Remember the Clear Skies Act (2002), which would have weakened the Clean Air Act.
Other times, lawmakers try to create a clever and memorable acronym, often stretching the limits of the English language. Take, for example, the Service Act for Care and Relief Initiatives for Forces Injured in Combat Engagements of 2004 – the SACRIFICE Act – which aimed to help military families and recognize the sacrifices of wounded Armed Forces members.
It’s not just a U.S. phenomenon; in Scotland, University of Stirling researcher Brian Christopher Jones determined in 2011 that bill naming in the U.K. is an important part of the legislative process and even could influence a bill’s passage.
It’s unclear whether a bill title can affect a congressional vote, but it can have serious implications if the law ends up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where the title can be used to infer legislative intent.
“The Defense of Marriage Act” was so influential a title that its meaning was debated by Supreme Court justices in United States v. Windsor, in which the court deemed the act was unconstitutional.
“Both the majority and minority opinions discussed the name and its implications at length, but came to differing conclusions on its importance,” wrote Jones, who was so vexed by that title’s influence on the highest court in the U.S. that he called for a neutral bill-naming office to be created.
In fact, lawmakers can name bills as they see fit. They are fortunate that the rules of advertising don’t apply; in 2013, Jones and attorney Randal Shaheen concluded that some bill titles would be deemed deceptive advertising if overseen by the Federal Trade Commission.
So, is Biden’s plan an infrastructure bill? Or a jobs bill?
The White House contends it is both. Building new roads and bridges, upgrading transit systems and replacing lead water pipes requires hiring lots of workers.
But trying to brand one proposal as two things violates the rules of branding, and coverage of Biden’s plan highlights the dangers of doing so. Some media referred to Biden’s proposal as an infrastructure measure, while other headlines blared about his jobs plan. Confusing? Yes. One could be excused for wondering whether Biden had released two plans instead of one.
Would lawmakers submit to an independent bill-naming review process, as Jones suggests?
Chances are they would dub it a “No Onerous Name Surveyor to Ask Regarding Titles Endlessly Released,” or NONSTARTER.
Angela Bradbery is the Frank Karel endowed chair in public interest communications at the University of Florida. Distributed by The Associated Press.
