Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) is currently occupying the whipping post of public opinion after it was revealed that he did not read the “Big Beautiful Bill” before voting for it. People, mostly on the left, are complaining about it, criticizing him for failing to read a piece of legislation that will impact millions of Americans.
Yet, for those of us who have followed politics for any length of time, this outrage is purely performative. Why? Because most lawmakers don’t read bills before passing them.
This current controversy erupted when Flood participated in a rather contentious town hall event on Tuesday. One of his constituents asked him about Section 70302 of the Big Beautiful Bill, which mandates:
No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.
In essence, the provision would allow government officials to ignore judicial orders without being held in contempt. This is relevant because of the Trump administration’s struggle against courts ruling against its executive orders — especially regarding immigration. “It legislates away the ability for Federal Courts to enforce their contempt charges, and this is in a budget bill and doesn’t belong there,” the constituent said.
“I’m not going to hide the truth,” Flood responded. “This provision was unknown to me when I voted for that bill.
Recommended
His answer sparked even more anger among the crowd. “You say, 'Oh, I care about the rule of law' but you voted for a bill that contains a provision that guts the checks the judicial branch has and you didn’t even read it? It’s ridiculous,” one constituent seethed.
Q: Why did you approve a budget bill that would allow Trump to ignore the courts?
— House Majority PAC (@HouseMajPAC) May 28, 2025
GOP Rep. Mike Flood: That provision was unknown to me when I voted for the bill pic.twitter.com/VWVfc8PTuh
Flood stated that he would work to have the provision removed from the bill. Still, people were angry.
WATCH: Rep. Mike Flood’s (R-Neb.) town hall turned raucous as he fielded questions from voters about Elon Musk, President Trump’s tariffs, the White House’s posture towards Ukraine and more, with attendees booing and yelling at the congressman throughout the event.… pic.twitter.com/5Ai21FQLG9
— The Hill (@thehill) March 19, 2025
This episode reminds me of when I was a younger man, discovering that our lawmakers don’t bother reading bills before passing them. It happened when I watched Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Don’t look at me like that. My politics were still evolving. Cut me some slack. Many of us went through a Michael Moore phase.
Anyway, there is a scene in the film where Moore discusses the Patriot Act with several lawmakers. When I first saw the outrage over this story, I heard Rep. John Conyers’ words: “Sit down, my son. We don’t read most of the bills. Do you really know what that would entail if we were to read every bill that we pass?”
Back in 2023, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) and several other lawmakers introduced a bill that would require lawmakers to have enough time to read bills before voting on them. They would have had to certify that they had read each measure on which they voted.
“One of the prime examples of Washington’s dysfunction is the blatant acceptance that members of Congress are handed a several-thousand-page bill that spends billions or trillions of taxpayer dollars that’s been negotiated in secret, then expected to vote on it hours later,” Scott said at the time. “This is exactly the kind of recklessness that led to Biden’s raging inflation, a sluggish economy, and a $31 trillion federal debt crisis. IN ANY OTHER JOB, if you asked someone to approve a document without reading it, you’d never hire them again, but in Washington? It’s the standard.”
Yet, that bill seems to have found its way into the legislative abyss, never to be seen again. But now might be a good time to revive the measure, would it not?
I don't think I could hold my breath that long, even with several scuba tanks.
Many Congress members rely on staff to read and summarize bills for them. Staffers provide memos outlining the key points and voting recommendations.
One of the problems is that most bills are far too large for lawmakers to read in one sitting. The Big Beautiful Bill, for example, is a whopping 1,116 pages long. It’s like reading Dostoevsky's “Crime and Punishment” twice.
This also allows lawmakers from both sides to rush bills to the floor. It limits scrutiny, meaning they can impose all kinds of ridiculous and horrible laws on the American people without our knowing about it. You might recall former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) telling us that Congress had to pass the Affordable Care Act before we could find out what’s in it, right?
Here’s the thing; singling Flood out is silly. It’s nothing more than a distraction. He is not the only one to vote for a key piece of legislation without reading it. He is one of the few who have been honest about it. If we want this to change, then the public needs to push their lawmakers to come up with solutions. Otherwise, this will just keep happening.
