International Regulation, Facts and Misinformation in Government

As political leadership increasingly intertwines with the upper income of a society experiencing increasing wealth gaps, factual information is ever important. 

When misinformation is nurtured for many years, its interpretation as non-threatening to global leaders speaks volumes. And, it speaks to a removed, inaccessible and entitled group.

Factual information cannot only be emphasized by regulating misinformation through technology regulation; factual information needs to be presented in lieu of false information, and in lieu of missing information. Otherwise, the gap that some misinformation creates will be filled with more misinformation. 

It should matter very much to our global society that many, many people easily consume elitist and financial conspiracies. And it should matter very much to our global society when some of those conspiracies are derived from original data that is true: who funds politicians, how contracts and business and governmental espionage access is allowed, who rubs shoulders with who, and whose shoulders are pretty damn shady. 

We can provide factual basics for government and politics across borders. We should start with effectiveness and operations in politics. This should not be analyzed, nor reported, with bias to government structure. This should not be a project with prospects of changing government or cultural structure; it is clear that any form of government (including forms of democracies) is accompanied by serious human behavior flaws.  Instead, factual information in political metrics could be presented like a bottle of water: always available in the snack basket as a healthy option, even if the candies are explored first. 

Excitingly, the United States Congress, influential around the world, is a perfect candidate to step up to the plate. 

Political metrics could be initiated with suggestions from both objective and internal views.

From an internal perspective, we could ask Congressional members what they would like to see reported when measuring performance: what members feel may be most impactful to report, what they feel may be most cost-effective and feasible to report. We could also ask Congressional members what data support should look like to ensure metrics are efficiently collected and holistic.  

From an objective, external perspective, we could:

*Assess the importance of factual information to politicians. Report on individual and collective work around misinformation, with ownership to political spin. 

*Assign components around factual political performance. Consideration of a few main components, such as the health, productivity, focus and effectiveness of Congress, may prove best. 

*Measure fresh and refresh with professionalism. What is being done to counter global conspiracy theorists by way of fresh faces in leadership? 

*Report on business and politics separation. Grade or tier business and government relationships. Grade or tier politician actions around business and government coziness. It is extremely unfortunate when needed business is labeled a component to conspiracy, simply because politicians do not comprehend or do not care about their personal relationships to the business.

*Structure frameworks around political performance. Current frameworks should be compared, contrasted and refined if combined. Some starting points may include: 

- Bipartisan Index (measures the frequency with which a Member co-sponsors a bill introduced by the opposite party, and the frequency with which a Member’s own bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party) [1]

- Legislative Effectiveness Project (focused on quantity and quality to bills and legislation) [1] [2] and specific effective points at the time of bill introduction: bills that receive action in committee, bills that receive action beyond committee, bills that pass the House, bills that become laws, substantial significance of the bills  [3]

- Healthy Congress Index (the number of working days, the use of the filibuster, cloture filings, and Senate amendments considered) [1]

- Legislative Gridlock (number of bills passed that address the most salient issues facing the country, with salience determined by things like the frequency of an issue’s appearance in the New York Times’ editorial section.)  [1]

*Assess political effectiveness frameworks in reports. How are current frameworks applied [2]? Who provides funding to the nonpartisan groups? How have recommendations in the reports been followed? Where is misinformation and factual information prioritization to these groups? 

*Detail influence in reports. How is external influence assessed and how is it categorized by variable (campaign time, funding, assets already in the bank)? Measure and rate external influence in a consistent manner, including financial benefit, time as a resource, nepotism, and other influence. 

*Assess recommendations that politicians may follow. Are these recommendations relevant to today’s public? Do these recommendations support or confront misinformation? Recommendations for effective legislation, such as  structuring legislative portfolio to be reflective of personal experience, structuring the portfolio to issues of constituency, being entrepreneurial with institutional positions – particularly committee and subcommittee assignments, valuing benefits of compromise and getting along with people and cultivating allies outside the chamber [3] may be helpful, yet how are could structure recommendations be assessed for quality, merit and predictability of legislator performance (evidence based)? And, how do political strategists incorporate misinformation or fact-telling in strategy? 

*Observe non-profit partners. A basic report should include any relevant non-profit framework of political process improvement efforts. How does nonprofit analyses stack up [4] with misinformation and fact-telling work?

*Assess public trust in the political sphere, with metrics and qualitative recommendations. 

*Report on work to combat misinformation, including work on consequences.

*Determine work across governments that addresses misinformation, and compare work to their individual political actions.

We can start with a  few basics, start with the United States Congress, and commit to a little more trust and honesty with our fellow man. Caring about misinformation and global conspiracy is the first step.

1. https://hewlett.org/how-do-we-know-how-congress-is-doing/

2. https://thelawmakers.org/methodology

3. https://news.virginia.edu/content/how-effective-your-member-congress-scholars-create-effectiveness-score

4. https://www.govtrack.us/about/analysis