In the founding vision of the United States, as articulated in the Federalist Papers, legislation was meant to be the product of deliberate debate, public scrutiny, and clear constitutional boundaries. Yet in modern congressional practice, this vision has been repeatedly undermined by the use of omnibus bills—massive, multi-subject legislative packages that bundle together unrelated laws and spending measures into a single vote. While our Founding Fathers did not foresee the exact form of omnibus legislation, their writings show a deep concern about legislative overreach, lack of transparency, and the erosion of republican accountability—concerns that directly apply to this modern practice.
Omnibus bills are often introduced as a way to quickly pass large volumes of legislation, particularly under pressure to fund the government or avoid shutdowns. For example, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, totaling over 4,000 pages and $1.7 trillion in spending, was passed just days after it was introduced—with little time for lawmakers to read or debate it. Buried within such bills are often controversial or unrelated provisions that would not pass on their own merits. This legislative shortcut circumvents the checks and balances essential to a healthy constitutional republic.
In Federalist No. 62, James Madison warned of the dangers of a complex and unreadable legislation, stating: “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
This statement speaks directly to the dysfunction of omnibus bills. When laws are too long and convoluted, not only do they evade public comprehension, but they also escape proper legislative scrutiny. The Founders understood that clarity and simplicity in law were essential to liberty and accountability.
Additionally, in Federalist No. 48, Madison further cautioned that the legislative branch tends to encroach upon the powers of the other branches, becoming dominant if left unchecked: “The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” Omnibus legislation embodies this risk, as it gives immense power to a few legislative leaders and committee chairs to shape vast areas of policy behind closed doors, often without meaningful input from rank-and-file representatives or the public.
Historically, omnibus bills have enabled backdoor policy-making on issues ranging from immigration to healthcare to surveillance. For instance, the USA PATRIOT Act was passed quickly in the wake of 9/11 and bundled numerous provisions into one package—many of which expanded federal surveillance power with minimal debate. More recently, routine budget bills have included last-minute tax changes, regulatory rollbacks, or foreign aid decisions—all far removed from budgetary concerns. These measures frequently avoid robust public debate, making it nearly impossible for voters to hold their elected officials accountable for each component.
In conclusion, omnibus bills represent a troubling and dangerous divergence from the legislative ideals of our Founders. While they may offer a shortcut for passing complex or politically sensitive legislation, they do so at the expense of transparency, accountability, and the careful deliberation necessary for a functioning republic. As
James Madison warned in Federalist No. 62: “If they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow…”
This quote was not merely poetic—it was a warning. It reflects the very instability and opacity that characterizes the modern use of omnibus legislation. When thousands of pages of law are rushed through Congress with little debate or understanding, the rule of law erodes, and citizens are left in confusion and mistrust. Our Founding Fathers did not envision a government run by unreadable, ever-changing legal monoliths. They envisioned a republic—governed by laws that were known, debated, and understood.
By Cameron LeCompte
Writer and Editor, The Federalist View
August 27, 2025