There really should be a big investment in an anti-regulatory capture organization the way there are anti-trust lawyers and privacy czars.

Which would have the dual purpose of employing researchers and public outreach and have powers to stop hires, limit grants/subsidies, and collaborates with with anti-trust.

But who are we kidding, politicians never bite the hands that feed them.

I'm interested in any and all ideas to mitigate regulatory capture, no matter how crazy.

My only notions so far:

- Add explicit carve outs for customers (of the regulated entity). Where the representatives are chosen by jury duty or sortition or other suitably random method, so they too are resistant to capture.

- The customer's have veto power. Maybe thru an ombudsman structure. Maybe thru majority of the regulatory body.

- Like citizen's assemblies, customers have investigatory powers. They can ask questions, they cannot be denied. They benefit from expert testimony.

- No artificial deadlines for deliberations. Some decisions just take longer.

- All decisions (laws, rules, procedures) have built-in expiration (TTL), and must therefore be regularly reauthorized.

- All artifacts and hearings made public by default.

- Pay board members and their staff. So that normal people can afford to serve.

> a big investment in an anti-regulatory capture organization

I think you're on to something.

I keep thinking of the law practice that makes terrific money suing pharmacy benefit managers (or maybe just the pharmas themselves) for violating pricing rules. Sorry, no cite.