Text: Among conservatives, one of the most fiercely criticized aspects of the legislative process is the "omnibus bill." With omnibus bills starting to hit the floor of the House and Senate, it's time to revisit that complaint.There is a clear requirement in the Minnesota Constitution that every bill passed by the Legislature be written in such a way that citizens can hold legislators accountable for their votes. Article IV, Section 17 says that "No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title."But even in the face of lawsuits that can overturn legislation - and a more constitutionalist trend to our politics - the omnibus has persisted. Why?Because it serves as a convenient structure in which to work out differences, problems and arguments while making the law. Omnibus bills are used most often in the crafting of budgets. Each budget year (and occasionally in the second year, when there is a continuing fiscal crisis) a finance committee receives targets and must review its entire budget to decide what should be cut and what should be increased, and by how much.Allocating money is never a simple business. Spending more dollars is a policy decision, as is cutting. The omnibus bills carry within them the priorities of the leadership that crafts them. In an era of austerity, there is intense pressure to solve problems and reform the institutions and practices of government, not just cut them. This is a projection of hope into even in the most dire fiscal circumstances. And the hope expressed is that we can make government better, cheaper and more efficient, to serve the people without creating an undue burden on them and the economy. And often we can, even in the face of bureaucratic intransigence.To be sure, cutting by itself can induce reform, as managers must find new ways to provide the service and do their jobs with fewer resources, but legislators need to give them the tools and remove the barriers that prevent them from doing this. And that takes policy, not a simple line item dollar figure.Nevertheless, a complicated, multipart bill creates less transparency in the process. It is harder for laypeople to understand. Omnibus bills are famous for putting legislators in a bind (or letting them off the hook) by putting popular and unpopular provisions into a single bill.For example, Gov. Tim Pawlenty's "health impact fee" on cigarettes probably would have failed to pass on its own, but by being paired with a provision intended to prevent fetal pain in abortions, it garnered enough pro-life legislators' votes to ensure success.In complaining about the Legislature's "piecemeal" approach to the budget, which is contained in many omnibus bills with different subjects, Gov. Mark Dayton has signaled that he would actually prefer one big bill with many provisions. At the same time he has complained about policy provisions included in the omnibus bills. Only a policy geek would argue that "budget" and "policy" are separate subjects when it comes to sectors such as, say, "education." Unless you think money grows on trees or government has infinite resources, policy and budget are inextricably related.The further we get from the single-subject rule, however, the harder it is for the majority party to define germaneness during the debate. When uncomfortable amendments to bills come up, the minority party will argue that an amendment is or is not germane; when the subject is an expansive one, it's usually a judgment call on the part of the Legislature's presiding officers.The DFL loudly criticizes the Republican majority for "abuses of power," but it wasn't that long ago when the shoe was on the other foot.Neither political party is particularly to blame for the decline in relevance of the single-subject rule. Both Republicans and Democrats have equal incentives to roll many different provisions, controversial and noncontroversial, into one big bill.It is important to remember that the single-subject rule enshrined in our Constitution can serve as a surrogate but will not prevent log-rolling (the exchange of support for mutual political gain among legislators) and a lack of accountability. Whether it happens in one big bill or across many small bills, it is still in the nature of politics to compromise to get things done, even when principles must suffer. That tension is what provides both a direction and restraint to our democratic form of government.At the end of the day, public opinion is really the only true check on legislative behavior. It is adherence to principles in the face of partisan competition that will keep negative aspects of the legislative process from creeping in. The single-subject rule is a solid principle but will not prevent the type of bipartisan complicity that leads to bad laws. Only citizens, pushing the Legislature to increase transparency in the process and then using that transparency to keep watch, can do that.