Boston University Law Review 01 – legislation that passes without a specific price

tag is largely symbolic

Sara Sun Beale, [she teaches first year criminal law and upper-class courses in criminal justice policy and federal
criminal law], “Federalizing Hate Crimes: Symbolic Politics, Expressive Law, or Tool for Criminal Enforcement?”,
Boston University Law Review, (80 B.U.L Rev. 1227), June 2001, <accessed January 5, 2011>, (ZV)
“One might respond that this situation will generate its own limitations, since Congress will have no incentive to play
the federal crime card so frequently that it loses its impact. The difficulty with this analysis is that there may be
perverse incentives at work. There may be a political incentive to introduce anti-crime initiatives, even at the point
when they have become so common that they have lost much of their novelty and significance, because a vote against
such a proposal may leave a member of Congress vulnerable to the accusation that she is soft on crime. Additionally,
when symbolic anti-crime legislation is proposed, the absence of constraints that affect many other types of legislative
proposals will undoubtedly affect the political dynamic. Most legislation imposes costs on the federal
government, and those costs constrain Congress to a lesser or greater degree. Congress
has a tremendous incentive to enact federal legislation that does not carry a federal price
tag, such as unfunded mandates and purely symbolic legislation, even if it is not
otherwise the best means of achieving the goals in question.”