"I only meant that there is a logical reason why having non-elected persons creating regulations can be advantageous"

We elect people to do that. Perhaps if they were forced to do the actual rule making we would not get 1,000 page bills with all of the rule making to be done later[1]. Perhaps they would pass less bills that need regulation if they had to put them in the bill.

The staffers at various agencies are doing their apprenticeship for their big payday when they join lobbying organizations or the companies that they were supposed to be watching. It happens enough that it has been suggested multiple times that employment restrictions (basic conflict of interest) should be put in place. The DoD is famous for a lot of this (check Boeing's hiring).

"I only meant that there is a logical reason why having non-elected persons creating regulations can be advantageous"

Because those folks are their friends and future employers (again).

1) yes, I read the ACA because I needed to know the ruling on a specific situation and it was one of those rule making later. It was very frustrating but not very surprising.

I definitely agree that the 'revolving door' between lobbyists and regulatory positions needs to end.

But i disagree that pushing regulation onto elected officials would be better.

My point is that non-elected officials are shielded from many aspects that lead to corruption in elected officials. Namely having to re-up on funding every couple years. Non-elected officials do not have to raise money to keep their position.

Is there still corruption with non elected officials? yes I am not saying otherwise nor am i satisfied with the current state of things. But to say that the solution to that corruption is to place the power into the hands of an already corrupt congress seems backwards to me.

Also, I totally agree with you on the language and length of bills. I would go further to say that the congress people should be the ones AUTHORING the bills, let alone reading them. Nothing smells like corruption more than a corporation drafting a bill to regulate themselves and stamping a congress person's name on it.

"My point is that non-elected officials are shielded from many aspects that lead to corruption in elected officials"

My point is that the non-elected officials are not shielded and have a different corruption path going. In a lot of ways, a rich elected official is probably better insulated than a high level bureaucrat.

We elect people to make the laws. Regulations are the laws and they should be the responsibility of the people we elect. I cannot vote out of office a bureaucrat. If you believe your congress person is corrupt then vote them out. This whole rule-making process is a corruption of the system.

Regulations are not the laws, they are applications of the laws, and they are made by processes laid out in the law, by persons empowered to make them under the law, and their substance is constrained by the law.

Regulations are the law. The thought they are separate is some technicality of the modern world. People get fined and go to jail over them.