Regulatory favoritism through fee-gated access, or as I like to call it, discrimination through regulation.
Joint_Commission-proposed_legislative_changes.pdf
When it comes to Enactment Clause 47, I believe
- “Government should not sell preferential access.”
- “This structure creates the appearance of a pay-to-play system.”
- “This process resembles the purchase of privileged treatment.”
- “The public cannot have confidence in a licensing program where early access can be bought.”
1. Government selling special access is ethically suspect
Clause 47 allows:
- A fast track available only to five people
- Selected from a non-transparent group (previous VDACS registrants who let their registrations lapse)
- Who can obtain licenses faster and earlier
- If they pay a $500,000 fee
Ethically, this raises all the same red flags that anti-corruption and good governance advocates warn about:
- Unequal access
- Financially privileged pathways
- Selection without oversight
- Government choosing winners via cash payments
- Appearance of favoritism
The political science term for this is regulatory favoritism through fee-gated access.
It is widely criticized in policy circles, even when technically legal.
2. Could this be legally argued as bribery?
Almost certainly not as bribery under Virginia law.
Here is why:
Bribery requires:
- A payment
- Intended to influence a specific public official’s decision
- For personal gain
But in Clause 47:
- The payment is to the Authority, not a private person.
- It is created through legislation.
- It is framed as a “conversion fee,” not as payment to a particular individual.
So no, a court would not classify this as bribery.
But that leads to the next point.
3. What it can be argued as: A constitutionally questionable “special legislation”
This is legally substantive.
Virginia’s Constitution has provisions against:
- Special legislation that benefits specific groups without a rational basis
- Economic privileges for a preselected class
- Government giving unequal treatment among similarly situated citizens
Clause 47 creates a special process for a tiny, preselected group, based solely on their past registration status and ability to pay.
This can be argued as:
- Arbitrary classification
- Unequal protection concerns
- Violation of competitive neutrality
- State-created unfair economic privilege
