Got a funny story for you (at least I consider it funny, but not as funny as the security clearance deal). Today I was contacted by a Senators office to ask if my association would support an amendment they were proposing regarding counterfeit pharmaceuticals and radio frequency identification. So I look at the amendment and think we are on board with most of it. But then, as I am reading the language, I come across some language that is very familiar!
It turns out some language I wrote 5 years ago for a client I was representing had made it in this bill! We had crafted the language so narrow that only the company I represented at the time and perhaps one other could manufacture the technology necessary to comply. Well when I was representing a particular company that was a good thing. But now I work for an association and we are all about not specifying technology in legislation so we have an open and competitive playing field.
I had to call the guy back and say, all though that language is REALLY well written, I have it on good authority only one or two companies can comply. This would create a monopoly for these companies, so we would not support it without some changes. But I have to say, who ever wrote that language did a really good job of crafting the requirement narrowly while making it look non-suspicious.