Here's the thing: The way most bills are written, "reading the bill" doesn't necessarily tell you what it does. Often it's a lot of "in section 5(b) of 18 USC 2510, delete phrase X and insert sentence Y." And if you look up section 5(b) of 18 USC 2510, you probably still have to look up a bunch of other statutory definitions, regulations, and even court rulings to figure out what the practical effect of the new language is. Reading a summary from a staffer who knows the particular area of law really well is usually going to be a lot more informative than "reading the bill." As long as the staffer knows their stuff, the summary will tell you in a minute what it would take an hour to figure out if you had to sit there and do all the cross-referencing yourself. So I don't necessarily blame them for doing that.
Here's the thing: The way most bills are written, "reading the bill" doesn't necessarily tell you what it does. Often it's a lot of "in section 5(b) of 18 USC 2510, delete phrase X and insert sentence Y." And if you look up section 5(b) of 18 USC 2510, you probably still have to look up a bunch of other statutory definitions, regulations, and even court rulings to figure out what the practical effect of the new language is. Reading a summary from a staffer who knows the particular area of law really well is usually going to be a lot more informative than "reading the bill." As long as the staffer knows their stuff, the summary will tell you in a minute what it would take an hour to figure out if you had to sit there and do all the cross-referencing yourself. So I don't necessarily blame them for doing that.
Yeah good point well made. If I can jolt them into staying frosty with an attack meme, I hope they will understand the underlying motive...