Journalist: Daniel Geary (TU)
In the afternoon hours of the house, Rep. Brezillac from SNU swept the crowd away with her joke bill regarding cosmetic products. Not 20 seconds into her author’s explanation did the crowd come to realize that her bill was a joke bill. Nonetheless, the atmosphere that filled up the chamber in advance of her introduction gave off feelings of fatigue and indifference. I discussed with Rep. Friesen (OSU) beforehand, and he offered me his opinion of the bill in a manner that suggested that he, as well as others, considered this bill to not be a joke at all. Brezillac’s opening statement, however, quickly set the mood in another direction.
“Good afternoon, gorgeous, statuesque, amazing body,” Brezillac said. Her bill, titled the “FACE” Act of 2026, would establish a program that would financially assist people in the purchasing of beauty products that are used with the purpose of complying with their job’s respective aesthetic standards and performance metrics associated with personal presentation. This program would also allocate FACE cards that function in a similar format to SNAP debit cards. Soon after her opening statement, decorum had to be called. Time for questions soon followed with a flood gate of noise coming from across the room. A torrent of remarks could be heard across the wave of noise, including: “best bill I’ve heard all day,” “can’t survive as a society if we’re going to progress without it,” and “this is bad for women.” Ivey (TU) told me that “everyone’s in agreement, and I think everyone is going around emphasizing how much they’re in agreement.” Despite this assuredness, debate soon followed.
The proponency and opponency quickly assembled, with eight and nine people each, respectively. Jolliff (TU) opened up debate for the proponency side, arguing that women should be compensated for wearing makeup as long as employers are legally allowed to require women to wear makeup. On the other side, Schulz (OSU) took a different approach, misquoting Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous quote, saying that people “shouldn’t be judged by how they look, but by the content of their character.” Rhetorical shots continued to be fired for several minutes, each one seemingly more ridiculous than the previous. At one point, Bell (TU) of the opponency questioned the legitimacy of the bill by exclaiming that it “didn’t create carveouts for looksmaxxing and bonesmashing,” while Clark (OSU) said that “there isn’t a single argument against having more baddies.” In the end, the cherry on top of debate took shape in the form of a boisterous Trump impression, followed by a roar of applause. The bill passed with overwhelming support, marking the end of the joke bill and ushering in a newly felt sense of joy among the representatives.