Cynthia Farina and her colleagues provide a sensible analysis of the problems attendant increased public participation in rulemaking. The “magical thinking” they address—more public engagement in rulemaking equals better policies and regulatory outcomes—strikes at the very heart of democratic access to decisions and decision-makers. Their analysis provides a strong basis for concluding that there is some public input that is, or perhaps should be, more highly valued than other public input. While the conclusion that more public participation is not a good thing in rulemaking may be jarring, the conditions Professor Farina outlines for participation that counts are a sound basis for principles that should be addressed in designing public outreach in rulemaking. The three basic principles they argue will ensure that additional public participation benefits the rulemaking process make a great deal of sense, particularly on when and how additional information and communication technologies should be deployed.