webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

ALEC1

SEE ALEC2 NOTES FOR MORE RECENT INFO, also tag

NO MERRI

margins bad below, see alec1bkup node

---

added 6/18

For many years, the state of Ohio has put its convicts to work making furniture. This not only gives the prisoners something productive to do with their time but supplies state offices with desks, chairs and other furnishings. Now, in the age of the Internet, the prisoners' work products are up for sale on the Web, available to anyone, not just state agencies. That expansion of the customer pool drew the attention of state Representative Steve Buehrer, who decided he wanted to stop it. "To me, they've crossed the line--they've opened a furniture store," Buehrer says. "I think the government ought not to be running enterprises that compete with the private sector."

So Buehrer introduced legislation to block state agencies from offering any service or information on the Internet that was also provided by two or more private companies. In fact, though, the bill wasn't entirely his idea. It was based on legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, better known by its acronym, ALEC.

All over the country, ALEC has been promoting the idea that state governments are overstepping their intended missions by offering Internet services in direct competition with private business. States allow citizens to complete their tax returns on public Web sites, for instance, or offer them free e-mail accounts, as Pennsylvania does. ALEC is against that. It drafted model legislation addressing the matter, which, in turn, was introduced by Buehrer and legislators in about half a dozen other states.

RELATED

Google Cuts Ties with Conservative State Legislative Group over Climate Change Stance

Model legislation is the core of what ALEC does. Founded in the early 1970s as a conservative counterweight to the mainstream National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), ALEC now boasts the participation of more than 2,400 legislators--nearly one-third of all legislators nationwide. That includes 125 floor leaders, among them three dozen speakers and speakers pro tempore and 25 state Senate presidents and presidents pro tempore. But the group boasts much more than a fancy masthead. Hundreds of bills initially drafted at ALEC meetings become law in the states every year.

The organization bills itself as bipartisan, but about 80 percent of its members are Republicans, and that makes a big difference, because Republicans have a working majority in many more states now than they did a few years ago (nationally, GOP legislators outnumber Democrats this year for the first time in half a century).

ALEC also counts as members some 270 representatives of trade associations, conservative foundations and many of the largest corporations in America. Interest groups are involved in other legislative organizations, such as NCSL and the Council of State Governments, but there they don't enjoy the kind of influence ALEC gives them. ALEC has standing task forces composed of both legislators and private-sector representatives. The private-sector folks help draft and have a veto over any proposed legislation that the task forces create. "ALEC is unique in the sense that it puts legislators and companies together and they create policy collectively," says Oklahoma state Representative Scott Pruitt, an ALEC task force chair. In Pruitt's opinion, the regular legislative process doesn't allow for enough time listening to business. "The actual stakeholders who are affected by policy aren't at the table as much as they should be," he says. "Serving with them is very beneficial, in my opinion." 

ATTRACTING IMITATORS

ALEC's nine public-private task forces put forward draft legislation that gets introduced in the states at a rate of about 1,500 bills a year. On average, more than 200 of those bills are enacted into law every year. "You've had the interest groups having access and sitting on other task forces, but here you've really perfected it," says Rutgers University political scientist Alan Rosenthal, author of a book on lobbying in the states. "You've not only got them gaining access and interacting with legislators but you have them shaping policy together. It seems to me that's a pretty major advance." Liberal legislators feel the same way, although they are more likely to describe ALEC's growing role as a threat rather than an advance. Recently, several progressive groups have been set up as a direct counterweight to ALEC's agenda of promoting the free market and limited government. "We need to build an ALEC for our side," The Nation editorialized a couple of years ago, and the left has responded.

This summer, a consortium of major labor unions, environmental organizations and public interest groups set up the Partnership for Public Trust to keep an eye on ALEC and the progress of its model legislation. Groups of legislators have formed themselves into coalitions to fight ALEC on a regional basis or in a specific policy area. Several other groups, patterning themselves on the ALEC model, have fashioned themselves as ideological alternatives, crafting and promoting model legislation more to their own liking. "It took progressives a while to realize what the hell was going on," says Leon G. Billings, a former Maryland legislator. "Conservatives have lots of money to propagate their viewpoint and the left doesn't."

One of the new groups, based in Madison, Wisconsin, cheekily calls itself ALICE, short for the American Legislative Issue Campaign Exchange. "We like to think of ALICE as ALEC's feistier, more aggressive little sister," says director Andy Gussert. But it's doubtful whether ALICE, which just got underway a couple of months ago, can be fairly described as feistier or more aggressive--or more anything--than ALEC. Several similar groups are better established than ALICE, but they can't come close to matching ALEC's penetration into the legislative ranks or productivity in creating new laws.

The groups on the left are at a disadvantage because of ALEC's enormous fundraising capacity and 30-year head start in attracting members.ALEC's annual budget is $6 million, which is supplemented by expenditures from private sector members who provide campaign contributions and "scholarships" that cover travel expenses for legislators attending ALEC functions. Legislators pay just $50 for a two-year membership, but businesses pay up to $50,000 to join. "You have to recognize that because ALEC is funded by profit-making industries, they have tremendous resources at their disposal," says Julian Zelazny of the State Environmental Resource Center, one of the critics. "You can sum all these groups together and our budgets still won't come anywhere near to being a fraction of ALEC's." FOCUS ON REGULATION

ALEC was founded, somewhat ironically, by conservative activists and legislators who believed the right needed a voice at the state level to counter better-organized liberals. "I always look at what the enemy is doing and, if they're winning, copy it," ALEC founder Paul Weyrich said a decade ago.The group attracted only 27 legislators to its first conference, but its early membership included many figures who became prominent later as governors or members of Congress.

Initially, the group concentrated on social issues such as abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment, both of which it opposed. But in recent years, as Congress and the courts have devolved greater authority to the states, ALEC has focused on business and regulatory matters. It produces bills that cover taxes and spending, energy, health, education, insurance, labor, telecommunications and the environment. And it has recorded a long list of successes:

While nearly all states have been strapped for cash this year, ALEC has opposed a federal bailout, arguing that state governments had worked themselves into fiscal crisis through excessive spending. The group has provided background material and talking points to help stiffen the backs of legislators resisting tax increases--including increases proposed by conservative Republican governors who once belonged to the organization. In addition, ALEC is promoting moves in GOP-controlled states to restructure government agencies to cut workforces and privatize more functions. It is encouraging legislators to abolish Medicaid's entitlement-based benefit structure.

At the same time, ALEC has sponsored a flood of land-use bills, covering both environmental regulation and defense of private property. Its best-known bill in this area is the Environmental Audit Privilege and Immunity Act, which shields private companies from liability for environmental violations that the companies report themselves. Versions of this bill have become law in half the states, although at least three states have seriously amended their bills in response to federal concerns.

Many ALEC members say there is more conflict within the organization among the businesses involved than among legislators, with competing companies constantly maneuvering for advantage. That was especially true in the 1990s in the case of electricity deregulation. Enron took a leading role within ALEC in pushing for deregulation, which eventually led the Edison Electric Institute, a utilities trade association, to withdraw its membership. As it turned out, Enron's position prevailed in many states as well. An ALEC bill provided the framework for electricity restructuring laws that have been enacted in nearly two dozen states.

ALEC has been a major force behind both privatizing state prison space and keeping prisons filled. It put forward bills providing for mandatory minimum sentences and three-strikes sentencing requirements. About 40 states passed versions of ALEC's Truth in Sentencing model bill, which requires prisoners convicted of violent crimes to serve most of their sentences without chance of parole. "What makes ALEC different is its effectiveness in not just bringing the people together but selling a piece of legislation that was written by the industry and for the industry and selling it as a piece of mainstream legislation," says Edwin Bender, executive director of the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

In many ways, Steve Buehrer's bill limiting state commerce on the Internet was typical ALEC legislation. It was pro-market and reflected a suspicion of government power. Like most bills drafted by the organization, it was introduced by a key ALEC member. Buehrer, an ALEC state co-chair, was named a "Legislator of the Year" by the group last year.

ALEC's critics claim that Buehrer moved in typically stealthy ALEC fashion. He inserted his bill, without a hearing, into the House version of the state budget. Still, he drew plenty of opposition from people concerned that if private companies could shut down the government's ability to put materials on the Web, they would profit unfairly from public information. A group of law librarians, for example, warned that courts could not put their records and decisions on the Web if publishers such as Westlaw and Lexis beat them to it. Buehrer dismissed these concerns as "paranoia." Nevertheless, the controversy his proposal generated--the Cleveland Plain Dealer called his furniture sales concerns "simply asinine"--sent his bill to the back burner. MEETING OF MINDS

ALEC's critics are hoping that failures such as Buehrer's can provide them with a new model. They believe they can fight the ALEC machine through the simple means of exposing the group's bills to greater scrutiny than they've received in the past. Allowing industries affected by legislation to write the legislation, they say, is going too far, and once the voters hear about this, they will agree. "It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if you fly legislators to exotic locations and spoon feed them legislation to introduce in their state that you're going to be effective," says Wisconsin state Representative Marc Pocan. ALEC's success is prima facie evidence, he and other critics believe, that the group gives an unfair advantage to its participating corporations and their lobbyists.

Members of ALEC reply that their group is simply one more forum among many in which they can meet with like-minded colleagues and listen to the concerns of businesses and other groups that they would hear from anyway, even if the organization never existed. "ALEC has never been intended to supplant the legislative process," says Ray Allen, who chairs the Texas House Committee on Corrections and plays an active role on criminal justice task forces for both ALEC and NCSL.

Allen argues that ALEC helps him and other legislators vet ideas that have been tried in other states. He says he's under no illusion that the private companies that serve with him on ALEC committees are doing anything other than promoting their own interests. But at the end of the day, Allen says, it's up to legislators to evaluate a variety of opinions and find out who is being truthful and which position would ultimately benefit the state. Within ALEC, the legislators who serve on task forces have to give their approval to any legislation proposed by corporate lobbyists before it is acknowledged as an ALEC model bill. Obviously, it's also up to legislators to decide whether to introduce or support a live bill back in their states.

ALEC does do a few things that reinforce its secretive image. It keeps its model legislation locked under password protection on its Web site, and gives its bills innocuous-sounding names that mask their actual significance. Rarely is any ALEC bill acknowledged as such; a legislator who proposes one offers it as though it were his own idea, the way Buehrer did in Ohio.

On the other hand, there is nothing furtive about meetings of the organization: Many of the complaints that critics register are drawn from their own experiences attending ALEC sessions, which are generally open to the public and media. "As a Democrat, I could attend and find out what is on the conservative agenda for state government," says North Carolina state Representative Paul Luebke. And while corporations pay big bucks for ALEC memberships and seats on the task forces, ALEC usually invites a range of speakers to its meetings. Kentucky state Representative Paul Marcotte, who chairs a task force, says he once invited a left-leaning public interest group to testify about a transportation issue. The assembled legislators ended up siding with that group's position.

In the end, it's hard to make the claim that ALEC's agenda is much of a secret or that its members are being co-opted to endorse legislation they wouldn't support anyway. In the words of Louisiana state Representative Donald Ray Kennard, ALEC's national chairman, "We are a very, very conservative organization...We're just espousing what we really believe in."

To the extent that liberal opponents make clear the connection between ALEC and its corporate sponsors, they may be able to gain increased public attention and place obstacles in the way of ALEC's model bills. But in order to win significant victories, they will need to convince legislators that those bills are dangerous on their merits, and not simply tar ALEC as "Corporate America's Trojan Horse," the way one report by environmental organizations recently did. In many states, the corporate connection is not particularly threatening to average voters.

"Nebraska is a very conservative state and ALEC is a very conservative organization, so I think there is a natural affinity there," says Pam Brown, who, like 46 out of Nebraska's 49 state senators, is an ALEC member. "I don't think the conspiracy theory about any legislation is particularly valid. I think it says very little about legislators to think that any of the national organizations are going to lead us around by the nose."

Steve Buehrer, sponsor of the Internet bill in the Ohio House, says ALEC has always been highly supportive when he has introduced legislation the group favors, sending staff members out to testify in a couple of instances when he has introduced bills he's drawn off of the ALEC priority list. "They're certainly very active in being helpful on the proponent side," he says. Buehrer maintains he hasn't given up on his effort to block the state from competing with private retailers on the Internet. He's already hatching plans to overcome the negative publicity his bill engendered the first time. "I expect ALEC to be a part of that," Buehrer says, "but we have to get some Ohio stakeholders involved as well."

Alan Greenblatt | Staff Writer | agreenblatt@governing.com

---

http://www.exposedbycmd.org/2017/06/28/reagan-vs-cities-battle-south-african-apartheid-lessons-trump-era

With the Trump administration threatening to withhold federal funds from cities and states offering protections to undocumented immigrants, a new report details similar tactics used by the Reagan administration to pressure cities and states to abandon anti-apartheid sanctions and divestment legislation.

The report “Reagan vs. Cities: The 20th Century Battle Over South African Apartheid & Lessons For The Trump Era” provides historical examples of how cities and states can wield power in the face of threats of retaliation for local policies that defy a president’s political agenda.

Between December 2016 and June 2017, researchers from Jobs to Move America combed through thousands of pages of declassified documents from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library — legal memos, policy guides, court briefings, and correspondence between companies and the Reagan administration.

“Reagan Vs. Cities and States: The 20th Century Battle over South African Apartheid” tells the story of how cities and states joined the fight against apartheid in South Africa and won even as the Reagan administration and special interest groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) sought to suppress those efforts.

ALEC was an early opponent of divestment efforts, distributing a report against divestment to federal, state, and local officials. As this new report details, ALEC was imbedded in the Reagan Administration’s push back on the sanctions movement and was considered by White House insiders to be crucial to providing the intellectual “firepower” for the push back in cities and states. ALEC opposed divestment throughout Reagan’s entire term and up until the dismantling of the apartheid regime, applauding Oregon for rolling back divestment in 1991.

ALEC has never apologized for those activities. ALEC has also long opposed socially responsible investing by states and cities, and to this day has been opposing shareholder responsibility efforts.

Now, the Trump administration is borrowing an idea from the ALEC playbook, threatening “sanctuary cities” with the removal of federal funds if they continue to aid immigrants. ALEC has long had a “model bill” condemning sanctuary cities.

From the report:

By 1991, 28 states, 1 territory, and 92 cities had imposed sanctions, divestment, or other measures on companies doing business in South Africa, costing U.S. corporations substantial sums — in order to stand up for the human rights of black South Africans repressed by a white supremacist regime. The Reagan administration continued to oppose these local efforts, as it had in the case of the New York City law, by implementing measures to undercut cities and states including the threat to withdraw federal funding for many local initiatives.

Notwithstanding the Reagan administration’s efforts, sustained opposition to the apartheid system caused its downfall in 1991. The sanctions and divestment movement is credited for playing a critical role in apartheid’s demise.

In 2017, President Donald Trump’s advisors have revisited the Reagan playbook to advance his bid to engage in mass deportations of undocumented immigrants working in the U.S. A few days after assuming office, Trump signed Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” The Order requires state and local officials to share information about individuals’ immigration status with federal immigration officials. Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from cities that provide “sanctuary” to undocumented immigrants and do not abide by the Order. Although San Francisco and several other U.S. cities brought legal challenges to the order, the Trump administration continues to look for ways to implement their policies.

In the Trump era, as cities and states around the country prepare to challenge the White House, they can look to the example of the anti-apartheid movement, when grassroots groups and activists joined together with cities and states to fight the federal government’s threats and together helped the movement of black South Africans triumph over a repressive regime.

The report was written by Jobs to Move America, a national organization uniting community, labor, faith, civil rights, philanthropic, academic and environmental groups and the Center for Media and Democracy. CMD’s Executive Director, Lisa Graves, JMA’s Madeline Janis, and Dr. Mary Frances Berry, a leader of the Anti-Apartheid movement, participated in a call to announce the findings of the report this week.

Read the full report here.

---

==

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has eight task forces:

(Until it was disbanded in April 2012, ALEC also operated a Public Safety and Elections Task Force, which adopted such "model" bills as the "Stand Your Ground" bill or "Castle Law" doctrine and the voter ID act. Later in 2012, ALEC launched the "Justice Performance Project" (JPP) in place of the Public Safety and Elections Task Force. The bills associated with the JPP in task force materials obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy and posted by ALEC appear to continue ALEC's modus operandi of promoting the financial interests of the corporations and special interest groups that fund it, such as the American Bail Coalition, according to PRWatch.[1])

==

alec at 40 report:

t

o date, 49 major American corporations have dumped ALEC, including some of the largest firms in the world.

Read the full report here.

===

~GW: http://www.alternet.org/print/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/bill-moyers-exposes-stranglehold-corporate-right-wing

 ===

==

---

---

---

Under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 it became a federal crime to “cause more than $10,000 in damage while engaged in “physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of any property…used by the animal enterprise.”[13] In 2006, this was updated and renamed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act by the 109th congress.[34] The updated act included causing personal harm and the losses incurred on “secondary targets” as well as adding to the penalties for these crimes.[35]

In 2003, a conservative Texas legislative reform group, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), proposed the "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act" which defined an "animal rights or ecological terrorist organization" as "two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources."[36]The legislation was not enacted.

---

ALEC OFFERS LEGISLATION TO FIGHT DOMESTIC TERROR BY ANIMAL AND ECO-EXTREMIST GROUPS

“Let’s Call a Terrorist, a ‘Terrorist,’” Says ALEC

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2003

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

BOB ADAMS (202) 742-8516

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Environmental and animal rights groups who commit acts of terror are now targets themselves of a new model bill offered by the bipartisan American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act (AETA) creates penalties for persons encouraging, financing, assisting or engaged in acts of animal and ecological terrorism.

“Most states make no legal distinction between a disgruntled youth vandalizing a public park and an organized eco-terrorist torching a family’s home,” said Sandy Liddy Bourne, advisor to ALEC’s Homeland Security Working Group. “The legislation specifically addresses actions that are designed to intimidate, coerce, invoke fear, or other forms of terror that are committed in the name of environmental or animal rights activism.”

The Act, itself, is detailed in a new publication, Animal & Ecological Terrorism in America, published by ALEC’s Homeland Security Working Group.

“One difficulty in using basic vandalism, trespassing, and destruction of property laws lies in the states’ inability to enterasset forfeiture proceedings," said Bourne.[dad is go for head shot]

Threats of domestic terrorism in the name of animal and/or environmental rights are largely attributed to two domestic terror organizations: The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). Considered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to be the most dangerous of domestic terror threats, these organizations facilitate ideologically driven vandalism, property damage, theft, and general terrorism against individuals, groups, and governmental agencies that do not fit their vision of so-called environmental equity.

“This legislation takes more than ‘a bite out of crime,’ it jails and penalizes animal and eco-terrorists and their sympathetic financial agents for what they are--domestic terrorists,” said Bourne.

According to the FBI, animal and ecological terrorists have committed more than 600 criminal acts since 1996. In recent months, ELF and ALF have claimed responsibility for destroying several homes in Washington state, California, and Michigan, releasing 10,000 minks from a farm in Washington state, and attacking three California car dealerships. The groups boast of carrying out similar actions since the mid-1990s, resulting in nearly $50 million in damage.

_{For more information contact Bob Adams at (202) 466-3800

http://web.archive.org/web/20051225091755/http://www.alec.org/news/press-releases/press-releases-2003/september/alec-offers-legislation-to-fight-domestic-terror-by-animal-rights-and-eco-extremist-groups.html

}_ 

---

~ Rx w/ afp:

Americans for Prosperity Rally Calls for "Nullifying" Health Care Law (with Help from ALEC)

by Brendan Fischer [1] — July 2, 2012 - 8:29am

By Brendan Fischer and Laura Stiegerwald

The evening after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Wisconsin chapter of the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity held a "Hands Off My Health Care" rally to plan next steps in their effort to defeat "Obamacare." The plan apparently involves American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) model legislation.

"Nullification" of Health Care Law Advocated

"Any act or set of actions that you take on a state or a local level which has as its effect rendering a federal act null and void -- that's what we are trying to do," Michael Boldin of the California-based Tenth Amendment Center told the crowd of about 400 people gathered at the Country Springs Hotel in Pewaukee, Wisconsin.

Boldin was advocating for "nullification," a legal theory supported by conservatives that asserts any state has the right to nullify or invalidate a federal law the state deems unconstitutional. According to Boldin, "[Thomas] Jefferson said, 'whensoever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoratitaive, void and have no force; and nullification is the rightful remedy.'" The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected nullification, most recently in the 1950s when Southern states tried using the strategy to resist racial integration of public schools.

ALEC Has Lobbied to Defeat Health Reforms

Boldin said that constitutional amendments adopted in Ohio and Arizona could provide the basis for a nullification challenge to the federal health care law. He explained that the amendments declare, "no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in the health care system."

The Ohio and Arizona laws Boldin referenced echo the ALEC "model" Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act. The ties between these laws and ALEC is revealed by in-depth investigations into ALEC's influence in Arizona [7] and Ohio [8].

Open records requests submitted by the Center for Media and Democracy revealed that ALEC Health and Human Services Task Force Director Christie Herrera emailed Wisconsin legislators in December 2010 [9] encouraging them to introduce ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act. Herrerra recommended they use the language introduced in Arizona, which she says "expands and updates ALEC's original Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act." The following April, a version of the bill [10] was introduced in Wisconsin and passed the state senate, but failed to pass the assembly.

Similar bills were introduced in 43 other states [11] in recent years. The laws passed as a constitutional amendment in four states and as statutory provisions in eleven. According to ALEC, [12] the laws set the stage for Tenth Amendment litigation by creating state laws at odds with the federal healthcare reform's individual mandate. Legal scholars expect [13] that this litigation would fail because the federal law would trump state law under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article VI).

Wisconsin State Senator Leah Vukmir, who is on the ALEC Board of Directors [14] and the Chair of the ALEC Health and Human Services Task Force, was quoted [15] in ALEC's press release about the Supreme Court's decision. She also spoke at the AFP rally.

According to ALEC's "Health" Co-Chair: "It Will Destroy our Economy"...http://www.prwatch.org/print/11624

==

vouchers w/ heartland:

ALEC and Heartland Propose Parent Trigger Bill with "Voucher" Option

The Illinois-based Heartland Institute, which has recently come under fire for billboards comparing those who believe in climate change to mass murderers, has embraced the Parent Trigger act and is advocating a more extreme model. In October of 2010, Heartland brought its version of the Parent Trigger Act to ALEC, which adopted it as a "model" bill. In contrast with the California/Parent Revolution model, Heartland's bill allows parents to "trigger" a school's reorganization at any time, regardless of whether it is "failing" or performing in the state's bottom 20 percent. Heartland's bill also calls for a "school voucher" option, in which students at a triggered school are provided with "the option to receive a monetary voucher to cover the cost of attendance at any private or other public school."

Parent Revolution says they oppose "voucher" programs that pay for individual students to attend private schools, at the expense of the rest of the community.

Open records requests show that in 2011, Heartland representative Marc Oestreich contacted ALEC members in the Wisconsin legislature with an email offering "to work with you to introduce a Parent Trigger Act in your state." It does not appear that the Heartland/ALEC model has had much traction, in Wisconsin or elsewhere.

However, a similar law, promoted by another right-wing ALEC member, the Goldwater Institute, was proposed in Arizona earlier this year. Jonathan Butcher, the institute's education director, cited both Parent Revolution and ALEC as inspiration for Arizona's "Parent Empowerment" bill. Parent Revolution refused to endorse the bill because of its voucher provision.

Parent Trigger: True Reform or Clever Trick? ...http://www.prwatch.org/node/11612

---

Criminal Tax Penalties for ALEC? CMD's Investigation Provides Facts for Powerful New Complaint by Former IRS Official

by Brendan Fischer — July 9, 2012 - 9:47am

Printer-friendly versionSend by email

This month, a former leader of the Internal Revenue Service filed a complaint that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has violated the terms of its nonprofit status by operating primarily for the private benefit of its corporate members, based on documents and research from the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), which manages PRWatch, ALECexposed, and SourceWatch. The complaint, which also alleges that ALEC misrepresented itself in tax filings, raises additional allegations beyond those in earlier IRS complaints filed by Common Cause.

"Astounding" Violations of IRS Law

ALEC "elevates commercial gain for a few over the well-being of society's less fortunate" through "an agenda largely crafted by the organization's corporate members," the complaint states (a pdf of the complaint is below). Marcus Owens, the former chief of the Service's nonprofit division, filed the complaint on behalf of Clergy VOICE, a group of Christian ministers in Ohio. "ALEC has deliberately and repeatedly failed to comply with some of the most fundamental federal tax requirements applicable to public charities," the complaint says.  Owens is a nationally recognized expert and leader on nonprofit tax law and a member of the noted law firm Caplin & Drysdale.

ALEC is afforded a variety of benefits by virtue of its "charity" status -- not least of which is giving corporations a tax deduction for paying ALEC membership dues -- but in exchange for those benefits, ALEC is supposed to primarily serve public or charitable interests (rather than private interests) and engage in minimal lobbying.

"ALEC is doing an extraordinary amount of lobbying, but reporting to the IRS they are doing NO lobbying," Owens told CMD. "Even when North Dakota forced two of ALEC's attorneys to register as lobbyists, they still reported [on their IRS filings] they did no lobbying. That is astounding."

"I have never seen such a systematic and extensive operation . . . to sidestep disclosure and ethics rules in a way that really allows them to have an extraordinary impact," Owens said.

Corporate Control over Model Bills Give Private Benefit...

http://www.prwatch.org/node/11627

---

loch ness monster, creationism, jindal

jine 2012

It's not a myth — the Loch Ness Monster has turned up in, of all places, Louisiana. According to the New York Daily News, Louisiana's Eternity Christian Academy is using a textbook that asserts the monster is not only real, but that its existence disproves evolution. What's more, the school is eligible for taxpayer funded vouchers, thanks to a bill signed by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal that strongly resembles model legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201206260002

---

alec pb capture 8:15 AM 4/20/2012

---

$375,858 received from Koch foundations 2005-2010 [Total Koch foundation grants 1997-2010: $708,858]

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is one-stop shopping for state elected officials interested in perusing the wares of an array of Koch-funded opposition organizations including IER, ACCF, Mercatus and other sources. ALEC has successfully peddled corporate-written legislation to numerous states attacking the Kyoto Protocol, undermining climate science education in schools and numerous other anti-environmental legislation. ALEC has close ties to Koch Industries, which helped bail the organization out of financial troubles with a half-million dollar grant.

ALEC publishes its own materials as well, including a "Climate Change Overview for State Legislators" which downplays the science and risks of global warming and exaggerates the costs of addressing it. The Overview was written by Daniel Simmons, who moved from ALEC to become AEA's Director of State Affairs. Simmons was at the Mercatus Institute before ALEC and is a graduate of the George Mason University School of Law.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/american-legislative-exchange/

---

ALEC Model Bill Behind Push To Require Climate Denial Instruction In Schools

By Steve Horn

Created 2012-01-26 01:15

[1]

Steve Horn [1]

26 January 12

ALEC Model Bill Behind Push To Require Climate Denial Instruction In Schools [2]

Tweet [3]

[4]

[5] [6]

alec-exposed-600x400_0.jpg [7]

On January 16, the Los Angeles Timesrevealed that anti-science bills have been popping up over the past several years in statehouses across the U.S., mandating the teaching of climate change denial or "skepticism" [8] as a credible "theoretical alternative" to human caused climate change came.

The *L.A. Times' Neela Banerjee* explained [8],

"Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom."

What the excellent Times coverage missed is that key language in these anti-science bills all eminated from a single source: the American Legislative Exchange Council [9], or ALEC.

ALEC Exposed: No, Not Alec Baldwin* 

In summer 2011, "ALEC Exposed [10]," a project of the Center for Media and Democracy [11] (CMD)**, taught those alarmed about the power that corporations wield in the American political sphere an important lesson: when bills with a similar DNA pop up in various statehouses nationwide, it's no coincidence. 

Explaining the nature and origins of the project, CMD wrote [12], "[CMD] unveiled a trove of over 800 'model' bills and resolutions secretly voted on by corporations and politicians through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). These bills reveal the corporate collaboration reshaping our democracy, state by state."

CMD continued [12], "Before our publication of this trove of bills, it has been difficult to trace the numerous controversial and extreme provisions popping up in legislatures across the country directly to ALEC and its corporate underwriters."

CMD explained that ALEC conducts its operations in the most shadowy of manners (emphases mine):

"Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve 'model' bills…Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideasand important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills."

So, what is the name of the "model bill" this time around?

The Trojan Horse: The "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act"

The Trojan Horse [13] in this case is an Orwellian [14] titled model bill, the "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act [15]."[PDF]

The bill was adopted by ALEC's Natural Resources Task Force, today known as the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force [16], at ALEC's Spring Task Force Summit on May 5, 2000 — it was then approved by the full ALEC Board of Directors in June of 2000.

The bill's opening clause reads [15] [PDF], "The purpose of this act is to enhance and improve the environmental literacy of students and citizens in the state by requiring that all environmental education programs and activities conducted by schools, universities, and agencies shall…"

Among other things, the bill stipulates that schools, universities and agencies should,

How does this language compare with legislation passed or proposed in various states? A review is in order.

ALEC Bills: From Model to Reality

The "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act [15]," or at minimum, the crucial language found within it, has been proposed in seven states, and passed in three states, Louisiana in 2008, Texas in 2009 and South Dakota in 2010.

Louisiana

In 2008, the Louisiana state legislature introduced and eventually passed S.B. 733, the Louisiana Science and Education Act [17]. The bill was originally sponsored by four members of the Senate, three of whom are current dues paying members of ALEC [18]: Sen. Ben Wayne Nevers, Sr. (D-12); Sen. Neil Riser (R-32); and Sen. Francis Thompson (D-34).

The three ALEC members received a total of $9,514 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles in campaign money combined, and the four of them together received $13,814 in campaign cash from the oil and gas industry, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics' FollowTheMoney.org [19].

ALEC Model vs. S.B. 733

The Louisiana bill [20] calls for, "an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including…global warming…" The bill also calls for "instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner."

This bill mirrors the provisions of the ALEC bill [15] which say that teachers should "provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific…controversies," and mandates that "balanced and objective environmental education materials and programs will…be used."

South Dakota

In 2010, the South Dakota Legislative Assembly passed House Concurrent Resolution 1009 [21], a non-binding resolution introduced by 33 members of the House of Representatives and 6 members of the Senate, 39 in total, and 12 of whom are current members of ALEC. The bill [21] calls for "balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota."

The 12 members of ALEC [22] who sponsored HCR 1009 [21] received $1,900 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles combined, according to FollowTheMoney.org [19].

The bill mirrors the provision of the ALEC bill [15] that call for the providing of "a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner."

Kentucky

In 2010, the Kentucky state legislature proposed H.B. 397, the Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act [23], a bill that eventually failed to pass [24].

The bill was co-sponsored by two members of the Kentucky House of Representatives who were not members of ALEC, but one of whom, Tim Moore (R-26), took $3,000 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles combined, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

ALEC Model vs. HB 397

Two key provisions of the H.B. 397 [23] "encourage local district teachers and administrators to foster an environment promoting objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories" and "allow teachers to use, as permitted by the local board of education, materials in addition to state-approved texts and instructional materials for discussion of scientific theories including…global warming…"

This bill mirrors major provisions of the ALEC model bill [15] that say teachers should "provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific…controversies," and mandates that "balanced and objective environmental education materials and programs will…be used."

New Mexico

In 2011, ALEC member [22], Rep. Thomas A. Anderson, introduced H.B. 302 [25]. In the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, he raised $2,650, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics' campaign finance database.

ALEC Model vs. H.B. 302

H.B. 302 says that schools shall "not prohibit any teacher, when a controversial scientific topic is being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, from informing students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses pertaining to that topic." One "controversial scientific topic" listed is the "causes of climate change."

This bill mirrors the provisions of the ALEC model bill [15] which call for teaching "a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner," teaching "different perspectives" to allow for students to "form their own opinions," and creating an "atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas."

Tennessee

Tennessee's House bill, H.B. 368 [26], essentially a replica [15] of the ALEC model bill, overwhelmly passed the House [27] in April 2011, but its Senate-version cousin, S.B. 893 [28], failed to pass. As the Los Angeles Times article makes clear, efforts to push the bill through are far from over.

Key clauses of that bill read,

These excerpts match, almost to a "T," bullet points one, three and four of the ALEC model bill [15].  

Nine of the 24 co-sponsors of the H.B. 368 [29] are ALEC members, according to CMD's ALEC Members database [30].

In addition, these nine ALEC member co-sponsors received $8,695 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry combined in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, according to FollowTheMoney.org. The other 15 sponsors of the bill, while not members of ALEC, received $10,400 in their campaign cofffers in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles combined.

S.B. 893 [29], on the other hand, was sponsored [29] by Sen. Bo Watson (R-11), a recipient of $1,800 in oil and gas industry money in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles combined.

Translation: between the 25 of them, on top of a model bill handed to them by corporate oil and gas industry lobbyists, they were also furnished with $20,895 in campaign cash by these industries with the expectation to do their legislative bidding.

Oklahoma

Titled, the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act [31],” H.B. 1551 [32] is also essentially a copycat of Tennessee's version of the ALEC model bill [15] — it failed to pass. A Senate version of that bill, S.B. 320 [33], was also proposed in 2009, but failed to pass [31] through committee.

Key clauses of that bill read (emphases mine),

Notice how the first bullet is exactly the same in both the Tennessee and Oklahoma bills — also notice how similar bullet number two is in both language and substance in both states' bills.

Rep. Sally Kern (R-84), sponsor of H.B. 1551 [34], is a member of ALEC [35], according to CMD. She received $12,335 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, in total, according to FollowTheMoney.org. Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-34), sponsor of S.B. 320 [33], while not a member of ALEC, received $22,967 from the oil and gas industry while running and losing for Governor of Oklahoma in 2010, according to FollowTheMoney.org.

On the whole, sponsors and co-sponsors from the six states in which the ALEC bill was proposed were recipients of $44,409 in campaign money from the oil and gas industry, a miniscule down payment for some of the most lucrative corporations known in the history of mankind.

Texas

Texas, in this case, is a bit of a wild card. Rather than a bill proposed by a state legislature, in 2009, the Texas School Board passed an amendent calling for the "balanced" teaching of climate change, meaning both science and "skepticism."

The Austin Statesmanexplained [36],

"The State Board of Education…adopted standards on the teaching of global warming that appear to both question its existence and prod students to explore its implications.

Standards are used to guide textbook makers and teachers.

Language…instructed students to 'analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming,'"…

This provision mirrors and is likely inspired by the ALEC model bill [15] provision on global warming, which suggested science teachers should "Provide a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner."

A Bill In the Corporate Polluter's Interest

The money paper trail for this ALEC model bill runs deep, to put it bluntly. 

When the ALEC model bill was adopted in 2000 by ALEC's Natural Resources Task Force, the head of that committee was Sandy Liddy Bourne [37], who after that stint, became Director of Legislation and Policy for ALEC. She is now with the Heartland Institute [38] as vice-president for policy strategy. In Sandy Liddy Bourne's bio on the Heartland website [39], she boasts that "Under her leadership, 20 percent of ALEC model bills were enacted by one state or more, up from 11 percent." 

SourceWatch [40] states that Liddy Bourne "…is the daughter of former Nixon aide and convicted Watergate criminal G. Gordon Liddy, who spent more than 52 months in prison for his part in the Watergate burglary…[and her] speech at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change was titled, The Kyoto Legacy; The Progeny of a Carbon Cartel in the States [41]."

The Heartland Institute [42] was formerly heavily funded by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries [43], just like ALEC [44] was at the time that Liddy Bourne's committee devised the "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act [15]." These two corporations are infamous for their funding of climate change "skeptic" think tanks and front groups.  

Today, the corporate polluter members [45] of ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force [45] include representatives from American Electric Power [46], the Fraser Institute [47], the Cato Institute [48], the Competitive Enterprise Institute [49], the Institute for Energy Research [50], the Mackinac Center for Public Policy [51], the Heartland Institute [52], and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity [53], to name several.

Getting Them While They're Young: A Cynical Maneuver 

In the United States, the politics of big-money backed disinformation campaigns have trumped climate science, and serves as the raison d'être [54]for DeSmogBlog. Polluters with a financial interest in continuing to conduct business without any accountability for their global warming pollution have purposely sowed the seeds of confusion [55] on an issue seen as completely uncontroversial among scientists.

Maneuvering to dupe schoolchildren is about as cynical as it gets. Neuroscience explains that young brains are like sponges [56], ready to soak in knowledge (and disinformation, for that matter), and thus, youth are an ideal target for the "merchants of doubt [57]."

The corporations behind the writing and dissemination of this ALEC model bill, who are among the largest polluters in the world, would benefit handsomly from a legislative mandate to sow the seeds of confusion on climate science among schoolchildren.

Alas, at the very least, the identity of the Trojan Horse has been revealed: it's name is ALEC.

*Sorry Alec Baldwin, this isn't about you, please resume your Words With Friends [58]. This ALEC [59] is far more scandalous.

**Full Disclosure: At the time of the ALEC Exposed project's public release in mid-2011, Steve Horn was an employee of Center for Media and Democracy.

---

CMD Special Report: New Documents Confirm Koch Was on ALEC Crime Task Force Led by NRA

by Lisa Graves — May 14, 2012 - 1:22am

Topics: Crisis Management, Corporations, Democracy

711Share

ALECexposedPART ONE: New documents show that Koch Industries had a seat on the controversial “Public Safety and Elections Task Force” of the American Legislative Exchange Council as of at least 2011.

ALEC announced it was dropping that task force in the wake of the controversy over the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin and so-called “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) laws. However, the co-leader of that task force, Rep. Jerry Madden (R-TX), revealed ALEC's announcement to be a PR maneuver when he reassured The Christian Post that his task force's work would continue through other ALEC task forces.

Koch Industries has vigorously defended ALEC, and has assailed reporting that noted that the company, led by billionaire brothers Charles and David, is a long-time funder and leader of ALEC and that ALEC has long advanced the NRA agenda through "model" gun bills, including Florida's controversial SYG law that was ratified by ALEC in 2005.

It turns out that Koch was a member of that ALEC task force in recent years, and that it was on the task force when the NRA was the private sector co-chair.  Moreover, Koch Industries had not one but two employees who were listed as “members” present for ALEC's "Public Safety and Elections" Task Force at the last annual task force summit.

Koch has said it had no involvement in the SYG law passed in Florida and then ratified by the ALEC criminal justice task force in 2005. The company, however, was a leader of ALEC in 2005, just as today, and its funding helps underwrite ALEC's operations and agenda. The various task forces Koch has served on over the past nearly two decades is not known, but now it has come to light that in at least 2010 and 2011 Koch was a member of ALEC's crime task force.

Two Koch Staffers at the Last ALEC Crime Task Force Summit Meeting

Site of ALEC's 2011 SummitSite of ALEC's 2011 SummitOn April 29, 2011, at Cincinnati’s Hilton Netherland Plaza Hotel, an historic building gilded just before the Great Depression, Jenny Kim and Jessie Rager--employees of Koch's lobbying arm--sat as two of the 16 “Private Sector Members” in attendance at the ALEC crime task force’s day-long meeting. As such, Koch constituted 1/8th of the private sector members considering model legislation and business that day.

Kim is the Associate General Counsel for “Political Law” at Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC, (KCPS) which employs over three dozen attorneys in Wichita, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere. She’s worked for Koch for almost four years, following stints at two law firms and in the White House Counsel’s Office in President George W. Bush's first term.

She’s been the point of contact for Koch’s lobby disclosure filings regarding the $2 to $3 million it has spent on other Koch employees directly lobbying Congress each year recently. Koch has lobbied on issues such whether companies should have to disclose their true owners, a permanent tax deferral for certain income from investment in foreign controlled companies, exemptions from the regulations of credit swaps in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms, legislation to bar the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, and numerous bills affecting the pollution of Americans’ water. Rager is a paralegal for KCPS, but it’s not clear if Rager works for Kim or another lawyer.

The Task Force's Recent Focus: Redistricting and Opposing Bans on "Pay to Play"

The first order of business the day Kim and Rager were listed as attending ALEC’s crime task force last year was the approval of minutes describing the task force's agenda in DC after the 2010 mid-term elections.

At that meeting in the nation’s capitol a few months earlier, Mark Braden of the law firm Baker Hostedler kicked off the task force with his presentation on redistricting, that is, how to revise electoral maps after the census, a top priority for the new ALEC majorities in several states. As the Center for Media and Democracy’s (CMD’s) PRWatch has documented, Braden—the former Chief Counsel to the Republican National Committee—also advised ALEC’s Republican members in Wisconsin on remapping legislative districts in the spring of 2011.

Money HandshakeOther ALEC business in the minutes referenced included opposition to “Pay to Play Legislation,” meaning opposing bills that would ban government contractors from donating to political campaigns. The “model” resolution opposing such a ban was spearheaded by right-winger Bradley Smith’s special interest outfit, the “Center for Competitive Politics” (CCP), through its then-president Sean Parnell (who is also an “expert” for the Heartland Institute, which been funded by Koch money). CCP does not reveal which corporations, CEOs, or family foundations fund its operations, which focus on advancing the notions that money is speech and that corporations and CEOs should be able to spend unlimited money influencing elections. CCP even opposed new disclosure rules after Citizens United in the DISCLOSE Act, just as ALEC opposed new disclosure in response to that U.S. Supreme Court decision.

CCP’s 2010 “model” resolution against state legislatures enacting Pay to Play bans passed with unanimous support of the public and private sector members.

At the April 2011 meeting with two Koch reps sitting as members, the minutes of that meeting were “unanimously” adopted by “voice vote” of public and private sector members.

Surprise? Task Force Approves Corporate Payday, Rejects Transparency

In Cincinnati, with the Koch employees on deck, the first piece of model legislation on the agenda was a bill promoted by TASER. That's the leading stun-gun manufacturer whose profits jumped to $3.8 million in the first quarter of this year.  Its then-Vice President of Government and Public Affairs, Peter Holran, made the pitch to the Task Force's legislators and "private sector" members. That bill is designed to create an “assessment,” or tax, on taxpayer fines for traffic violations and then split the proceeds between the agency issuing the citation and a fund to buy stun guns and other equipment.

TASER's model bill “passed the private sector unanimously,” according to newly revealed documents, and was also unanimously approved by the legislators voting.

This model bill basically creates a special pool of money, aside from other budgetary constraints plaguing cities and states, for the purchase of the kind of weapons sold by the company advancing the bill, which dubs this arrangement a safety equipment fund.

This is where ALEC’s “free market” mantra meets “crony capitalism”--your traffic cops at work, getting a slice of the pie from every ticket for their budgets with some dough for Tasers and other purchases.

Koch's Lobbying ShopThe bill was adopted unanimously. There’s no indication that Koch’s Kim or Rager or other corporate reps expressed any reservations about this potentially great deal for part of the weapons industry. There is no record that there were any abstentions or objections; the approval was “unanimous.”

Several other crime bills passed unanimously, but a model bill to require “state legislatures to provide adequate notice before public hearings or votes so that citizens are able to participate in the legislative process in a meaningful way” failed.  It did not get the support of ALEC politicians on the task force co-chaired by Wisconsin Rep. Scott Suder, who is now ALEC’s co-chair for the state.

There is no indication in the records publicly available that Kim or Rager or others spoke up for the public’s opportunity to comment on proposed changes to state law as the “Legislative Transparency Act” went down in flames at the Cincinnati task force meeting last spring.

There is no indication that Koch’s reps voted against any crime or democracy bills last April.

A "Model" Proposal to Bar Police from Destroying Crime Guns?

Why and when did Koch Industries buy a seat and a vote on ALEC’s crime and elections task force? After the spotlight began to intensify on ALEC with the launch of CMD’s ALECexposed last summer, ALEC mostly stopped distributing the list of task force members in attendance at its meetings.

However, Koch was still listed on the Public Safety and Elections Task Force roster last summer. Kim and Rager were both listed as members representing Koch in the task force packet distributed for the summer meeting in New Orleans.

At the August meeting, the NRA, the immediate past co-chair of that task force, proposed more gun bills.  One of those bills distributed to members was a bill to bar law enforcement from destroying crime guns.

According to the minutes from the New Orleans meeting, a model bill introduced by the NRA’s Tara Mica received the “unanimous” approval of all the public and private sector members present but did not list the members.  There is no public record indicating that Koch objected to that bill, if it was present or in any other way.

And, although the bill to make new legislative transparency provisions legally binding on legislatures had failed in the spring, in the midst of increasing public awareness and concern about ALEC, ALEC's task force approved a statement of principles generally favoring transparency in August.  That resolution was not binding, unlike the bill that was blocked.

The resolution passed at a task force meeting that was anything but transparent, with the press and public excluded from observing its votes and discussion, as with other ALEC task force meetings.

Blocking Cities from Barring "Machine Guns" and Cop-Killer Bullets?

Similarly, when the Public Safety and Elections Task Force met at the Kierland Resort in Arizona, the NRA proposed new amendments to an older ALEC “Consistency in Firearms Regulation” model bill. That bill bars lawsuits by cities against gun manufacturers, sellers, and trade groups and also pre-empts local cities from regulating or taxing guns in other ways.

Late last year, the NRA proposed to ALEC new amendments that would expressly forbid cities from banning residents from owning extremely dangerous “machine guns,” “submachine guns,” and other guns. Its amendments would also block cities from restricting the sale of ammunition (with no exception for especially dangerous projectiles such as armor piercing ammo, known as cop-killer bullets), and from barring guns from being altered to make them more deadly.

It’s not clear why in 2011 the NRA felt so emboldened that it could make explicit what it could not in 1995 when the bill was first listed as an ALEC model or in 1999 when it was reaffirmed by ALEC’s task force and ALEC’s public sector board.

ALEC Corporate Board in 1999And who was the chairman of ALEC’s Private Sector Board in 1999 when ALEC re-affirmed the legislative template to block cities from suing gun manufacturers and from regulating firearms? It was Koch Industries. In 1999, Koch’s Michael K. Morgan was the chairman of the board. There is no public record indicating that he ever raised any objections to this part of the NRA’s agenda or other NRA model bills approved by ALEC.  ALEC attempts to emphasize that the private sector board does not affirmatively vote on model bills approved by private sector and public sector members on its task forces, but there is no indication that its corporate board is expected to remain silent regarding ALEC's agenda and operations.

And, last year, temporarily casting aside its long rhetorical defense of firearms for hunting and sporting, the NRA apparently wanted to ensure that machine guns were not banned in cities—guns whose rapid repeating rounds have nothing to do with hunting deer or other game and everything to do with maximizing the death toll when fired at human beings.

The NRA’s proposed amendments were approved “unanimously” by the task force’s private and public sector members in Scottsdale, Arizona, on December 2, 2011.

The minutes of that meeting distributed last month do not list which of ALEC's 2011 task force members were in Scottsdale and who unanimously approved this NRA bill and others proposed last winter.

Accordingly, there is no contemporaneously prepared and publicly distributed record of whether Koch representatives voted on the NRA’s machine gun protection amendments or not or whether Koch objected in any way to this part of the agenda for ALEC. Other bills on the agenda in Arizona included a failed effort to change ALEC’s position that favors the undemocratic Electoral College and opposes “national popular vote” (meaning the president who wins the popular vote wins the presidency), and Koch’s view of them, if any, is unknown.

Secrecy Cloaks Koch Role, But It Was on the Task Force the NRA Led

Unlike for the Cincinnati task force meeting a year ago, for the May 2012 meeting in Charlotte, ALEC members were not sent a list of the names and contact information for their fellow members in preparation for the task force meeting.

That is, there is no verifiable public record of whether or not Koch Industries continued its membership on this task force beyond 2011, although Koch (through Morgan) remains on ALEC’s board, according to the new materials Common Cause obtained in support of its complaint to the IRS that ALEC is a corporate lobbying group masquerading as a charity.

Since ALEC operates in the shadows and records are incomplete, it is not clear how many years prior to 2012 Koch previously paid to play on this task force. After all, Koch’s KCPS, represented by Kim, was listed on ALEC’s Public Safety and Elections Task Force roster not only in 2011 but also in 2010.

ALEC and the NRAIllustration by Mark FioreWho was the private sector co-chair of that task force when Koch was listed on its 2010 roster? None other than the NRA.  It was represented as the Public Safety and Elections Task Force co-chair through its government relations rep Tara Mica.

Yet, Koch Industries has been on the offensive against those connecting the dots between the NRA, ALEC, and Koch. It has pointed to a single bill it opposed in Florida that would have resulted in the arming of its employees on the job against its will. Apparently, in that instance, the corporation didn’t think doing so was a good idea. Many employers probably think it’s not a good idea to have employees carrying guns around the workplace. That particular gun bill, however, was not ratified or adopted as an ALEC model, either.

There is no indication Koch Industries or its representatives ever objected to sitting on a Public Safety and Elections Task Force co-chaired by the NRA or its agenda.

In fact, there is no publicly available evidence that Koch, as a long-time ALEC board member and funder, objected to the NRA co-chairing that task force for a number of years.

There is no evidence Koch ever objected to any NRA initiative in 2010 and 2011 when it irrefutably was listed as a member of that task force.

And, there is no public record that Koch ever used its seat on that task force to move to repeal or revoke NRA bills previously endorsed as the model bills of that task force, such as the SYG/Castle Doctrine bill, the bill barring city lawsuits against gun manufacturers, or ALEC’s opposition to the federal assault weapons ban, for example.

It is simply not known how many years beyond 2010 and 2011, if any, Koch had a seat on ALEC’s crime task force during the nearly two decades Koch has had a seat on ALEC's corporate board, but cost was certainly not an impediment.

After all, the going rate for an ALEC corporate member to buy a seat and a vote on that task force last year was a mere $2500. With Koch’s reported revenue of $100 billion per year, the annual fee for this task force is a little less than the company makes in, literally, the stroke of a single second on the hands of a clock.

Lisa Graves is Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy (PRWatch.org and ALECexposed.org). She formerly served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice where she handled gun policy and was the Managing Editor of the National Integrated Firearms Violence Reduction Strategy. She also served as the Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, as Deputy Chief of the Article III Judges Division of the U.S. Courts, and as an adjunct professor of law.

Today, behind closed doors in Charlotte, North Carolina, legislators from 15 states will meet with the oil and gas industry to discuss so-called “model legislation” as part of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The result could be laws that handicap renewable energy targets — while creating loopholes for fossil fuels, written directly by the oil and gas industry itself.

ALEC has faced backlash recently for its role in crafting Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws. Now the organization is taking the same secretive approach to kill renewable energy development across the country.

Oil and gas corporations have a very strong role in politics through groups like Americans For Prosperity, American Petroleum Institute, and, of course, ALEC. Four of the largest oil and gas corporations and two of the most profitable U.S. corporations overall, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, sit on ALEC’s task forces. And so today, according to documents posted by Common Cause, representatives from these and other energy groups will discuss potential legislation that would undermine clean energy standards and limit regulations of polluting industries.

The agenda items illustrate ALEC’s objectives. An economist from the oil lobby American Petroleum Institute leads a discussion on oil and gas prices, and a few of the panels include, “The Dirty Truth Behind Reusable Bags” and “Resolution Supporting a Reasonable Compliance Timeline and Economywide Impact Study of EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Rule.” Peabody Energy — one of the largest coal companies in the world — will give the presentation on “Regulation Through Litigation Of Greenhouse Gases Is Unsound Public Policy.”

ALEC already benefits from special exemption from some state laws: For example, South Carolina, Indiana, and Colorado have specifically exempted ALEC from lobbying status.

The oil industry’s astroturfing does not end with ALEC. Heartland Institute, part of the consortium of ultra-conservative think tanks leading a broad attack on clean energy, will also speakat ALEC’s meeting. Americans For Prosperity, funded by money from the Koch brothers, is also involved in Big Oil’s PR campaign against clean energy.

We have already seen oil dominating election ad spending this year, with well over $24 million spent by groups like Americans for Prosperity and American Energy Alliance since January. More than 80 percent of election year attack ads have focused on energy — all of them thoroughly debunked.

koch circles the wagons, pressures WI legis

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/04/11465/alec-gets-support-koch-funded-americans-prosperity

25 min doc vid

Shortly after issuing a press release announcing that it was disbanding its "Public Safety and Elections Task Force" after 30 years, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) held a training for the right-wing blogosphere.

ALEC Director of External Relations Caitlyn Korb spoke yesterday at a Heritage Foundation "Bloggers Briefing," begging conservative bloggers for help while prepping "a very aggressive campaign to really spread the word about what we actually do." Korb appears to be a new ALEC employee who recently worked for the Cato Institute. Both ALEC and Cato have received funding from Koch family foundations. The Heritage Foundation is an ALEC member.

The "Bloggers Briefing," which was started by Heritage's Rob Bluey and "a dozen conservative online entrepreneurs" six years ago, was broadcast online on "Breitbart TV," a project of the late Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart's team of bloggers and apparatchiks most recently gained notoriety for getting U.S. Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod fired. Breitbart released a clip of a speech given by Sherrod deliberately edited to create the false impression that she was prejudiced against white farmers. Her actual speech was a personal tale rejecting prejudice. Sherrod was later offered resinstatement by USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, with apologies.

=-

ALEC Disbands Task Force Responsible for Stand Your Ground, Voter ID, Prison Privatization, AZ's SB 1070

by Brendan Fischer — April 17, 2012 - 3:38pm

:{:(style="cursor:pointer"):}:

Under growing public pressure and the departure of multiple corporate members, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has announced it is disbanding the Task Force that has been responsible for some of the organization's most controversial pieces of legislation. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker introduced several bills approved by that Task Force when he was a legislator in the 1990s and early 2000s.

For at least three decades, the corporations, special interest groups, and legislators on the ALEC Public Safety & Elections Task Force (known as the Criminal Justice Task Force until 2009) have approved model bills that promote for-profit prisons and lengthen prison sentences, criminalize immigrants, expand the "war on drugs," thwart evidence-based pre-trial release programs in favor of for-profit bail-bonding, and many other policies.

In recent weeks, ALEC has been under increasing scrutiny for that Task Force's role in advancing laws that promote voter suppression, and for adopting the so-called Stand Your Ground law, which in Florida had been cited to prevent the prosecution of the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

Corporate Exodus Leads to Disbanding Task Force

As the result of a campaign by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), Color of Change, Common Cause, People for the American Way, CREDO, and others, a stampede of ALEC member corporations have announced they are severing their ties from the organization.

ALEC had been replying to the campaign with a series of increasingly frantic press releases, bemoaning what they called an "intimidation campaign."

As Mark Schmitt of the Roosevelt Institute notes in the New Republic, "[f]ar from 'intimidation,' what the boycott threat did was force the companies to make a more careful, deliberate choice about what kind of political speech it actually wanted to support and put its reputation behind." And companies like McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods and others apparently do not want to be associated with policies like those coming out of the Public Safety & Elections Task Force.

ALEC's responses to the campaign also claimed that "ALEC policies promote 'economic vitality.'" But many noted that it was hard to see how policies like Stand Your Ground and voter suppression promoted "economic vitality."

Apparently in response to the corporate exodus, and to the contradictions between ALEC's stated mission and its policies, the organization issued a press release today stating they are "eliminating the ALEC Public Safety and Elections Task Force that dealt with non-economic issues" and that they would be "redoubling our efforts on the economic front."

CMD's Executive Director Lisa Graves said:

ALEC's announcement is a partial victory for the power of grassroots citizen action, but for Americans concerned about brand-name corporations underwriting ALEC's extreme agenda to make it more difficult for American citizens to vote and to protect armed vigilantes, ALEC's PR maneuver to try to distance itself from its record of extremism is an empty gesture unless it and the corporations that have bankrolled its operations work to repeal ALEC-backed laws that have advanced the NRA's agenda and that will impede citizens from voting in the coming elections.

Criminal Justice / Public Safety & Elections Task Force

As CMD has reported, the NRA conceived the so-called Stand Your Ground law in Florida, promoted its passage, then brought it to the ALEC in 2005, where the legislators and corporate lobbyists on the Criminal Justice Task Force voted unanimously to adopt it as a "model bill." At the time, Wal-Mart was the Task Force co-chair, and the NRA led the Task Force in subsequent years. Since becoming an ALEC model it has become law in dozens of other states, and the number of homicides classified as "justifiable" has dramatically increased in many states (and jumped 300 percent in Florida). In 2009, members of the same Task Force approved the model "Voter ID Act", versions of which were introduced in a majority of states in 2011.

While these bills have attracted the most attention in recent weeks, the Criminal Justice / Public Safety & Elections Task Force has been advancing a variety of other controversial policies since the late 1980s.

Members of the Task Force have included for-profit prison providers like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which has also served as the co-chair. The ALEC Criminal Justice / Public Safety & Elections Task Force has created model bills that lengthen sentences, which have dramatically increased incarceration rates, and bills that privatize prisons, putting more of those inmates under the control of for-profit corporations, as well as many other policies.

Walker's Ties to ALEC Criminal Justice Task Force

Scott Walker was a proud ALEC member when he was in the state legislature, and introduced several ALEC bills approved by the Criminal Justice Task Force. Since becoming governor, he has continued to push these ALEC-supported "criminal justice" efforts.

In 1997, then-Representative Walker introduced (and the legislature passed) the ALEC Criminal Justice Task Force - approved "Truth in Sentencing" act, which requires inmates to serve their full sentence without options for parole or supervised release. The law takes away incentives for prisoners to reduce prison time through good behavior and participation in counseling, and eliminates the ability for judges and parole boards to decide that the financial and social costs of keeping a particular person incarcerated no longer furthers public safety goals.

The state estimated that the first 21 months after the law took effect would cost taxpayers an extra $41 million, as 990 inmates would have to be incarcerated for an additional 18,384 months. Wisconsin's prison population increased 14 percent in the seven years after the law took effect, with no correlative public safety benefit or additional decline in crime rates. The annual budget for the state prison system jumped from $700 million in 1999 to $1.2 billion in 2009, becoming the third-largest expenditure in the 2009-2011 state budget.

During this period of growing prison populations, then-Representative Scott Walker introduced several bills between 1997 and 1999 that would allow private prisons in Wisconsin, including one to privatize state prison operations (see the ALEC bill here), and another allowing private corrections companies to open prisons in Wisconsin to house inmates from other states (see the ALEC bill here). Walker noted in 1998 that CCA wanted to expand into Wisconsin. While those bills did not pass, some inmates were contracted-out to private prisons in other states, and CCA has registered lobbyists in the state ever since.

"Clearly ALEC had proposed model legislation," Walker told American Radio Works in 2002 (although there was no reference to ALEC when the legislature was considering the bill). "And probably more important than just the model legislation, [ALEC] had actually put together reports and such that showed the benefits of Truth-in-Sentencing and showed the successes in other states. And those sorts of statistics were very helpful to us when we pushed it through, when we passed the final legislation," Walker said.

Those statistics, though, were critiqued by criminologists as unreliable and intended to persuade rather than educate: Walker said that he and fellow ALEC members relied on an ALEC report crediting Virginia's Truth-in-Sentencing law with a five-year drop in crime, but crime dropped in ALL states in the 1990s, regardless of whether a state passed a tough-on-crime law like Truth-in-Sentencing.

(See this graphic from American Radio Works explaining the CCA-ALEC-Wisconsin sentencing law connection).

The Wisconsin state legislature apparently recognized the folly of Truth in Sentencing and rolled-back aspects of the law between 2001 and 2009. When Scott Walker became governor, he reversed this progress and pushed for legislation fully restoring the ALEC Truth in Sentencing, despite the costs to taxpayers and despite claiming Wisconsin was "broke." In early July, Governor Walker's office released a statement supporting expanded use of prison labor, another idea promoted in ALEC bills approved by the ALEC Criminal Justice Task Force.

Under growing public pressure and the departure of multiple corporate members, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has announced it is disbanding the Task Force that has been responsible for some of the organization's most controversial pieces of legislation. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker introduced several bills approved by that Task Force when he was a legislator in the 1990s and early 2000s.

For at least three decades, the corporations, special interest groups, and legislators on the ALEC Public Safety & Elections Task Force (known as the Criminal Justice Task Force until 2009) have approved model bills that promote for-profit prisons and lengthen prison sentences, criminalize immigrants, expand the "war on drugs," thwart evidence-based pre-trial release programs in favor of for-profit bail-bonding, and many other policies....

CMD's Executive Director Lisa Graves said:

ALEC's announcement is a partial victory for the power of grassroots citizen action, but for Americans concerned about brand-name corporations underwriting ALEC's extreme agenda to make it more difficult for American citizens to vote and to protect armed vigilantes, ALEC's PR maneuver to try to distance itself from its record of extremism is an empty gesture unless it and the corporations that have bankrolled its operations work to repeal ALEC-backed laws that have advanced the NRA's agenda and that will impede citizens from voting in the coming elections.

Criminal Justice / Public Safety & Elections Task Force

As CMD has reported, the NRA conceived the so-called Stand Your Ground law in Florida, promoted its passage, then brought it to the ALEC in 2005, where the legislators and corporate lobbyists on the Criminal Justice Task Force voted unanimously to adopt it as a "model bill." At the time, Wal-Mart was the Task Force co-chair, and the NRA led the Task Force in subsequent years. Since becoming an ALEC model it has become law in dozens of other states, and the number of homicides classified as "justifiable" has dramatically increased in many states (and jumped 300 percent in Florida). In 2009, members of the same Task Force approved the model "Voter ID Act", versions of which were introduced in a majority of states in 2011.

While these bills have attracted the most attention in recent weeks, the Criminal Justice / Public Safety & Elections Task Force has been advancing a variety of other controversial policies since the late 1980s.

Members of the Task Force have included for-profit prison providers like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which has also served as the co-chair. The ALEC Criminal Justice / Public Safety & Elections Task Force has created model bills that lengthen sentences, which have dramatically increased incarceration rates, and bills that privatize prisons, putting more of those inmates under the control of for-profit corporations, as well as many other policies.

Walker's Ties to ALEC Criminal Justice Task Force

Scott Walker was a proud ALEC member when he was in the state legislature, and introduced several ALEC bills approved by the Criminal Justice Task Force. Since becoming governor, he has continued to push these ALEC-supported "criminal justice" efforts.

In 1997, then-Representative Walker introduced (and the legislature passed) the ALEC Criminal Justice Task Force - approved "Truth in Sentencing" act, which requires inmates to serve their full sentence without options for parole or supervised release. The law takes away incentives for prisoners to reduce prison time through good behavior and participation in counseling, and eliminates the ability for judges and parole boards to decide that the financial and social costs of keeping a particular person incarcerated no longer furthers public safety goals.

The state estimated that the first 21 months after the law took effect would cost taxpayers an extra $41 million, as 990 inmates would have to be incarcerated for an additional 18,384 months. Wisconsin's prison population increased 14 percent in the seven years after the law took effect, with no correlative public safety benefit or additional decline in crime rates. The annual budget for the state prison system jumped from $700 million in 1999 to $1.2 billion in 2009, becoming the third-largest expenditure in the 2009-2011 state budget.

During this period of growing prison populations, then-Representative Scott Walker introduced several bills between 1997 and 1999 that would allow private prisons in Wisconsin, including one to privatize state prison operations (see the ALEC bill here), and another allowing private corrections companies to open prisons in Wisconsin to house inmates from other states (see the ALEC bill here). Walker noted in 1998 that CCA wanted to expand into Wisconsin. While those bills did not pass, some inmates were contracted-out to private prisons in other states, and CCA has registered lobbyists in the state ever since.

"Clearly ALEC had proposed model legislation," Walker told American Radio Works in 2002 (although there was no reference to ALEC when the legislature was considering the bill). "And probably more important than just the model legislation, [ALEC] had actually put together reports and such that showed the benefits of Truth-in-Sentencing and showed the successes in other states. And those sorts of statistics were very helpful to us when we pushed it through, when we passed the final legislation," Walker said.

Those statistics, though, were critiqued by criminologists as unreliable and intended to persuade rather than educate: Walker said that he and fellow ALEC members relied on an ALEC report crediting Virginia's Truth-in-Sentencing law with a five-year drop in crime, but crime dropped in ALL states in the 1990s, regardless of whether a state passed a tough-on-crime law like Truth-in-Sentencing.

(See this graphic from American Radio Works explaining the CCA-ALEC-Wisconsin sentencing law connection).

The Wisconsin state legislature apparently recognized the folly of Truth in Sentencing and rolled-back aspects of the law between 2001 and 2009. When Scott Walker became governor, he reversed this progress and pushed for legislation fully restoring the ALEC Truth in Sentencing, despite the costs to taxpayers and despite claiming Wisconsin was "broke." In early July, Governor Walker's office released a statement supporting expanded use of prison labor, another idea promoted in ALEC bills approved by the ALEC Criminal Justice Task Force.

ALEC Role in Arizona's SB 1070 Anti-Immigrant Law

Another policy approved by the now-disbanded ALEC Task Force includes Arizona's controversial SB1070 immigration law, which is currently being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court.

DBA Press / In These Times documented how Arizona Republican Rep. Russell Pearce collaborated with CCA and other members of the ALEC Public Safety and Elections Task Force in December 2009 to create the ALEC "model" immigration bill that became SB1070.

Before the ALEC meeting, for-profit prison operator CCA had identified immigrant detention as a profit center important for its future growth, stating it anticipated receiving "a significant portion of our revenues" from detaining immigrants. Even a hedge fund with a big stake in CCA was touting immigration detention as proof CCA would be profitable.

An immigrant contesting their deportation can wait up to a year for a hearing, even though many of those detained have not committed a crime and have no criminal record. Immigrant detention can cost taxpayers $122 a day. Because for-profit corporations operate about half of all immigrant detention facilities, these taxpayer dollars flow into the pockets of CCA and other for-profit prison providers.

The for-profit bail bond industry's trade association, the American Bail Coalition (ABC), is an ALEC member and was also on the Task Force that passed the ALEC anti-immigrant laws. An immigrant facing removal in some cases may be released on bond, and will often pay a commercial bail bondsman for their release. Immigration bonds are usually between $5,000 and $10,000, and can be much higher, so a for-profit bail bondsman who accepts 10 percent of that bail as a nonrefundable fee can rake in significant profits for doing very little.

At the time ALEC approved the "No Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants Act", the chairman of the ALEC corporate Private Enterprise Board was ABC general counsel Jerry Watson. Watson was very familiar with the profits that can be made by collecting bail bonds from detained immigrants. His law firm biography lists him as "specializing in the field of ... immigration bonding."

ABC has called ALEC the industry's "life preserver". ABC pays for ALEC membership, and a representative sits on the ALEC "Private Enterprise Board" as well as ALEC's Executive Committee. The trade group boasts that "during its two decade involvement with ALEC, ABC has written 12 model bills fortifying the commercial bail industry" that were passed by the Criminal Justice / Public Safety & Elections Task Force.

While the Criminal Justice / Public Safety & Elections Task Force is now dissolved, ABC will continue to work with the Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force. The NRA's future relationship with ALEC is not known. It is also not known whether ALEC will disavow or repeal the bills approved by the Criminal Justice / Public Safety & Elections Task Force over the past three decades.

ALEC Scrambling for Support

ALEC has come under increased scrutiny over the past year after the Center for Media and Democracy released its ALEC Exposed Project, which revealed and analyzed more than 800 previously-secret "model" bills voted on by corporate or special interest lobbyists and politicians.

In response to the growing scrutiny in recent weeks, ALEC also claimed that "America needs organizations like ALEC to foster the discussion and debate of policy differences in an open, transparent way." But as CMD and others have documented, ALEC Task Force meetings are closed to the press and public and take place behind closed doors.

As more and more light is shining on the shadowy organization, ALEC is also recruiting allies like the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity to come to its defense. And as more and more corporate members announce they will stop funding the organization, ALEC is also begging for money.

democ now 4/18

fox ads attack color of change: "coordinated and well-funded" intimidation campaign

opponent try to eliminate discourse about string economy

press kicked out of public mtgs of alec

tort reform

dropped stand your ground laws?

More than two dozen pieces of legislation introduced to the Missouri General Assembly over the past decade were based on “model” legislation drafted by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, according to a report by Progress Missouri.

“The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate bill mill that is exerting extraordinary and secretive influence in the Missouri legislature and in other states,” the report stated. “Through ALEC, corporations hand Missouri legislators wish lists in the form of “model” legislation that often directly benefit their bottom line at the expense of Missouri families.”

In addition, Progress Missouri says that 40 lawmakers and politicians in the state have financial ties to ALEC, including Majority Leader Tim Jones, Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer and Lt. Governor Peter Kinder.

ALEC drafts model bills for legislators and has been a driving force behind voter ID laws, so-called “stand your ground” laws, business-friendly tort reforms, Arizona’s controversial immigration law, and efforts to privatize public education.

Legislation in Missouri based on ALEC’s drafts include so-called right to work laws, resolutions “reaffirming 10th amendment rights,” an Anti-Affordable Care Act ballot measure, a resolution opposing food and beverage taxes, an “asbestos fairness act,” a resolution supporting the electoral college, and a resolution encouraging Congress to privatize Social Security.

Despite its influence, the nearly forty-year-old organization received little scrutiny until recently, when organizations like Common Cause, People for the American Way, Progress Now, the Center for Media and Democracy, CREDO Action and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee started a campaign to publicly expose companies who supported ALEC.

ALEC has decried the “well-funded, expertly coordinated intimidation campaign” against its corporate members, claiming the organization would only “redouble” their efforts to promote pro-growth, pro-jobs policies.

Mars Inc., the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods, Intuit, McDonald’s, and Wendy’s have all publicly distanced themselves from the organization.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/16/liberal-group-identifies-30-alec-model-bills-in-missouri/

Centerpoint360

American Bail Coalition

AT&T

Bayer Corp

The Coca-Cola Company

DIAGEO

Energy Future Holdings

ExxonMobil Corporation

GlaxoSmithKline

Koch Industries, Inc.

Kraft Food, Inc.

Peabody Energy

PhRMA

Reed Elsevier, Inc.

Reynolds American Inc.

Salt River Project

State Farm Insurance Co.

United Parcel Service (UPS)

Wal-Mart Stores

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/01/11259/alec-model-bill-behind-push-require-climate-denial-instruction-schools

ALEC Model Bill Behind Push To Require Climate Denial Instruction In Schools

by Steve Horn — January 26, 2012 - 12:09pm

On January 16, the Los Angeles Times revealed that anti-science bills have been popping up over the past several years in statehouses across the U.S., mandating the teaching of climate change denial or "skepticism" as a credible "theoretical alternative" to human caused climate change came.

This story was originally broken by DeSmogBlog and originally published there. The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is cross-posting this article as part of our ongoing effort to expose the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

The L.A. Times' Neela Banerjee explained:

Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom.

What the excellent Times coverage missed is that key language in these anti-science bills all emanated from a single source: the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.

ALEC Exposed

In summer 2011, "ALEC Exposed," a project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), taught those alarmed about the power that corporations wield in the American political sphere an important lesson: when bills with a similar DNA pop up in various statehouses nationwide, it's no coincidence.

Explaining the nature and origins of the project, CMD wrote, "[CMD] unveiled a trove of over 800 'model' bills and resolutions secretly voted on by corporations and politicians through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). These bills reveal the corporate collaboration reshaping our democracy, state by state."

CMD continued, "Before our publication of this trove of bills, it has been difficult to trace the numerous controversial and extreme provisions popping up in legislatures across the country directly to ALEC and its corporate underwriters."

CMD explained that ALEC conducts its operations in the most shadowy of manners (emphases mine):

Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve 'model' bills. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations -- without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills.

So, what is the name of the "model bill" this time around?

The Trojan Horse: The "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act"

TheTrojan Horse in this case is an Orwellian titled model bill, the "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act."

The bill was adopted by ALEC's Natural Resources Task Force, today known as the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force, at ALEC's Spring Task Force Summit on May 5, 2000; it was then approved by the full ALEC Board of Directors in June of 2000.

The bill's opening clause reads, "The purpose of this act is to enhance and improve the environmental literacy of students and citizens in the state by requiring that all environmental education programs and activities conducted by schools, universities, and agencies shall..."

Among other things, the bill stipulates that schools, universities and agencies should,

How does this language compare with legislation passed or proposed in various states? A review is in order.

ALEC Bills: From Model to Reality

The "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act," or at minimum, the crucial language found within it, has been proposed in seven states, and passed in three states, Louisiana in 2008, Texas in 2009 and South Dakota in 2010.

Louisiana

In 2008, the Louisiana state legislature introduced and eventually passed S.B. 733, the Louisiana Science and Education Act. The bill was originally sponsored by four members of the Senate, three of whom are current [[ALEC Politicians#Senate 16|dues paying members of ALEC]: Sen. Ben Wayne Nevers, Sr. (D-12); Sen. Neil Riser (R-32); and Sen. Francis Thompson (D-34).

The three ALEC members received a total of $9,514 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles in campaign money combined, and the four of them together received $13,814 in campaign cash from the oil and gas industry, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics' FollowTheMoney.org.

ALEC Model vs. S.B. 733

The Louisiana bill calls for, "an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including ... global warming ... " The bill also calls for "instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner."

This bill mirrors the provisions of the ALEC bill which say that teachers should "provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific ... controversies," and mandates that "balanced and objective environmental education materials and programs will ... be used."

South Dakota

In 2010, the South Dakota Legislative Assembly passed House Concurrent Resolution 1009, a non-binding resolution introduced by 33 members of the House of Representatives and 6 members of the Senate, 39 in total, and 12 of whom are current members of ALEC. The bill calls for "balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota."

The [[ALEC Politicians#South Dakota Legislators with ALEC Ties|12 members of ALEC] who sponsored HCR 1009 received $1,900 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles combined, according to FollowTheMoney.org.

The bill mirrors the provision of the ALEC bill that call for the providing of "a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner."

Kentucky

In 2010, the Kentucky state legislature proposed H.B. 397, the Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act, a bill that eventually failed to pass.

The bill was co-sponsored by two members of the Kentucky House of Representatives who were not members of ALEC, but one of whom, Tim Moore (R-26), took $3,000 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles combined, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

ALEC Model vs. HB 397

Two key provisions of theH.B. 397 "encourage local district teachers and administrators to foster an environment promoting objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories" and "allow teachers to use, as permitted by the local board of education, materials in addition to state-approved texts and instructional materials for discussion of scientific theories including ... global warming ..."

This bill mirrors major provisions of the ALEC model bill that say teachers should "provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific ... controversies," and mandates that "balanced and objective environmental education materials and programs will ... be used."

New Mexico

In 2011, [[ALEC_Politicians#South Dakota Legislators with ALEC Ties|ALEC member], Rep. Thomas A. Anderson, introduced H.B. 302. In the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, he raised $2,650, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics' campaign finance database.

ALEC Model vs. H.B. 302

H.B. 302 says that schools shall "not prohibit any teacher, when a controversial scientific topic is being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, from informing students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses pertaining to that topic." One "controversial scientific topic" listed is the "causes of climate change."

This bill mirrors the provisions of the ALEC model bill which call for teaching "a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner," teaching "different perspectives" to allow for students to "form their own opinions," and creating an "atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas."

Tennessee

Tennessee's House bill, H.B. 368, essentially a replica of the ALEC model bill, [overwhelmly [sic] passed the House](http://scienceblogs.com/deanscorner/2011/04/tennessee_house_bill_368_-_ant.php) in April 2011, but its Senate-version cousin, S.B. 893, failed to pass. As the Los Angeles Times article makes clear, efforts to push the bill through are far from over.

Key clauses of that bill read:

These excerpts match, almost to a "T," bullet points one, three and four of the ALEC model bill.

Nine of the 24 co-sponsors of the H.B. 368 are ALEC members, according to CMD's [[ALEC Politicians#Tennessee Legislators with ALEC Ties|ALEC Members database].

In addition, these nine ALEC member co-sponsors received $8,695 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry combined in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, according to FollowTheMoney.org. The other 15 sponsors of the bill, while not members of ALEC, received $10,400 in their campaign coffers in the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles combined.

S.B. 893, on the other hand, was sponsored by Sen. Bo Watson (R-11), a recipient of $1,800 in oil and gas industry money in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles combined.

Translation: between the 25 of them, on top of a model bill handed to them by corporate oil and gas industry lobbyists, they were also furnished with $20,895 in campaign cash by these industries with the expectation to do their legislative bidding.

Oklahoma

Titled, the "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act," H.B. 1551 is also essentially a copycat of Tennessee's version of the ALEC model bill -- it failed to pass. A Senate version of that bill, S.B. 320, was also proposed in 2009, but failed to pass through committee.

Key clauses of that bill read (emphases mine):

Notice how the first bullet is exactly the same in both the Tennessee and Oklahoma bills -- also notice how similar bullet number two is in both language and substance in both states' bills.

Rep. Sally Kern (R-84), sponsor of H.B. 1551, is a [[ALEC Politicians#Oklahoma Legislators with ALEC Ties|member of ALEC], according to CMD. She received $12,335 from the oil and gas industry in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, in total, according to FollowTheMoney.org. Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-34), sponsor of S.B. 320, while not a member of ALEC, received $22,967 from the oil and gas industry while running and losing for Governor of Oklahoma in 2010, according to FollowTheMoney.org.

On the whole, sponsors and co-sponsors from the six states in which the ALEC bill was proposed were recipients of $44,409 in campaign money from the oil and gas industry, a miniscule down payment for some of the most lucrative corporations known in the history of mankind.

Texas

Texas, in this case, is a bit of a wild card. Rather than a bill proposed by a state legislature, in 2009, the Texas School Board passed an amendent [sic] calling for the "balanced" teaching of climate change, meaning both science and "skepticism."

The Austin Statesman explained:

"The State Board of Education ... adopted standards on the teaching of global warming that appear to both question its existence and prod students to explore its implications.

Standards are used to guide textbook makers and teachers.

Language ... instructed students to 'analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming,'" ...

This provision mirrors and is likely inspired by theALEC model bill provision on global warming, which suggested science teachers should " Provide a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner."

A Bill In the Corporate Polluter's Interest

The money paper trail for this ALEC model bill runs deep, to put it bluntly.

When the ALEC model bill was adopted in 2000 by ALEC's Natural Resources Task Force, the head of that committee was Sandy Liddy Bourne, who after that stint, became Director of Legislation and Policy for ALEC. She is now with the Heartland Institute as vice-president for policy strategy. In Sandy Liddy Bourne's bio on the Heartland website, she boasts that, "under her leadership, 20 percent of ALEC model bills were enacted by one state or more, up from 11 percent."

SourceWatch states that Liddy Bourne " ... is the daughter of former Nixon aide and convicted Watergate criminal G. Gordon Liddy, who spent more than 52 months in prison for his part in the Watergate burglary ... [and her] speech at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change was titled, 'The Kyoto Legacy; The Progeny of a Carbon Cartel in the States."

The Heartland Institute was formerly heavily funded by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, just like ALEC was at the time that Liddy Bourne's committee devised the "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act." These two corporations are infamous for their funding of climate change "skeptic" think tanks and front groups.

Today, the corporate polluter members of ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force include representatives from American Electric Power, the Fraser Institute, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the Heartland Institute, and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, to name several.

Getting Them While They're Young: A Cynical Maneuver

In the United States, the politics of big-money backed disinformation campaigns have trumped climate science, and serves as the raison d'être for DeSmogBlog. Polluters with a financial interest in continuing to conduct business without any accountability for their global warming pollution have purposely sowed the seeds of confusion on an issue seen as completely uncontroversial among scientists.

Maneuvering to dupe schoolchildren is about as cynical as it gets. Neuroscience explains that young brains are like sponges , ready to soak in knowledge (and disinformation, for that matter), and thus, youth are an ideal target for the "merchants of doubt."

The corporations behind the writing and dissemination of this ALEC model bill, who are among the largest polluters in the world, would benefit handsomely from a legislative mandate to sow the seeds of confusion on climate science among schoolchildren.

Alas, at the very least, the identity of the Trojan Horse has been revealed: it's name is ALEC.

This story was originally broken by DeSmogBlog and originally published there.

MORE in EDUCATION

Lobbyists, Guns and Money

Paul Krugman, New York Times

March 26, 2012

Florida’s now-infamous Stand Your Ground law, which lets you shoot someone you consider threatening without facing arrest, let alone prosecution, sounds crazy — and it is. And it’s tempting to dismiss this law as the work of ignorant yahoos. But similar laws have been pushed across the nation, not by ignorant yahoos but by big corporations.

Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged). And if there is any silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing, it is that it might finally place a spotlight on what ALEC is doing to our society — and our democracy.

What is ALEC? Despite claims that it’s nonpartisan, it’s very much a movement-conservative organization, funded by the usual suspects: the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, and so on. Unlike other such groups, however, it doesn’t just influence laws, it literally writes them, supplying fully drafted bills to state legislators. In Virginia, for example, more than 50 ALEC-written bills have been introduced, many almost word for word. And these bills often become law.

Many ALEC-drafted bills pursue standard conservative goals: union-busting, undermining environmental protection, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. ALEC seems, however, to have a special interest in privatization — that is, on turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations. And some of the most prominent beneficiaries of privatization, such as the online education company K12 Inc. and the prison operator Corrections Corporation of America, are, not surprisingly, very much involved with the organization.

What this tells us, in turn, is that ALEC’s claim to stand for limited government and free markets is deeply misleading. To a large extent the organization seeks not limited government but privatized government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars, dollars steered their way by friendly politicians. In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism.

And in case you were wondering, no, the kind of privatization ALEC promotes isn’t in the public interest; instead of success stories, what we’re getting is a series of scandals. Private charter schools, for example, appear to deliver a lot of profits but little in the way of educational achievement.

But where does the encouragement of vigilante (in)justice fit into this picture? In part it’s the same old story — the long-standing exploitation of public fears, especially those associated with racial tension, to promote a pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda. It’s neither an accident nor a surprise that the National Rifle Associationand ALEC have been close allies all along.

And ALEC, even more than other movement-conservative organizations, is clearly playing a long game. Its legislative templates aren’t just about generating immediate benefits to the organization’s corporate sponsors; they’re about creating a political climate that will favor even more corporation-friendly legislation in the future.

Did I mention that ALEC has played a key role in promoting bills that make it hard for the poor and ethnic minorities to vote?

Yet that’s not all; you have to think about the interests of the penal-industrial complex — prison operators, bail-bond companies and more. (The American Bail Coalition has publicly described ALEC as its “life preserver.”) This complex has a financial stake in anything that sends more people into the courts and the prisons, whether it’s exaggerated fear of racial minorities or Arizona’s draconian immigration law, a law that followed an ALEC template almost verbatim.

Think about that: we seem to be turning into a country where crony capitalism doesn’t just waste taxpayer money but warps criminal justice, in which growing incarceration reflects not the need to protect law-abiding citizens but the profits corporations can reap from a larger prison population.

Now, ALEC isn’t single-handedly responsible for the corporatization of our political life; its influence is as much a symptom as a cause. But shining a light on ALEC and its supporters — a roster that includes many companies, from AT&T and Coca-Cola to UPS, that have so far managed to avoid being publicly associated with the hard-right agenda — is one good way to highlight what’s going on. And that kind of knowledge is what we need to start taking our country back.

Wisconsin bribes:

MADISON -- The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) filed a complaint today with the Government Accountability Board (GAB) based on newly discovered documents revealing that numerous Wisconsin legislators have received corporate-funded gifts through their connections to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Although ALEC describes itself as the largest membership group for legislators, over 98% of its $7 million budget is from corporations and sources other than legislative dues. Documents obtained via Wisconsin open records law and other sources show that ALEC corporations are funding lawmakers’ out-of-state travel expenses to posh resorts for ALEC meetings with corporate lobbyists, in addition to gifts of entertainment and exclusive parties.

Wisconsin has some of the nation’s strongest ethics rules and prohibits legislators from accepting anything of value from lobbyists (or corporations that employ lobbyists here). Wisconsin statutes also prohibit elected officials from taking anything of value that could reasonably be expected to influence how they vote on legislation. CMD’s findings include:

The “scholarship fund” that pays for legislators’ travel to resorts is funded entirely by ALEC corporations, many of which employ lobbyists to influence Wisconsin law; Despite public claims the “scholarships” are in a “blind” trust, documents(PDF) obtained through an open records request to Senator Scott Fitzgerald shows which corporations have bankrolled legislators’ travel; The drug companies’ trade group, PhRMA, gave over $350,000 to the ALEC scholarship fund in 2010 via the Madison address of ALEC’s corporate co-chair of Wisconsin, a state-registered lobbyist on behalf of several ALEC companies in Wisconsin, including Koch Industries; and Many Wisconsin state senators and representatives who received money from the “scholarship fund” held in trust by ALEC did not disclose this on their Statements of Economic Interests.

Documents unveiled today by CMD also show that in 2011 numerous Wisconsin legislators received an invitation (PDF) offering free tickets to a Cincinnati Reds game and free food and drinks paid for by the ALEC corporate member Time Warner Cable in conjunction with ALEC’s spring meeting. Two weeks later, a major telecommunications bill that would benefit Time Warner Cable was introduced in the state legislature and many of the legislators invited to the party added themselves as co-sponsors. The next day, many of those same Wisconsin legislators may have partied at the Reds ballpark, courtesy of the corporation that stood to benefit from the bill. CMD is asking the board to evaluate all these activities.

...

Trayvon and voter suppression:

The Castle Doctrine and its "stand your ground" provisions give license for people to engage in vigilantism without liability. As such, the ALEC bill can put the decision to take a life in the hands of a person whose fears are motivated by prejudice and racial bias. The law establishes a presumption that a person acted in self-defense if a killer claims they had a reasonable fear of bodily harm, but in situations like the killing of Trayvon Martin, where there were few eyewitnesses other than the alleged killer and the person who is killed, the presumption of immunity can be very difficult to rebut. In those circumstances, unfounded fear based on racial prejudice that leads to murder could end up being protected under the law.

If the ALEC "Castle Doctrine Act" opens the door for racial bias to be protected under the criminal justice system, the ALEC model "Voter ID Act" may sanction racial prejudice in the electoral system.

The ALEC "Voter ID Act" would require voters show only certain kinds of photo IDs at the polls, which could potentially disenfranchise millions of people who do not have the required photo ID but who have proof of identity and residency -- primarily people of color, the poor, and the elderly. A study from the Brennan Center found approximately 5 million people nationally do not have the state-issued IDs that the new laws require to vote. In Wisconsin, around 220,000 eligible voters lack ID, including around half of all African-Americans and Latinos and a quarter of all elderly citizens.

"The heart of the modern block the vote campaign is a wave of restrictive government-issued photo identification requirements," states a December report from the NAACP. "In a coordinated effort, legislators in thirty-four states introduced bills imposing such requirements. Many of these bills were modeled on legislation," the report notes, approved by corporations and politicians through the "American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—a conservative advocacy group whose founder explained: 'our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.'"

ALEC Meetings Not Representative

While some ALEC bills disproportionately affect communities of color, it may be little surprise that African-Americans and Latinos are mostly absent at ALEC meetings. The 2011 ALEC meeting in New Orleans was overwhelmingly white based on the observations of those attending. But the lack of representation is striking for an organization purportedly concerned with giving a voice to those affected by government action.

After the Center for Media and Democracy analyzed and made available over 800 previously-secret ALEC "model bills" in July, ALEC's National Chair, Louisiana Rep. Noble Ellington, spoke with NPR's Terry Gross about the organization. Gross asked Ellington, "Why give corporations such a big say in drafting legislation?" Ellington replied, "Well, partly because they're one of the ones who will be affected by it."

While corporations may have had a say in drafting legislation, people representing populations most affected by ALEC model bills -- like communities of color -- were not in the closed-door meetings where politicians vote as equals with lobbyists. But some are raising their voices -- Color of Change has launched a campaign encouraging corporations that rely on business from African-Americans to stop funding the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) through corporate membership dues.

The Color of Change ALEC petition is available here. The group's petition demanding justice for Trayvon Martin is available here.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/11366

ALEC is like a speed-dating service for lonely legislators and corporate executives," says Mark Pocan, a Democratic state assemblyman in Wisconsin, where ALEC played a role in last year's efforts to cripple public-sector unions. "The corporations write the bills and the legislators sign their names to the bills. In the end, we're stuck with bad laws and nobody knows where they came from."

t.

Prominent bills drafted by ALEC include Arizona's SB 1070 (the nation's strictest anti-immigration legislation) and proposals introduced in 38 states to undermine Obama's health care law by making it illegal to penalize residents for failing to obtain health insurance. A recent study of ALEC's impact in Virginia found that it was responsible for 50 bills introduced there, including legislation to require people to show identification before voting, encourage schools to contract with private education companies, and legalize the use of deadly force in defending one's home.

Democratic lawmakers in Arizona and Wisconsin are fighting back. Their proposed ALEC Accountability Act would require the group to register as a lobbying organization, thereby forcing it to disclose its financiers. Pocan, the Wisconsin assemblyman, went so far as to crash an ALEC convention in New Orleans andpost his findings on YouTube.

In the works since January, today's protests are just as much about the broader issue of corporate control of politics. "We are rejecting a society that does not allow us to control our future," says a call to action on Shut Down the Corporations, the umbrella website for the protests. Here is a rundown of some of the planned actions:

...

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/alec-occupy-wall-street-protest-f29

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/opinion/the-big-money-behind-state-laws.html?_r=2&hp

nyt editorial:

It is no coincidence that so many state legislatures have spent the last year taking the same destructive actions: making it harder for minorities and other groups that support Democrats to vote, obstructing health care reform, weakening environmental regulations and breaking the spines of public- and private-sector unions. All of these efforts are being backed — in some cases, orchestrated — by a little-known conservative organization financed by millions of corporate dollars.

Readers’ Comments

The American Legislative Exchange Council was founded in 1973 by the right-wing activist Paul Weyrich; its big funders include Exxon Mobil, the Olin and Scaife families and foundations tied to Koch Industries. Many of the largest corporations are represented on its board.

ALEC has written model legislation on a host of subjects dear to corporate and conservative interests, and supporting lawmakers have introduced these bills in dozens of states. A recent study of the group’s impact in Virginia showed that more than 50 of its bills were introduced there, many practically word for word. The study, by the liberal group ProgressVA, found that ALEC had been involved in writing bills that would:

¶Prohibit penalizing residents for failing to obtain health insurance, undermining the individual mandate in the reform law. The bill, which ALEC says has been introduced in 38 states, was signed into law and became the basis for Virginia’s legal challenge to heath care reform.

¶Require voters to show a form of identification. Versions of this bill passed both chambers this month.

¶Encourage school districts to contract with private virtual-education companies. (One such company was the corporate co-chair of ALEC’s education committee.) The bill was signed into law.

¶Call for a federal constitutional amendment to permit the repeal of any federal law on a two-thirds vote of state legislatures. The bill failed.

¶Legalize use of deadly force in defending one’s home. Bills to this effect, which recently passed both houses, have been backed by the National Rifle Association, a longtime member of ALEC.

ALEC’s influence in the Virginia statehouse is pervasive, the study showed. The House of Delegates speaker, William Howell, has been on the board since 2003 and was national chairman in 2009. He has sponsored or pushed many of the group’s bills, including several benefiting specific companies that support ALEC financially, like one that would reduce a single company’s asbestos liability. At least 115 other state legislators have ties to the group, including paying membership dues, attending meetings and sponsoring bills. The state has spent more than $230,000 sending lawmakers to ALEC conferences since 2001.

Similar efforts have gone on in many other states. The group has been particularly active in weakening environmental regulations and fighting the Environmental Protection Agency. ALEC’s publication, “E.P.A.’s Regulatory Train Wreck,” outlines steps lawmakers can take, including curtailing the power of state regulators.

There is nothing illegal or unethical about ALEC’s work, except that it further demonstrates the pervasive influence of corporate money and right-wing groups on the state legislative process. There is no group with any comparable influence on the left. Lawmakers who eagerly do ALEC’s bidding have much to answer for. Voters have a right to know whether the representatives they elect are actually writing the laws, or whether the job has been outsourced to big corporate interests.

1/27 kpfa interview comcast, biggest virtual school, reporters in NO and AZ roughed up, some by off duty cops in uniform doing pvt sec for Koch mtgs

recent AZ mtg: 

ALEC holds three major conferences each year for member lawmakers, lobbyists and member “think tanks.” At the end of such conferences, member lawmakers carry pieces of ALEC “model legislation” to their home assemblies for introduction.

For ALEC’s 2011 SNPS winter meeting in sunny Arizona, corporate sponsors included dozens of corporations and trade associations, such as AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Freport-McMoran Copper and Gold, Time Warner Cable, State Farm Insurance, Johnson & Johnson, the American Bail Coalition, Diageo, UPS, Exxon Mobil, American Petroleum Institute, Wal-Mart and AstraZeneca—not to mention a slew of contributing think tanks with ties to far-right billionaires Charles and David Koch. But that isn’t their only connection. The brothers company Koch Industries is on ALEC private sector board of directors. And their Madison, Wisc.-based company, Koch Companies Public Sector [SIC], is an ALEC member.

Due to this reality and reports detailing how ALEC has disseminated some of the most controversial pieces of legislation in recent years–model legislation to capture undocumented workers; to eliminate minimum-wage requirements; to decimate unions; to privatize public services, from schools to prisons–ALEC has come under increased scrutiny. And lawmakers who attend ALEC events have been met frequently by members of the public voicing their displeasure.

ALEC’s 2011 Scottsdale summit was no exception.

On November 30, the first full-fledged day of the conference, helicopters swarmed above and rows of police in riot gear stood along Kierland’s eastern gate, a living buffer between the street and middle-aged men in funny pants playing rounds on the Kierland course.

The resort’s southern gate was much the same as the eastern: metal barricades, clusters of police officers and hotel security screening each visitor with the help of a phonebook-thick stack containing the names of legitimate resort guests and registered conference attendees–nearly 1,000 state lawmakers, the corporate lobby’s upper crust and “think tank” luminaries.

Flanking both entrances, protesters, under the banner of “Occupy ALEC,” had turned out to decry undue corporate influence.

At 11 a.m., inside the resort, SNPS attendees gathered in one of the resort’s dining halls to hear former ALEC member and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer deliver her keynote address.

Acting as emcee, recently-retired Louisiana State Representative and outgoing ALEC National Chairman Noble Ellington addressed the assembled lawmakers and lobbyists.

Rep. Farley Proposes Some Strong Arizona Sunshine on ALEC "Scholarships"

Submitted by Beau Hodai on January 12, 2012

Arizona Rep. Steve Farley Takes on ALECArizona Rep. Steve Farley Takes on ALECThis story is part of a collaboration between In These Times and the Center for Media and Democracy, as part of a special series on ALEC's recent conference in Arizona.

With the 2012 legislative season and another episode of the Great American Campaign Circus dawning over the nation, Arizona may find itself the proving grounds for possible reform in the age of "pay-to-play" politics.

In January, Arizona Rep. Steve Farley (D-Tucson) will introduce the "ALEC Accountability Act of 2012," which is aimed squarely at the less-than-transparent American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a national organization that advances corporate-authored model legislation at the state level through the use of a hidden distribution network of special interest cash.

ALEC's Million Dollar "Scholarship" Fund to Be Scrutinized

This network, known as the ALEC "scholarship fund," holds more than $1 million for state lawmakers to attend various functions (commonly referred to as "junkets"). At these functions, lawmakers are literally wined and dined by lobbyists seeking to advance the legislative agendas of their clients.

BP Reimagined via Greenpeace contestBP Reimagined via Greenpeace contest (see http://bit.ly/at7rZ5 )To Farley and proponents of the bill, the problem is absolutely clear. In a nutshell: ALEC is a lobbyist organization, but its corporate backers operate out of public view. "If voters knew that [their lawmaker] was receiving a huge donation from BP, for example, then they might be less likely to vote for them," Farley says. "They would understand that their best interests were not necessarily being looked after. We should be as transparent as possible. ... We can't pretend that [legislation] was our idea when it came from ALEC and from a multinational corporation that had its own interests in mind."

ALEC, a 501(c)3 not-for-profit that says it does not engage in lobbying activity, refuses to publicly disclose the identities of its donor/member corporations. There is currently no requirement -- in Arizona or in any other state -- for either organizational or lawmaker disclosure of "scholarship fund" donor identities.

Some Real Sunlight in Government for the Valley of the Sun

The ALEC Accountability Act -- which, in full disclosure, is partly inspired and based on In These Times investigations -- seeks to:

  1. Amend Arizona law to apply existing regulations that governing lobbyists to any organization or person that advocates "model legislation." Because of restrictions on lobbyists' gifts, this would significantly limit ALEC's ability to wine and dine lawmakers.
  1. Require organizations that distribute "scholarship funds" for lawmaker attendance at conferences to disclose certain information within 90 days of each disbursement, including names of legislators, legislative staff and other state officials who received the funds, and the names of the corporations or individuals paying into the fund.

Legislative membership organizations other than ALEC, such as the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the Council of State Governments (CSG), would also have to file the same reports. However, as neither NCSL or CSG advance "model legislation," they would not have to register as lobbying entities.

  1. Require all lawmakers who receive "scholarship funds" from any organization to report such funds on their annual statements of financial disclosure -- even if the amount of these funds falls below current reporting requirements.

Smoldon and Rep. Lesko, "Best of Friends!"SRP's Smoldon and Rep. Lesko, ALEC AZ Co-ChairsFarley acknowledges that the bill will likely face substantial opposition in the coming legislative session and says that well-connected lobbyists will likely be reluctant to support any bill that jeopardizes the system of influence established under the ALEC banner in the state. A lobbyist's influence, after all, is his one truly marketable attribute.

Rep. Lesko Records Show Almost $100K for ALEC AZ "Scholarship" Fund

The GOP-dominated Arizona Legislature is something of a testing ground for ALEC model legislation -- Arizona is, as Farley puts it, "model state." (See "ALEC's Arizona Escort Service.") House Speaker Andy Tobin is a longstanding ALEC member, as is House Majority Leader Steve Court. ALEC's Arizona public-sector chair is House Majority Whip Debbie Lesko.

Records obtained by In These Times from the office of Rep. Lesko show that from December 31, 2009 through January 4, 2011, more than 30 ALEC private-sector members contributed a total of $98,040 to ALEC's "scholarship fund."

During this period, all but $469 was distributed to 43 an ALEC Arizona ALEC member lawmakers (and one legislative assistant) for the purpose of lawmaker travel to plush resorts. (Documentary evidence of the solicitation and distribution of these funds is available via DBA Press, through this secure short link: http://bit.ly/LeskoFOIA.)

So Cozy They're Leavin' on a (Private) Jet Plane, too

like SRP's Private JetTo cite just one example of the friendly relationships between ALEC-connected lobbyists and state lawmakers: On January 26, 2011, ALEC Private Sector Chair and Salt River Project (SRP, an Arizona utility provider) top lobbyist Russell Smoldon chauffeured ALEC member lawmakers to an ALEC dinner in Santa Fe after the lawmakers had been whisked from Phoenix to New Mexico in an SRP-owned plane.

When was the last time you flew your representative off to dinner in your private jet?

Given the strength of anticipated opposition to the ALEC Accountability Act, Farley hopes members of the public will contact lawmakers to make their support for reform known. "They should send more e-mails than ALEC does," he says. "They should send them to [lawmakers] and tell them directly: We are watching you.... We want to know who's wining and dining you."

http://www.prwatch.org/node/11238

http://alecexposed.org/wiki/Environment,_Energy,_and_Agriculture  INDEX

 ---

GP 2010 on Koch:

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

$75,000 received from Koch foundations 2005–2008

[Total Koch foundation grants 1997–2008: $408,000]

ALEC is one-stop shopping228 for elected officials interested in perusing the wares of an

array of Koch-funded opposition organizations including IER, ACCF, Mercatus and other sources. ALEC publishes its own

materials as well, including a “Climate Change Overview for State Legislators”229 which downplays the science and risks of

global warming and exaggerates the costs of addressing it. The Overview was written by Daniel Simmons, who moved from

ALEC to become AEA’s Director of State Affairs. Simmons was at the Mercatus Institute before ALEC and is a graduate of

the George Mason University School of Law.

note INCUBATOR

big infl in AZ

http://www.prwatch.org/node/11156

rejects protecting kids from rat poison

http://www.prwatch.org/node/11171

Kids Eating Rat Poison Is an "Acceptable Risk" for ALEC

Submitted by Brendan Fischer on December 6, 2011 - 8:06am

An American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) member is defying Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules limiting the sale of rat poisons that pose dangers to children and the ecosystem. ALEC representatives say that kids eating rat poison is an "acceptable risk" that does not justify government intervention in the market.

For decades, tens of thousands of young children have become ill after touching or ingesting rat poison applied "loose," in pellet form. And a variety of wild animals, from bald eagles to bobcats to owls, have been found dead with lethal levels of a super-toxic rodenticide in their systems.

EPA Rules Limit Some Rodenticides

After thirteen years of studies, hearings, reports and legal battles, the EPA announced in 2008 rodenticide manufacturers would have three years to adopt limits on the sale of the products.

Bait Station (Robert McClure/InvestigateWest)Under the new rules, rat poison will no longer be sold "loose," in pellet form, for use in one's home or apartment, but can be purchased in "bait stations" (like the one pictured) designed to keep out children and other animals. Additionally, certain products known as "second generation," or "super-toxic" rodenticides, will no longer be sold to residential consumers, as they pose a special risk to wildlife. These products are sold under brand names like Havoc, Talon, Ratimus and d-CON. Both the second generation chemicals and other rodenticides will still be sold "loose" to professional exterminators as well as employees of farms, warehouses, and other commercial installations. But the pellets may not be used in areas where children may find them.

Most of the rodenticide industry complied voluntarily with the new rules, which were scheduled to go into effect in June, 2011, but three companies held out. One of them, d-Con manufacturer Reckitt Benckiser, makes 12 of the 20 products targeted by the EPA. The global corporation sued in 2010 to force the agency to follow procedures for a formal "cancellation" of the products, and recently announced plans to "vigorously oppose" implementation of the measures throughout the cancellation process. Reckitt Benckiser is an ALEC member and has a representative on the ALEC Public Safety and Elections Task Force.

prisons  http://www.thenation.com/article/162478/hidden-history-alec-and-prison-labor

alec and koch

http://www.thenation.com/article/161973/koch-connection

http://www.prwatch.org/node/11104

Gaming American Democracy: A Perfect Storm in Which Republicans Disenfranchise Voters While Giving Corporations Unchecked Powers

One of the most stunning results of the Republicans’ victory sweep in the midterm 2010 elections (which made Ohio Republican Congressman John Boehner Speaker of the House of Representatives, while the Democrats retained control of the Senate) was the GOP’s taking control of 19 state legislatures. Not since 1928 had Republicans held such power over state government, and since then, they have not been reluctant about using their power.

GOP state legislators, and governors, have fervently pushed for the adoption of their conservative social and political agenda, which encompasses everything from severely limiting women’s rights, to privatizing government functions while breaking public service unions, to removing health-and-safety and other regulations of businesses, to repealing (or refusing to raise) fundamental taxes that are needed to operate state government. In many states, Republicans have jammed through their radical laws with only the thinnest of majorities.

As I mentioned in my opening column of this series, it was when Wisconsin’s teachers, firefighters, and policemen protested the dictatorial-style ploys of Governor Scott Walker that broader public attention became focused on these efforts. It was also quickly noticed that other GOP-controlled states were making similar moves, with many conservative legislators and governors adopting nearly identical legislation. This, of course, was not a coincidence.

The orchestrated moves in GOP-controlled states were the work of a number of conservative organizations that had long been devoted to imposing a conservative pro-business agenda on the nation through state laws. Leading the effort was the American Legislative Exchange Council. The 2010 elections, unfortunately, had proved to be a perfect storm for this organization and its conservative partners.  more ....

While we are not surprised to see Koch Industries, the National Rifle Association, Phillip Morris, RJ Reynolds and Big PhRMA at the table, we were surprised to see Coca-Cola on the "Private Enterprise Board" a.k.a. the corporate governing board of ALEC. We were surprised to see Coke linking itself to an extreme right-wing agenda that works to disenfranchise voters, bash immigrants, privatize Medicare and Social Security and dismantle public education for the benefit of private for-profit schools.

Wisconsin GOP Uses Parliamentary Trick to Protect Secret Corporate Spending

Submitted by Brendan Fischer on September 14, 2011 - 1:52pm

Wisconsin Republicans, without going on-the-record with a vote, have used a legislative trick to block an election board rule that would have shed light on the corporate interests laundering election spending through front groups. The move echoes the American Legislative Exchange Council agenda and will likely ensure a flood of secret ads and robo-calls for Wisconsin's 2012 elections.

Attack on Election Transparency Rule

In late June, the Republican-controlled Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) passed a party-line "objection" to state election board rules that would have expanded the scope of political campaign advertisements that require the group running an ad, like Americans for Prosperity or Club for Growth, to disclose the identities of the corporations, CEOs, or foundations funding it. JCRAR then voted on party lines to introduce Assembly Bill 196 to not only overturn the election board's ability to make these types of rules, but to remove its authority to regulate ANY corporate "independent expenditure" election spending.

Four of the six Republicans on the JCRAR (Leah Vukmir, Daniel LeMahieu, Joe Leibham, and Glenn Grothman) are affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council, and their opposition to election transparency tracks an ALEC resolution. (tip from Badger Democracy)

http://www.prwatch.org/node/11026

Undoing Efforts to Address Climate Change

After federal climate change legislation failed in 2010, over 30 states joined regional climate agreements in the Midwest, Northeast, and West to coordinate efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, develop clean energy sources, and bring predictability to state rules and regulations. By most measures, this state-led, decentralized, cooperative effort proves the vitality of federalism, a concept ALEC allegedly supports. However, these regional initiatives might also affect the profits of ALEC funders like Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil, and ALEC drafted the "State Withdrawal from Regional Climate Initiatives" (pdf) to thwart these state-led efforts. The ALEC resolution includes talking points urging state governors to withdraw from regional climate initiatives, and has shown up in states like Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington, in some cases with the ALEC language duplicated verbatim.

Big CMD cache

High-Profile

ALEC Award-Winners

(In addition to these politicians, ALEC has given awards to such corporate CEOs as Richard DeVos and Jay VanAndel of Amway (both in 1993) and Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch of Koch Industries (both in 1994).)

Featured Speakers

(Economist Milton Friedman has also been a featured speaker. At ALEC's 33rd Annual Meeting in 2006, he spoke about issues including the economy, school choice, education reform, tax reform.[4])

Alumni

ALEC Alumni in Congress

Corporate Board

As of 2011:[1]

For-Profit Corporations

see Cronin fight in WI

http://scholarcitizen.williamcronon.net/2011/03/15/alec/

http://alecwatch.org/11223344.pdf

Hightower:

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL.

"With nearly 2,000 members" explains a brochure of this secretive organization, "ALEC is the nation's largest nonpartisan, individual membership association of state legislators." Maybe your very own local lawmaker is one of them--but you won't get that information from ALEC, which hides its list of legislators from public view.

Nonpartisan? Its website lists 22 legislators from around the country who serve as board members and officers of this tax-exempt legislative service organization. All are Republican. In fact, only token numbers of Democrats are allowed in the club, and all inductees are individually vetted to make sure they will adhere to ALEC's corporate dogma.

Which brings us to the organization's pose as an association of legislators. The "exchange" in ALEC's name is not between lawmakers, but between lawmakers and such behind-the-scenes powers as Altria, AT&T, Bayer, Coca-Cola, ExxonMobil, GlaxoSmithKline, Intuit, Johnson & Johnson, Koch Industries, Kraft Foods, Peabody Energy, Pfizer, Reynolds American, State Farm Insurance, UPS, and Walmart. These giants form ALEC's "private enterprise board," and they are among the self-interested corporations that put up its money and shape its agenda.

State reps pay only a token $50 a year to be members of ALEC, while at least 82 percent of the $6 million yearly budget comes from corporations (ALEC demurely refuses to name its donors, much less report how much each gives, nor will it disclose how it spends the money).

What do corporations get for their tax-deductible donations? A greased skid for sliding their wish list into the laws of multiple states. ALEC is something of a speed dating service. It holds three national conferences a year, plus convening issue-specific policy sessions in 20 to 30 state capitols annually. These are cozy sessions that conveniently gather groups of legislators to meet in private with corporate executives. The two groups schmooze together and develop bills to help extend corporate power over workers, consumers, environmentalists, and others--then the lawmakers go back home to pass the corporations' bills.

ALEC is the ultimate back room for corporate-legislative collusion. Its promotional brochure describes it as a dynamic partnership "that will define the American political landscape of the 21st century."

That's no empty threat. ALEC's tête-à-têtes result in about 1,000 bills being introduced across America every legislative session, and an ALEC official proudly adds, "We usually pass about 200 bills a year." And what pieces of work they are! For example:

Cronon:

Partners in Wisconsin and Other States: SPN, MacIver Institute, WPRI

An important partner of ALEC’s, by the way, is the State Policy Network (SPN), which helps coordinate the activities of a wide variety of conservative think tanks operating at the state level throughout the country. See its home page at

http://www.spn.org/

Many of the publications of these think tanks are accessible and downloadable from links on the SPN website, which are well worth taking the time to peruse and read. A good starting place is:

http://www.spn.org/members/

Two important SPN members in Wisconsin are the MacIver Institute for Public Policy:

http://maciverinstitute.com/

and the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI):

http://www.wpri.org

If you want to be a well-informed Wisconsin citizen and don’t know about their work, you’ll probably want to start visiting these sites more regularly. You’ll gain a much better understanding of the underlying ideas that inform recent Republican legislation by doing so.

Understanding What These Groups Do

As I said earlier, it’s not easy to find exact details about the model legislation that ALEC has sought to introduce all over the country in Republican-dominated statehouses. But you’ll get suggestive glimpses of it from the occasional reporting that has been done about ALEC over the past decade. Almost all of this emanates from the left wing of the political spectrum, so needs to be read with that bias always in mind.

Interestingly, one of the most critical accounts of ALEC’s activities was issued by Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council in a 2002 report entitled Corporate America’s Trojan Horse in the States. Although NRDC and Defenders may seem like odd organizations to issue such a report, some of ALEC’s most concentrated efforts have been directed at rolling back environmental protections, so their authorship of the report isn’t so surprising. The report and its associated press release are here:

http://alecwatch.org/11223344.pdf

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/020228.asp

There’s also an old, very stale website associated with this effort at

http://alecwatch.org/

A more recent analysis of ALEC’s activities was put together by the Progressive States Network in February 2006 under the title Governing the Nation from the Statehouses, available here:

http://www.progressivestates.org/content/57/governing-the-nation-from-the-statehouses

There’s an In These Times story summarizing the report at

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2509/

More recent stories can be found at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/alec-states-unions_b_832428.htmlview=print

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6084/corporate_con_game (about the Arizona immigration law)

and there’s very interesting coverage of ALEC’s efforts to disenfranchise student voters at

http://campusprogress.org/articles/conservative_corporate_advocacy_group_alec_behind_voter_disenfranchise/

and

http://www.progressivestates.org/node/26400

For just one example of how below-the-radar the activities of ALEC typically are, look for where the name of the organization appears in this recent story from the New York Times about current efforts in state legislatures to roll back the bargaining rights of public employee unions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/business/04labor.html

Hint: ALEC is way below the fold!

nrdc and --- report

This report examines the history, finances,

and activities of the American Legislative

Exchange Council, a 501(c)(3) organization with

headquarters in Washington, D.C., that bills

itself as “the nation’s largest bipartisan, individual

membership association of state legislators.”

As this report shows, however, ALEC is little

more than a tax-exempt screen for major U.S.

corporations and trade associations that use it to

influence legislative activities at the state level.

ALEC allows these corporations to do what they

couldn’t attempt directly or openly without risking

public criticism. They funnel cash through

ALEC to curry favor with state lawmakers

through junkets and other largesse in the hopes

of enacting special-interest legislation — all the

while keeping safely outside the public eye.

The organization’s national meetings appear

to be mostly window dressing for policy decisions

that have already been made, either within

the organization’s offices in Washington, D.C.,

or in closed consultations with the corporations

and other like- minded interests that finance virtually

all its activities. Indeed, the state legislators

who attend ALEC meetings are joined by the

platoons of lobbyists, corporate executives, and

representatives of assorted trade and professional

associations who pay to have the lawmakers as

their captive audience.

The tie that binds is money, and ALEC’s

major underwriters have included the now-disgraced

Enron Corporation, as well as the

American Nuclear Energy Council, the

American Petroleum Institute, Amoco, Chevron,

Coors Brewing Company, Shell, Texaco,

Chlorine Chemistry Council, Union Pacific

Railroad, Pharmaceutical Research &

Manufacturers of America, Waste Management,

Philip Morris Management Corporation, R.J.

Reynolds Tobacco and many other of the

nation’s major corporations and trade associations.

Founded in 1973 by conservative activist

Paul Weyrich, ALEC occupies prime office space

in downtown Washington, operates on an annual

budget of roughly $6 million, and employs a

full-time staff of around thirty. In its early years,

reflecting Weyrich’s vision, ALEC focused

Founded in 1973 by conservative activist

Paul Weyrich, ALEC occupies prime office space

in downtown Washington, operates on an annual

budget of roughly $6 million, and employs a

full-time staff of around thirty. In its early years,

reflecting Weyrich’s vision, ALEC focused

C H A P T E R O N E

Overview

A L E C R E P O R T

almost exclusively on the hot-button social issues

on the right-wing’s political agenda – anti-abortion,

anti-feminist, anti-voting rights for the

District of Columbia. In the late 1980s, however,

ALEC abandoned most of these issues in

favor of those that had the benefit of attracting

substantial corporate donations.

ALEC pursues its mission chiefly by generating

and promoting hundreds of “model” bills,

resolutions, and policy statements every year.

The state lawmakers said to be “members” of

ALEC seem to have little or no real control over

the inner workings of the organization. ALEC’s

“private-sector members” — three hundred corporate

sponsors each paying tens of thousands of

dollars a year — appear to run the show, from

financing the organization and selecting the

issues it pushes, to exercising veto power over its

policy positions.

These corporate...

“Pay-To-Play” Payoffs

Environmental Protection. Virtually all the

“model” bills bear positive-sounding names but,

over the past decade, ALEC-sponsored legislation

has tried to weaken many of our nation’s environmental

protections.

ALEC’s inventory of “model” legislation

includes such measures as “The Environmental

Good Samaritan Act,” the “Environmental

Literacy Improvement Act,” the “Groundwater

Protection Act,” and “The Private Property

Protection Act.” All these measures have emanated

from ALEC’s Task Force on Energy,

Environment, Natural Resources, and

Agriculture, which clearly knows, as the saying

goes, on which side its bread is buttered. “The

best chance we have to improve the environment,”

the task force’s staff director said on

Earth Day 1998, “is to break the stranglehold of

9

A L E C R E P O R T

10

the command-and-control policies promoted by

the EPA and the extremist environmental

lobby.”3

ALEC’s “model” bills and packets of background

information on key issues frequently

shape the discussion of proposed state remedies

to environmental problems. Moreover, many of

the bills appear to protect major polluters and

other business interests from environmental regulation.

The ALEC task force that deals with environmental

issues pushes more than two dozen

pieces of “model” legislation – everything from

resolutions on biotechnology and environmental

justice to “fill-in-the-state” bills like the

“Common Sense Scientific and Technical

Evidence Act” and the “Waste Tire Abatement

Act.” Typically, the task force’s private-sector

members write the legislation that’s up for discussion.

The legislative and corporate members,

sitting elbow-to-elbow around a table, vote separately

on each measure; a majority on both sides

is needed to approve “model” legislation.

Consequently, the state legislators cannot move

anything out of a task force without the consent

and formal concurrence of most of their privatesector

counterparts. (ALEC’s board of directors

can veto a task force’s decision but rarely does.)

ALEC’s “Economic Impact Statement Act” is

a telling example of its approach to environment-

related legislation. Little wonder that most

of the big corporations behind ALEC would love

to see this one on the books: It would require

state agencies to produce detailed “economic

impact statements” for all existing and proposed

environmental regulations. ALEC says the draft

legislation has been designed “to provide environmental

protection while permitting the creation

of wealth through requiring an economic

analysis of new environmental regulations.”

In truth, the proposed legislation seems little

more than a perversion of the 1969 National

Environmental Policy Act, which mandates environmental

impact statements for significant federal

government actions. Environmental activists

have long used the landmark federal law to promote

the public interest by halting or delaying

potentially destructive projects; now, through

ALEC’s “model” legislation, corporate special

interests aim to turn the tables at the state level.

Although ALEC’s self-described mission is to

limit government, here’s a case where it conveniently

puts aside its principles: Agencies or

other arms of state governments, after all, would

have to generate all those economic impact statements

required under its “model” legislation.

The New Mexico Fish and Game Department

has estimated, for example, that it would need

twenty additional employees, at a cost of $1.5

million a year, to get the job done.

“The Environmental Good Samaritan Act” is

another piece of apple-pie legislation, at least

judging from its title. Borrowed from

Pennsylvania’s “Growing Greener” legislative

package, which was adopted at the end of 1999,

it aims to give developers immunity from prosecution

under environmental laws while they are

cleaning up land they polluted.

Then there’s ALEC’s “Environmental Audit

Privilege and Qualified Disclosure Act,” which

opponents in some states have branded the

“Polluter Protection Act.” This proposed law

  1. Washington Times, April 23, 1998, “Earth Day activists fume over corporate ‘greenwashing’

puts the public’s right to know about environmental,

workplace, and industrial hazards far

behind protecting the secrecy of polluters and

other corporate wrongdoers. State penalties are

waived for polluters that conduct “self-audits”

and report their own violations of environmental

laws, and audit reports are sealed as privileged

information. ALEC’s “model” legislation was

reportedly drafted by lawyers for Coors Brewing

Company. In the early 1990s, the company battled

the Colorado Public Health and

Environment Department over smog-forming

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by

its brewery in Golden, Colorado. Although

Coors and the state eventually settled on

$237,000 in penalties, with Coors agreeing to

reduce the brewery’s VOC emissions by 200,000

tons a year, the company apparently decided to

strike back, through ALEC’s “model” bill. As a

high-ranking EPA enforcement official put it:

“This is coming from big companies that have

been targets of enforcement action.”4

And consider this final case in point: ALEC’s

“Private Property Protection Act,” a bill that, if

successful, ultimately could lead to the effective

dismantling of such broadly popular environmental-

protection laws as the 1972 Clean Water

Act, the 1973 Endangered Species Act, and the

1990 Clean Air Act. This piece of “model” legislation

grew out of an ALEC resolution that

expressed the organization’s opposition to “any

governmental attempt at whatever level and by

whatever means to confiscate, reduce the value

of, or restrict the uses of private property unless

to abate a public nuisance affecting the public

health and safety.”

When most people think of the Fifth

Amendment, they think of the clause that confers

on individuals the right not to incriminate

themselves. But the Fifth Amendment also holds

that “No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty,

or property without due process of law, nor

shall private property be taken for public use

without just compensation.” Accordingly, for

example, when government condemns land for a

highway or commercial airport, it must pay the

owner fair market value for his or her lost property.

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently

upheld a carefully limited interpretation of this

amendment, designed to protect the broad public

interest.

Over the past decade, however, real-estate

developers and others pushed a radical reinterpretation

of the Fifth Amendment as part of a

wide- ranging drive to eviscerate the land-use

aspects of a generation of environmental- protection

laws. They argue that any government

action—a new zoning law or wetlands regulation,

for example, or the adoption of a wildlife

habitat preservation plan—may constitute a

“taking” for which a property owner must be

compensated.

In California, State Senator Raymond

Haynes has sponsored a veritable slew of ALECwritten

“Private Property Bills” over the years.

Haynes, who recently completed a term as

ALEC’s national chairman, has been amply

rewarded for his dedication to the organization.

He’s been on the receiving end of numerous

ALEC-paid trips, including a ten-day trip to

Australia in 1998 that included three days on the

shores of the Great Barrier Reef, where, Haynes

11

  1. Governing magazine, June 1997, “Can polluters police themselves?”

later admitted, little work was conducted. The

purpose of the trip, Haynes said, was to set up

an Australian version of ALEC.

While on the trip, Haynes found himself staying

in a luxury hotel that was so expensive he

called ALEC’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.,

to make sure that it was picking up the tab, which

came to $1,600 for six nights. “It was not a place

I would have picked, but they picked it,” Haynes

later told a reporter for The Orange County

R e g i s t e r . “So I didn’t squawk all that much.”

Far from squawking, in fact, many of

ALEC’s “legislator members” appear to be ready,

willing, and able to carry water, whenever needed,

for the organization’s corporate underwriters.

Electricity Restructuring. In the mid-1990s,

many states restructured their electric power

industries with broad support from the publicinterest

community. But the efforts of Enron

Corporation to champion its vision of restructuring

is a telling example of the influence of major

corporations over ALEC.

In pushing for deregulation, ALEC was

advancing the cause of Enron and another of its

largest corporate benefactors, Koch Industries,

Inc. In June 1996, ALEC’s board of directors

approved “model” legislation calling for deregulation

of the $220 billion industry, and in

November 1996 an ALEC task force, meeting in

Salt Lake City, approved the “model” legislation,

which recommended that states open their electric-

utility markets to competition by the year

2000.

The corporate members of the task force that

took up the issue, however, were sharply divided.

The side that won – a coalition of private energy

companies, including Enron and Koch

Industries, and large industrial users of electricity

– had purchased most of the “private-sector”

seats on the task force. The side that lost – representatives

of investor-owned utilities and their

trade association, the Edison Electric Institute –

walked out of the session and later renounced

their ALEC memberships.

“It’s a situation where you buy a seat at the

table and then you have the opportunity to vote

and drive policy,” EEI’s Tim Kichline later told

a reporter. “We don’t have enough votes. If they

are going to do something we like, they don’t

need our votes, and if they are going to do something

we do not like, we can’t stop them.”5

The following August, Kenneth Lay, Enron’s

chairman and chief executive officer, was a

keynoter at ALEC’s annual convention in New

Orleans. In a speech titled “Restructuring

Competition . . . Not Accommodation!” — a

pitched battle cry for deregulation of the nation’s

energy industry — Lay urged the state legislators

to reject the “calculated machinations of cozy

monopolists” and to open retail electricity markets

“with both haste and completeness.”

State legislators who attended could connect

the dots, concluding that Lay’s appearance had

something to do with the $20,000 that Enron

had chipped in to finance the meeting. “I didn’t

think it was a coincidence,” James Ports, a lawmaker

from Maryland, told a reporter.6

T o b a c c o . As noted earlier, the tobacco industry

has been one of ALEC’s chief underwriters.

For many years the nation’s major tobacco companies

gave ALEC more than $200,000 a year7,

sponsored golf and tennis events at ALEC meet-

  1. Austin American-Statesman, Nov. 2, 1997, “Lawmakers’ corporate classmates: A lesson in access”...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

Funding

In 2002 ALEC's budget was, according to its annual report, $5,025,388. According to Media Transparency ALEC has received 53 grants over the period 1985-2002 totally $2.836 million from a handful of conservative foundations. [13]

The foundations listed include:

Defenders of Wildife and NRDC reported that companies "like Enron, Amoco, Chevron, Shell, Texaco, Coors Brewing, Koch Industries, Nationwide Insurance, Pfizer, National Energy Group, Philip Morris, and R. J. Reynolds pay for essentially all of ALEC's expenses". Corporate membership fees are reported to range between $5,000 and $50,000 with additional fees of $1,500 to $5,000 a year to participate in ALEC's various task forces.

In 2002 , Exxon donated $193,200 to ALEC. [14] The following year this had jumped to $290,000, including $140,000 specifically earmarked for "global climate change" and a further $50,000 for "energy and climate change". [15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

ALEC has approximately three hundred private sector members including corporations, state and national think tanks, and trade associations. Some corporations and trade groups that have supported ALEC include: American Nuclear Energy Council, American Petroleum Institute, Coors Brewing Company, Texaco, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, VISA, Exxon Mobil, the National Rifle Association, Amway, and others. Groups critical of ALEC claim that the organization is controlled by the entities that fund it, subsequently promoting donors' agendas and goals, along with attempting to advance legislation which favors their interests.[13]^(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council#cite_note-12) NPR reported that the Corrections Corporation of America was present at meetings when legislators were introduced to model immigration laws such as that recently passed in Arizona [14]^(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council#cite_note-13).

http://tucsoncitizen.com/cell-out-arizona/2010/10/29/arizonas-sb1070-is-all-about-business-not-legality/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741

...

NPR spent the past several months analyzing hundreds of pages of campaign finance reports, lobbying documents and corporate records. What they show is a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by an industry that stands to benefit from it: the private prison industry.

The law could send hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to prison in a way never done before. And it could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to private prison companies responsible for housing them.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state's immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shape the law.

Joshua Lott/Getty Images

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state's immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shape the law.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce says the bill was his idea. He says it's not about prisons. It's about what's best for the country.

"Enough is enough," Pearce said in his office, sitting under a banner reading "Let Freedom Reign." "People need to focus on the cost of not enforcing our laws and securing our border. It is the Trojan horse destroying our country and a republic cannot survive as a lawless nation."

But instead of taking his idea to the Arizona statehouse floor, Pearce first took it to a hotel conference room.

It was last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. Inside, there was a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Insiders call it ALEC.

It's a membership organization of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations, such as the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association. Another member is the billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America — the largest private prison company in the country.

...

As soon as Pearce's bill hit the Arizona statehouse floor in January, there were signs of ALEC's influence. Thirty-six co-sponsors jumped on, a number almost unheard of in the capitol.  According to records obtained by NPR, two-thirds of them either went to that December meeting or are ALEC members.

That same week, the Corrections Corporation of America hired a powerful new lobbyist to work the capitol.

The prison company declined requests for an interview. In a statement, a spokesman said the Corrections Corporation of America, "unequivocally has not at any time lobbied — nor have we had any outside consultants lobby – on immigration law."

At the state Capitol, campaign donations started to appear.

Thirty of the 36 co-sponsors received donations over the next six months, from prison lobbyists or prison companies — Corrections Corporation of America, Management and Training Corporation and The Geo Group.

By April, the bill was on Gov. Jan Brewer's desk.

Brewer has her own connections to private prison companies. State lobbying records show two of her top advisers — her spokesman Paul Senseman and her campaign manager Chuck Coughlin — are former lobbyists for private prison companies. Brewer signed the bill — with the name of the legislation Pearce, the Corrections Corporation of America and the others in the Hyatt conference room came up with — in four days.

Brewer and her spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

In May, The Geo Group had a conference call with investors. When asked about the bill, company executives made light of it, asking, "Did they have some legislation on immigration?"

After company officials laughed, the company's president, Wayne Calabrese, cut in.

"This is Wayne," he said. "I can only believe the opportunities at the federal level are going to continue apace as a result of what's happening. Those people coming across the border and getting caught are going to have to be detained and that for me, at least I think, there's going to be enhanced opportunities for what we do."

FUNDERS

"Chairman"

Air Transport Association of America

American Plastics Council

Amoco Corporation

Archer Daniels Midland

Bayer Corporation

Chlorine Chemistry Council

E&M Charities

Glaxco Wellcome Inc.

GTE Corporation

Illinois Energy Association

Illinois Retail Merchants Association

Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Inc.

Logix Solutions, Inc.

Motorola, Inc.

National Association of Bail Insurance Companies

Pfizer Inc.

Philip Morris Corporation

Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America

R.J. Reynolds Tobacoo Company

State Farm Insurance Companies

United Airlines

Washington Times

complete list http://www.alecwatch.org/alecgivers.html

8/11

Union-Busting

In early 2011, a wave of anti-union provisions provoked unprecedented protests, after Wisconsin Governor and ALEC alumni Scott Walker introduced a radical set of anti-worker provisions to cripple public employee unions. After a month of massive protests, William Cronon, a history professor from the University of Wisconsin penned an op-ed in the New York Times questioning whether ALEC was behind Governor Walker's union-busting effort. Two days later, the state Republican Party filed an Open Records request against him widely perceived to be retaliation against questioning the role of ALEC. Wisconsin's new Republican governor and Republican-controlled legislature were not alone in pushing anti-union legislation in 2011 -- Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire, Florida and 19 other states introduced laws limiting the collective bargaining rights of employees -- and the simultaneous effort seemed more than coincidence. Indeed, ALEC has long had its sights set on busting unions, which strengthen the bargaining power of employees in negotiations with public and corporate employers, and which serve as a political counterweight to corporate influence in elections and policymaking.

Each state pushed its own ALEC-inspired anti-union legislation, but there were many commonalities. Some of the most common ALEC bills reflected in these efforts were the "Public Employer Payroll Deduction Act" prohibiting automatic payroll deductions for union dues, the "Public Employee Freedom Act" allowing employees to be free riders and opt-out of paying union dues, and various iterations of ALEC's "Right to Work" and "Paycheck Protection" legislation. ALEC ideological guru Milton Friedman, who spoke at several ALEC meetings since 1978, famously said "Only a crisis -- actual or perceived -- produces real changes. When the crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around." Anti-union legislation is just such an idea that has been "lying around" awaiting the budget crisis, which was caused by unregulated Wall Street gambling and which is being irrationally blamed on union pay and pensions.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/10919

Cross-posted from ThinkProgress Green.

The fight against global warming pollution requires the investment of everyone, including the world's multinational corporate giants. Many companies have taken official stances on climate pollution, pledging to reduce their greenhouse footprint in order to reduce the threat of a destabilized climate.

However, a number of these same companies are sponsoring toxic, far-right denial of climate science. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) pushes an extremist denier agenda throughout the United States, funded in secret by corporations. ThinkProgress has acquired a list of the sponsors of ALEC's 2011 annual meeting, held last week in New Orleans.

ALEC denies that global warming is causing glaciers to retreat or sea level to rise. Not only does ALEC deny the threat of climate change, they even argue [PDF] that "substantial global warming is likely to be of benefit to the United States."

At the annual meeting, ALEC hosted a session touting the "benefits of carbon dioxide." ALEC also supports the repeal of Section 526 [PDF], which prohibits federal purchases of high-carbon fuels.

The radical anti-science agenda of ALEC stands in direct contravention to the official public policies of its funders, which include top health-care companies like Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson, and top energy companies like Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Entergy:

Even more of ALEC's sponsors are members of the Carbon Disclosure Project, including Spectra Energy, Kraft, BNSF, CN, and QEP Resources.

ALEC's climate denial is, however, publicly shared by major funder Koch Industries.

http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-08-08-companies-claim-concern-for-climate-but-sponsor-alec

    Corporate America's Trojan Horse in the States, The Untold Story Behind the American Legislative Exchange Council [40], Defenders of Wildlife and Natural Resources Defense Council, ALECWatch, Winter, February, 2002

        The American Legislative Exchange Council was originally the brainchild of conservative activist and culture warrior Paul Weyrich, a onetime journalist who later coined the term “Moral Majority” for evangelist Jerry Falwell. Weyrich’s original vision was to bring together state legislators who were energized by such social issues as the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion rights and concerned about what they saw as an overbearing, over-regulating, and over-taxing government.

        As Weyrich saw it, liberals had spent decades building up their own infrastructure of foundations, think tanks, and academicians; conservatives had not. And so he simply borrowed their techniques...  

Corporate America's Trojan Horse in the States, The Untold Story Behind the American Legislative Exchange Council [40], Defenders of Wildlife and Natural Resources Defense Council, ALECWatch, Winter, February, 2002

The American Legislative Exchange Council was originally the brainchild of conservative activist and culture warrior Paul Weyrich, a onetime journalist who later coined the term “Moral Majority” for evangelist Jerry Falwell. Weyrich’s original vision was to bring together state legislators who were energized by such social issues as the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion rights and concerned about what they saw as an overbearing, over-regulating, and over-taxing government. 

As Weyrich saw it, liberals had spent decades building up their own infrastructure of foundations, think tanks, and academicians; conservatives had not. And so he simply borrowed their techniques.

wiki

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a politically conservative[citation needed] 501(c) (3) non-profit Policy Organization, consisting of both state legislators and members of the private sector. ALEC's mission statement describes the organization's purpose as the advancement of free-market principles, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty. Among other activities, the group provides a venue for private individuals and corporations to assist politicians in developing what it considers model laws serving the economic and political aims of its members. ALEC also serves as a networking tool among state legislators, allowing them to research the handling and best practices of policy in other states.

ALEC currently has more than 2,000 legislative members representing all 50 states, as well as more than 85 members of Congress and 14 sitting or former Governors who are considered alumni. ALEC also claims approximately 300 corporate, foundation, and other private-sector members. A list of ALEC leaders in the states includes 73 Republican lawmakers and 7 Democrats.

The chairmanship of ALEC is a rotating position, with a new legislator appointed to the position each year. The current chair of ALEC is Noble Ellington of the Louisiana House of Representatives.[1] Day-to-day operations are run from ALEC's Washington, D.C. office by an Executive Director and a staff of around 30.[2]

Contents [hide]

[edit] History

Part of a series on

[:{Conservatism

in the United States}:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States "Conservatism in the United States")

Schools[show]
Principles[show]
History[show]
People[show]
Parties[show]
Variants[show]
See also[show]
Conservatism Portl

ALEC was founded in September 1973, when a small group of conservative state legislators and policy advocates met in Chicago with the stated purpose of founding "A nonpartisan membership association for conservative state lawmakers who shared a common belief in limited government, free markets, federalism, and individual liberty."[3]

At that meeting, state legislators, including then Illinois State Representative Henry Hyde, activist Paul Weyrich, and Lou Barnett, a veteran of then Gov. Ronald Reagan's 1968 presidential campaign, together with a handful of others, launched the American Legislative Exchange Council. Among those who were involved with ALEC in its formative years were: Bob Kasten and Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin; John Engler of Michigan; Terry Branstad of Iowa, and John Kasich of Ohio, all of whom moved on to become Republican governors or Members of Congress. Congressional members who were active during this same period included Republican Senators James Buckley of New York and Jesse Helms of North Carolina, as well as Republican Congressmen Phil Crane of Illinois and Jack Kemp of New York.[3]

[edit] ALEC policy-making process

ALEC sponsors three key meetings a year. The largest is the Annual Meeting, where more than 2,000 state legislators, private sector members, government representatives, and public policy experts come together to shape the organization's policies.[4]

ALEC model bills are introduced and voted on separately at each of the three national meetings. The public sector board must approve a bill for it to become an offered piece model legislation.

There are currently eight task forces:

ALEC's public sector Board of Directors has thirty days to review, and approve or reject, each bill before it becomes official ALEC policy. Each year approximately 800 bills based in whole or in part on ALEC model legislation are introduced in the states. Annually, about 20% of these introduced bills become law.[5]

Since 1999, ALEC members have sought to reform the civil justice system.[6][7]

[edit] Publications

[edit] Controversies

This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (September 2011)

After the NPR report was published, ALEC released a statement responding to some of the accusations in the NPR story.[11]

[edit] William Cronon

In March 2011, in the midst of protests surrounding Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's collective bargaining restrictions, William Cronon, a historian who teaches at the University of Wisconsin devoted the first post on his newly-established "Scholar as Citizen" blog to the largely behind-the-scenes role of the little-covered ALEC in working for the passage of ideologically conservative legislation at the state level, pointing out that neither the model legislation which ALEC produces, nor the list of elected officials who are members of ALEC are publicly available.[12][13] This resulted in the issuing of a FOIA request by the Wisconsin Republican Party to obtain all email from Cronon's university account relating to Republican topics; Paul Krugman and the American Historical Association defended Cronon's right to conduct public political research, and decried the apparent attempt at intimidation.[13][14]

[edit] April 2011 Protests

On April 29, 2011, hundreds gathered in Cincinnati to protest ALEC for the first time outside the group's Spring Task Force Meeting, and to vocalize demands for legislation serving the public interest. Teach-ins, a rally, street theatre, and a march led to a second protest in New Orleans at ALEC's Annual Meeting, held on August 3–6, 2011.[15]

[edit] Whistleblower and ALEC Exposed

On Jul 13, 2011, the Center for Media and Democracy[16] and the Nation published a file leak which made available more than 800 pieces of ALEC's model legislation, brought to them by an organizer of the Cincinnati ALEC protest. The files were leaked to the organizer, Aliya Rahman, via a two-point connection to a source inside ALEC.[17]

For ALEC Exposed, the Center for Media and Democracy made a new website[18] to house over 800 ALEC "model" bills which were previously unavailable to the public. It developed dozens of tools to enable citizens to track ALEC politicians,[19] ALEC corporations[20] and ALEC bills moving in their states.[21]

Simultaneously, The Nation devoted a special edition[22] of its magazine to breaking the story on ALEC Exposed, featuring expert analysis by John Nichols,[23] Joel Rogers, Laura Dresser,[24] Wendell Potter,[25] Lisa Graves,[26] Julie Underwood,[27] Mike Elk, and Bob Sloan.[28]

On July 14, 2011, the LA Times announced that government watchdog Common Cause would issue a challenge to ALEC's nonprofit status, on the grounds that ALEC "spends most of its resources lobbying, in violation of the rules governing nonprofit organizations."[29]

On July 21, 2011, Terry Gross interviewed Louisiana Representative Noble Ellington, the current national chairman of ALEC, about the group's corporate members' role in drafting legislation. Gross, commenting on the fact that there is no way for non-members to know if pieces of legislation introduced in statehouses are based on ALEC models, asked if Ellington thought the process was transparent. Ellington responded saying, "[w]hile we may be discussing it, it may not be transparent, but before it's passed, legislators have to say, 'We approve this model legislation.' Not the corporations. They don't have a vote. Legislators say [what is introduced]. ... And then the legislators can introduce that legislation in [their] state. It goes through a committee, the public has input, they have an opportunity to talk to their legislators about the legislation — so I don't see how you can get more transparent than that." When asked if the public had a voice in the process Ellington responded that the "taxpaying public is represented there at the table because I'm there."[30]

[edit] References

  1. ^ Board of Directors. American Legislative Exchange Council.
  2. ^ Meet our Staff. American Legislative Exchange Council.
  3. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council#cite_ref-alec.org_2-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council#cite_ref-alec.org_2-1) c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council#cite_ref-alec.org_2-2) d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council#cite_ref-alec.org_2-3) History. American Legislative Exchange Council.
  4. ^ Annual Meeting. American Legislative Exchange Council.
  5. ^ 2009 Legislative Scorecard. American Legislative Exchange Council.
  6. ^ [1] American Legislative Exchange Council.
  7. ^ "Judge's $54M missing pants case gets tossed - Jun. 25, 2007". Money.cnn.com. 2007-06-25. Retrieved 2011-03-29.
  8. ^ "Inside ALEC". American Legislative Exchange Council. 2005-04-19. Retrieved 2011-08-07.
  9. ^ [2][dead link]
  10. ^"Report Card on American Education: A State-by-State Analysis". YouTube. 2009-09-24. Retrieved 2011-03-29.
  11. ^ "Statement from ALEC on NPR Story". October 29, 2010.
  12. ^ Who's Really Behind Recent Republican Legislation in Wisconsin and Elsewhere? (Hint: It Didn't Start Here), William Cronon
  13. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council#cite_ref-Krugman_12-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council#cite_ref-Krugman_12-1) Krugman, Paul (March 27, 2011). "American Thought Police". The New York Times.
  14. ^ "AHA Today: AHA Deplores Effort to Intimidate William Cronon". American Historical Association. March 27, 2011. Retrieved 2011-08-07.
  15. ^ Sloan, Bob (May 1, 2011). "Democracy Stands Up to ALEC and the theft of America by Kochroaches in Cincy!".
  16. ^ Graves, Lisa (July 13, 2011). "About ALEC Exposed".
  17. ^ Nichols, John (July 13, 2011). "ALEC Exposed".
  18. ^ The Center for Media and Democracy. ALEC Exposed. Project website. Accessed September 23, 2011.
  19. ^ SourceWatch. ALEC Politicians. SourceWatch page. Accessed September 23, 2011.
  20. ^ SourceWatch. ALEC Corporations. SourceWatch page. Accessed September 23, 2011.
  21. ^ The Center for Media and Democracy. ALEC Exposed Community Portal. Project website. Accessed September 23, 2011.
  22. ^ The Nation Magazine. ALEC Exposed. Magazine website. Accessed September 23, 2011.
  23. ^ The Nation Magazine. ALEC Exposed: Rigging Elections. Magazine website. Accessed September 23, 2011.
  24. ^ The Nation Magazine. ALEC Exposed: Business Domination Inc.. Magazine website. Accessed September 23, 2011.
  25. ^ The Nation Magazine. ALEC Exposed: Sabotaging Healthcare. Magazine website. Accessed September 23, 2011.
  26. ^ The Nation Magazine. ALEC Exposed: The Koch Connection. Magazine website. Accessed September 23, 2011.
  27. ^ The Nation Magazine.ALEC Exposed: Starving Public Schools. Magazine website. Accessed September 23, 2011.
  28. ^ The Nation Magazine. ALEC Exposed: The Hidden History of ALEC and Prison Labor. Magazine website. Accessed September 23, 2011.
  29. ^ Hamburger, Tom; Banerjee, Neela (July 14, 2011). "State legislative bills raise conservative group's profile". Los Angeles Times.
  30. ^ "La. State Rep. Noble Ellington, National Chairman Of ALEC, Responds To Report". NPR. July 21, 2011. Retrieved 2011-08-07.

[edit] External links

Conservatism portal

exxonsecrets

1129 20th St. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202-466-3800

Fax: 202-466-3801

ALEC provides state legisators with model legislation, including a continuing program trying to discredit state level legislation aimed at providing incentives to cut global warming pollution. Funded by conservative foundations and corporate grants, ALEC is a pivotal player between state and federal right-wing think tanks.

ALEC was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, and is affiliated with the ALEC Foundation. ALEC maintains 15 task forces, including one targeting environmental issues.

ALEC has developed over 150 pieces of model legislation. Past and present membership includes 3,000 state legislators, 12 sitting governors, and 80 members of Congress. They also have at least 300 corporate members that pay annual membership fees. ALEC boasts that its Annual Meeting is "the largest gathering of conservatives held each year." Its 2003 Annual Meeting was attended by representatives of the CATO Institute, the US Sportsman's Alliance, Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. Speakers included Vice President Dick Cheney, Tom Ridge, and David Horowitz.

ALEC is firmly opposed to the Kyoto protocol. Its 2002 Annual Report summarized, "though it is still unclear whether global warming is occurring or, even if it is occurring, whether it would have a major impact on our climate, environmental activists are pushing the states and our economy towards an energy starvation diet" (p.21). Domestically it says it has to "guard against proposed back-door Kyoto Protocol" regulations that would significantly increase energy costs but yield negligible environmental benefits (p.4).

ALEC is a former member of the Cooler Heads Coalition and a current member of the State Policy Network.

KEY QUOTES

21 January, 2004

"Carbon dioxide, the inescapable by-product of burning fossil fuels, is beneficial to plant and human life alike. The effort to regulate it as a greenhouse gas is an attempt to tax energy."

Source: sons-of-kyoto legislation, ALEC press release, 1/21/04

KEY DEEDS

13 May, 1996

Supported legislation in Oklahoma that would grant "priviledged immunity" to companies that report problems to environmental agencies. Audits relating to these problems would then be kept from the public.

Source: "Environmental Audit Immunity Delayed," Daily Oklahoman, 5/14/96

21 January, 2004

Launched attack on "Son of Kyoto" legislation across the country. Press release subtitiled "States React to the Myth of Global Warming" Project includes maps of states with Greenhouse Gas Legislation, Renewable Portfolio Standards and Carbon Sequestration incentives.

Source: sons-of-kyoto legislation, ALEC press release, 1/21/04

ALEC recieved 408,000 in Koch Brothers funding from 1997-2008

Source: ALEC Koch funding

DEEDS

ALEC has representatives from Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Coca-Cola, Johnson and Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, and many other international corporations on its Board.

Source: ALEC, Corporate Board

ALEC has fought regional climate legislation in multiple states

Source: ALEC website, obstruction of climate legislation

FUNDING

ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council has received $1,474,200 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1992

$unknown Exxon Corporation

Source: ALEC literature, 1992

1992

$unknown Mobil Corporation

Source: ALEC literature, 1992

1998

$15,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

conference for freshman legislators

Source: Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions 1998 report

2000

$70,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

general support

Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001

$10,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Worldwide Giving Report

2001

$70,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Worldwide Giving Report

2002

$163,200 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

50K conference, 80K general support, 5K membership, 25K project support, 3,200 'other'

Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Worldwide Giving Report

2002

$30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

general operating support

Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Worldwide Giving Report

2003

$78,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Annual Conference

Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report

2003

$50,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Energy and Climate Change

Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report

2003

$100,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

General Operating Support

Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report

2003

$140,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Global Climate Change

Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report

2004

$55,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Annual Conference

Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2004

$62,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Energy and Climate Change

Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2004

$75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Climate Change

Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2004

$30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

General Operating Support

Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2005

$151,500 ExxonMobil Foundation

DISCREPANCY: 2005 Giving Report: $151,000 for: Energy Sustainability Project (80,000), General Operating Support (71,500). iRS 990 2005: Energy Sustainability Project (Climate Change)($80,000); Climate Change Environmental Outreach ($21,500)

Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report

2005

$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Annual Conference

Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report

2006

$15,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Annual meeting host committee sponsorship

Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report

2006

$31,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Annual meetings sponsorship

Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report

2006

$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

general support

Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report

2006

$30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

none given

Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report

2007

$31000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2007 Worldwide Giving Report

2008

$56,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2008 Worlwide Giving Report

2009

$47,500 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Source: ExxonMobil 2009 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments

2010

$64,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Source: ExxonMobil 2010 Worldwide Giving Report

PEOPLE

**Lily Pascucci**

Legislative Assistant to the Health and Human Services, and the Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Forces

Source: ALEC Website 5-06

**Andrew Schauder**

Director of Federal Affairs

Source: ALEC Website 5-06

**Nick Nichols**

Featured Speaker

Source: CDFE website 2007

**Stephen Moore**

Source: ALEC website, obstruction of climate legislation

SOURCES

ExxonMobil 2001 Worldwide Giving Report

Public Information and Policy Research

http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4388

ExxonMobil 2002 Worldwide Giving Report

Public Information and Policy Research

http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4386

ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4390

Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions 1998 report

Exxon Dimensions report 1998- Public Information and Policy Research

http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4385

ALEC literature, 1992

ALEC literature, 1992

sons-of-kyoto legislation, ALEC press release, 1/21/04

Subhead: States React to the Myth of Global Warming

"Environmental Audit Immunity Delayed," Daily Oklahoman, 5/14/96

Article by Mick Hinton

ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report

Public Information and Policy Research

http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4389

ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2004 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments Public Information and Policy Research

http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4380

ALEC Website 5-06

http://www.alec.org/about

ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report

Public Information and Policy Research

http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4387

CDFE website 2007

http://www.cdfe.org/staff.htm

ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report

Public Information and Policy Research downloaded from Exxon website

http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4381

ExxonMobil 2007 Worldwide Giving Report

http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=download&d=4586

ExxonMobil 2008 Worlwide Giving Report

ExxonMobil 2009 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments

Exxon Mobil Corporation 2009 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/gcr_contributions_pub-policy09.pdf

ALEC Koch funding

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/american-legislative-exchange/

ALEC, Corporate Board

http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Private_Enterprise_Board&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15553

ALEC website, obstruction of climate legislation

http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Regional_Climate_Initiative&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=13319

ExxonMobil 2010 Worldwide Giving Report

http://exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/gcr_contributions_pubpolicy-2010.pdf

ALEC Alumni in Congress include[1][2]:

Former ALEC Alumni in Congress include Former Assistant Minority Leader Don Nickles, Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Former Deputy Majority Whip and subject of the 2006 page scandal, Mark Foley.[3]

References

  2. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, "Senate," organization website, accessed April 18th, 2012
  3. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, "House of Representatives," organization website, accessed April 18th, 2012
  4. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, 2001 Annual Report, organizational report, 2002
This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

This is a list of groups or individuals associated in some capacity with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

award winners

2011 Award-Winners

2010 Award-Winners

2009 Award-Winners

2008 Award-Winners

2007 Award-Winners

2006 Award-Winners

2005 Award-Winners

2004 Award-Winners

2002 Award-Winners

2001 Award Winners

1999 Award-Winners

1998 Award-Winners

1996 Award-Winners

1991 Award-Winners

1990 Award Winners

1981 Award-Winners

Unknown Year

Attachments