A Minor Musing About ALEC

Cory points out that Representative Betty Olson will carry some ALEC legislation against net metering. Politico has an interesting piece about ALEC's efforts to rebrand itself. Part of that rebranding includes a nod towards transparency:

As part of what it calls a move toward more transparency, the group has decided to post online all the “model legislation” it develops so that lawmakers, the public and the press will be able to see exactly where ALEC stands.

Giving voters a chance to see whether their local representative has had an original idea or is like a high school student buying a research paper online is a step in the right direction.

On the other hand, the Politico piece contains the following analysis that seems to put the organization in the proper light:

ALEC opponent Chris Taylor, a Democratic state representative from Wisconsin, says she joined the organization to be able to attend its meetings to see firsthand what she was up against. She said she was curious where certain bills introduced in Wisconsin had originated, including one similar to Florida’s stand your ground law.

“Sure enough, some of these come from ALEC, so I wanted to see what ALEC was about, and I have to say, I was both horrified and fascinated by the system,” said Taylor, who attended the group’s meeting in August. “It’s a three-legged stool: You have these corporations, the right-wing think tanks that are in every single state, and the third leg of the stool are the lawmakers who are tasked with going out and getting these laws passed, and in exchange they are promised campaign donations.”

Its neither shocking nor nefarious that right wing folks develop a group with a plan to advance their agenda.

The zeal, however, seems more problematic. It's ALEC uber alles. The article also links to a leaked document that points to an oath for ALEC state chairs will "act with care and loyalty and put the interests of the organization first." There doesn't seem to be any mention about legislators considering the needs of their constituents.

A Minor Musing About The South Dakota Legislature And ALEC

Today's Argus had a he said/she said article about the South Dakota Legislature's executive board's decision to pay legislators' memberships in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The Democrats point out that the group is pro large corporation advocacy group funded by the Koch brothers and other conservatives. Republicans take issue with the assertion that the Koch brothers use ALEC to push their agenda and claim that the group educates legislators.

Then there's this bit of reasoning:

Sen. Ryan Maher, R-Isabel, said interactions with corporations at ALEC meetings are positive.

“Yes, there’s corporate people there, too. But you can learn from them,” Maher said. “What better opportunity than to sit down with these people and have a discussion and promote the state of South Dakota as a tax-friendly state?”

So, ALEC isn't about a right-wing agenda; the group merely allows legislators to convince ALEC's corporate members that South Dakota is a tax friendly state. Corporations should have their own bean counters to determine that fact, so the corporations shouldn't need much convincing.

If it's not about the Koch brothers and it seems unlikely South Dakota needs ALEC meetings to prove the state's low tax bona fides,  then it seems that these meetings are ways for ALEC's corporate members to convince legislators which corporations should be winners and which should losers. Given that ALEC purports to support free enterprise capitalism, attempts to have the government pick winners and losers seems either ironic or more than a little disingenuous.

What Hath ALEC Wrought?

The Los Angeles Times reports on

. . . .a relatively little-known, Washington-based nonprofit group called the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. Composed of more than 1,500 conservative state legislators and executives of some of the nation's biggest corporations, ALEC collects millions of dollars in corporate contributions to generate a steady stream of bills and resolutions for state action.

The Center for Media and Democracy reports that ALEC differs radically from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) may appear on the surface to mimic the bipartisan educational archetype of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), but ALEC's corporate governance structure, near total reliance on corporate funding, and strong ties to legislators from predominantly one political party make it distinctly different.

The LA Times reports that officials "from every state are members of ALEC, many of them top GOP officials who champion the group's causes."

In South Dakota, Kristi Noem is an ALEC alumna.  Secretary of State Jason Gant serves on the organization's Public Safety and Elections Task Force.  State Senator Deb Peters and State Representative Valentine Rausch serve as the group's state chairpersons.

Let's be clear.  ALEC is not the Illuminati or some other secret group set out to destroy the country.  That being said, I think this group is further proof that corporate power permeates America's political system in an unhealthy way.

Further, I am curious about the following:

• I haven't gone through the list of bills proposed in South Dakota and list of ALEC written bills, but it would be good to know how many South Dakota laws and regulations emanate from ALEC.
• It would also be interesting to know how many regulations have been eliminated through the organization's influence
• How many other South Dakota legislators have participated in the group's conferences?
• Also, there's no list of members of the South Dakota Legislative Research Council who may have attended ALEC conferences.  It would be interesting to know if any member of the LRC has had used the group's templates.
• In a small state, it seems that local media should be able to keep track of what informs legislation.  Why hasn't the media checked this group out?  Why do I have to read about it in the Los Angeles Times?
• Conservatives claim that the states are laboratories of democracy.  I'm curious why conservatives want states to have universal legislation but don't want the federal government to have national mandates.