Right to Work? No, RTW = Rob the Workers: John Marty

Right to Work? No, RTW = Rob the Workers

by Senator John Marty March 22, 2012
The so-called "Right to Work" (RTW) constitutional amendment pushed by Republicans is anything but a right to work. In 1961, Dr. Martin Luther King described the purpose of "Right to Work" laws as efforts "to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone.Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights." Dr. King called "Right to Work," a "false slogan" and a "fraud." King recognized that unions play a critical role; they have provided better public health and safety standards and have worked to make the economy work for everyone. In fact, on the day when Dr. King was assassinated in 1968, he was in Memphis supporting a sanitation workers' strike. To him, unions were essential to the rights and dignity of working people. Fifty years later, we are still fighting the same battle, this time with a Republican proposal to amend the Minnesota Constitution with the so-called "Right to Work." Some things haven't changed, and RTW is as fundamentally dishonest today as it was then. Anyone who is struggling to find a job would love to have a right to work. But this constitutional amendment has nothing to do with that. As in the past, this legislation is simply a proposal to allow workers who benefit from collective bargaining, arbitration, and other benefits to refuse to pay for the services they receive from the union. If this were accurately portrayed, the public would overwhelmingly reject such a scheme. That's why they use deceptive language. Their ballot question would ask voters whether to amend the constitution to guarantee people the "freedom to decide to join or not join a labor union, and to pay or not pay dues to a labor union." Workers already have that choice. Under federal and state law, if employees vote to organize a union, individual workers cannot be required to join or pay dues; they can only be required to pay for the representation provided by the union. RTW, by removing the requirement that workers pay for those services, means few unions could survive. This RTW amendment is being pushed for the very reasons that Dr. King identified: to weaken unions and bring down wages and benefits. And the impact is dramatic; the average family income in RTW states is almost $10,000/year lower than in Minnesota. Our economy is already stacked against workers. Many cannot find work, and many of those who are working do not earn enough. More than three in ten Minnesotans are struggling to meet basic needs. Some workers cannot afford housing and go from their jobs to a homeless shelter at night. Passing the RTW proposal would make the situation much worse. Just as importantly, lives of workers are at greater risk under RTW. Unions have long led the fight for worker safety laws and enforcement. During the 2011 legislative session, I remember a hearing where several firefighters sat in full protective gear -- one even in a hazmat suit -- in an already overheated capitol hearing room, to persuade lawmakers to provide sufficient training for firefighters. Unions have also been instrumental in negotiating with employers to provide safety equipment at construction sites; they fight for adequate staffing levels for nurses in hospitals and for protective gear for police and firefighters. This push for worker safety makes a huge difference. Workers in states with RTW laws are over 50% more likely to die in workplace incidents than workers in non-RTW states like Minnesota. Fortunately, the RTW proposal is struggling in the legislature. The Senate Republicans pulled the bill out of the committee it was assigned to, apparently because they didn't have enough votes to pass it there. In the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, one Republican spoke in favor of the proposal but voted against it, and another spoke against the proposal, then voted for it. They are struggling; we can defeat this. Hundreds of workers packed the hallways of the capitol outside of the hearing room to express strong opposition to a bill that would take away their rights. They understand that the proposal has nothing to do with any right to work. To them, RTW means "rob the workers". It's time to move beyond this fraudulent legislation. Let's talk about a trueright to work: Everyone who wants to work should have a right to a job - a job that pays a living wage. There are so many people eager to work, and so many tasks that need doing in our society. Yet our society has failed to connect the workers with the work that needs to be done. We could start by taking unemployed construction workers and hiring them to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure - making schools and all public buildings energy efficient, addressing the enormous backlog of deferred maintenance of public housing and buildings at our colleges and universities. We could hire teachers to expand early childhood programs, which provide great savings over the long run, and employ young adults to intervene with at-risk teens. It is time to stop attacking workers and start attacking unemployment. Defeating RTW would be a great start.

ALEC and the NRA - Long-time Buds

ALEC and the NRA - Long-time Buds 


http://becauseican-2old2care.blogspot.com/2012/03/alec-and-nra-long-term-buds.html 


A lot of articles out there on the NRA and ALEC lately.

A lot of articles out there on the NRA and ALEC lately.

Lot of articles and authors implying the long-term relationship between the NRA and ALEC.

But not many articles detailing the length of the relationship between the NRA and ALEC – so I though I would help them out a bit.

The National Rifle Association – NRA

The NRA is a long-time member and longtime funder of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and an NRA representative has served on the Public Safety and Elections Task Force for many years. ."[3]

Tara Mica, NRA-Institute for Legislative Action State Liaison, was the co-chair of ALEC's Public Safety and Elections Task Force for a number of years, until the Spring of 2011. [4] [5] [6] (formerly known as the Criminal Justice and Homeland Security). [7]

The NRA was a "Vice-Chairman" level sponsor of 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council Annual Conference, which in 2010, equated to $25,000.[8]

How long-time?

1989-1990 Source Book of American State Legislation

Task Force on Law and Justice

Private Sector Coordinating Committee

Chuck Cunningham – State Liaison

National Rifle Association

1992 ALEC Annual Report

Private Sector Member

1993 Annual Meeting

ü      Skeet Shoot sponsored by the NRA

ü      Panelist on workshop

ü      Luncheon Keynote Speaker:  Protecting Your Rights: Reducing Violent Crime; Wayne LaPierre, Executive Director National Rifle Association

ü      Entertainment & Hospitality Sponsor

ü      ALEC's Private Sector Member

1995 - ALECs 22nd Annual Meeting.

Tanya Metaksa of the National Rifle Association gave a stirring speech on the imperative to protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

1997 ALEC Annual Meeting Handbook

ü      Annual Meeting Sponsors – Vice Chairman Level

ü      ALEC Private Sector Member

ü      ALEC Shooting Sports Event Tallow Creek Shooting Club & BeauChene Country Club Sponsored by the National Rifle Association

InsideALEC – June 2010 Article

ALEC Brief Defends Second Amendment

BY CHRIS W. COX, NRA Institute for Legislative Action

In a few short weeks, the Supreme Court will deliver a decision that will have a great impact on all Americans’ Second Amendment rights. If the Court’s decision is favorable, American gun owners will be on the verge of a major step forward—due in large part to the support of organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and its members.

Chris W. Cox is the executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. The NRA is a member of ALEC’s Public Safety and Elections Task Force.

Over 20 years - that would definitely be a long time.

Posted by 2old2care

Occupy Wall Street Testimony #1: Eddie Pages

Occupy Wall Street Testimony #1 from Eddie Pages on Vimeo.

You will also like this video of his!

No To SB1070! from Eddie Pages on Vimeo.

ALEC 8-4-11 Health Insurance Exchanges States in Charge

ALEC 8-4-11 Health Insurance Exchanges States in Charge

63649152-ALEC-8-4-11-Health-Insurance-Exchanges-States-in-Charge (1).pdf

http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/direct/63649152?extension=pdf&ft=1316498103&lt=1316501713&uahk=w5XNEBV472WUiRyp3RFaIB3+xlY

MN ruling on ALEC as lobbyist, 1995

AO202.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Does this mean that ALEC in MN has broken lobbying laws??

Does this mean ANY ONE (see Section 5) can attend ALEC meetings in Minnesota FOR FREE, without fear of assault ??


One wonders the level of contribution from Comcast, MN's corporate sponsor. Either the corporate chair alone, or the corporation taken as a whole.

Also, one wonders who replaced John L. Holahan, Jr., Chair, Ethical Practices Board? http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/Staff.htm



Issued to:
Samuel Brunelli, Executive Director
American Legislative Exchange Council
91 0 17th Street N.W., Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
RE: Issues Forum

ADVISORY OPINION #202

SUMMARY
202. The American Legislative Exchange Council's sponsorship and proposed operation of an
issues forum that is available to the public is within the exceptions to the gift prohibition in Minn.
Stat. § 10A.071, subd. 3 (a)(2) and (3). However, the American Legislative Exchange Council's
disbursements in this endeavor may require disclosure under the lobbyist registration and
reporting laws in Minnesota. Minn. Stat. 9 1 0A.01, subd. 11 ; Minn. Rules pt. 451 0.01 00, subps.
4 and 5.

FACTS

As executive director of the American Legislative Exchange Council ("ALEC) you ask the Ethical
Practices Board for an advisory opinion based on your statement of the following facts and
information provided:
1. ALEC is a national bipartisan organization composed of members who are
individual legislators from all 50 states and members who are corporations and
other business associations from across the country.
2. ALEC's activities include the sponsoring of educational seminars throughout the
country designed for legislators and other interested persons.
3. ALEC receives its operating funds in the form of dues and contributions from its
members, some of whom are lobbyist principals as defined by Minn. Stat.
§ 1 OA.O1, subd. 28.
4. ALEC does not now have a lobbyist registered in Minnesota and does not
otherwise fall within the definition of lobbyist principal. ALEC recognizes that the
issues forum described herein may constitute lobbying under Minnesota law and
may thereby require that ALEC register a lobbyist with the Board, although the
forum is not designed to influence any specific legislation.
**5. ALEC proposes sponsoring an issues forum for which the target audience would
be primarily members of the Minnesota legislature, but ALEC business members
and other Minnesota businesses,'and any interested person could attend.**
6. Presentations at the forum would be designed to provide information to legislators
or other officials to assist them in the performance of their official duties.
7. Persons could attend the forum at no cost; persons who choose to attend the
dinner would pay a charge of $1 9, with advance or contemporaneous payment
required. This charge equals the per-plate amount the event facility would be
charging ALEC.
8. General operating funds of ALEC would cover the costs of the speakers'
expenses and honoraria, printing costs, facility rental, and other expenses not
related to the dinner itself. Attenders would be given photocopied outlines for
several of the presentations at the forum.
9. Agenda sheets and invitations that have been sent contain a statement that
advice on this matter will be sought from the Ethical Practices Board. ALEC will
notify persons that the event has been canceled if the Board finds that the
program is a prohibited gift.

QUESTION ONE
Does ALEC's sponsorship and operation of the issues forum issues forum require ALEC to
register a lobbyist with the Board?
OPINION
Yes, in the event that the issues forum and any written materials distributed include information
that communicates with or urges others to communicate with officials in attempts to advocate
a particular position to an official about legislative or administrative action, or which requests
initiation of any particular legislative or administrative action. If ALEC authorizes the expenditure
of more than $250 for the costs of the issues forum, a lobbyist must register with the Ethical
Practices Board to represent ALEC and report on ALEC's disbursements for lobbying purposes
in Minnesota. Minn. Stat. § 1 0A.01, subd. 11 ; Minn. Rules pt. 451 0.01 00, subps. 4 and 5.

QUESTION TWO
Does ALEC's sponsorship and proposed operation of the issues forum as described in this
request constitute a gift to officials that is prohibited by Minn. Stat. 9 10A.071?
OPINION
No. The issues forum as described in this request is offered without charge to officials and any
others who may wish to attend. Officials and others who choose to attend the dinner each
would pay the amount that the facility would charge ALEC for the dinner. The operation-of the
issues forum is a gift that is within the exception from the gift prohibition for services to assist
an official in the performance of official duties. Minn. Stat. § 10A.071, subd. 3 (a) (2).

QUESTION THREE
Is the distribution of photocopied outlines of the presentations at the issues forum to legislators,
other officials, and other attenders at no charge prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 10A.071?
OPINION
No, provided that any photocopied materials that may be distributed to legislators or officials are
within the exception for informational material of unexceptional value specified in Minn. Stat.
5 1 OA.071, subd. 3 (a)(6).

Issued: 2, - 3 -w\' - I
John L. Holahan, Jr., Chair
Ethical Practices Board

PERTINENT STATUTES AND RULES
Minn. Stat. 5 1 OA.O

1 DEFINITIONS provides:
Subd. 1 1 . (a) "Lobbyistu means an individual:
(1) engaged for pay or other consideration, or: authorized to spend money by another
individual, association, political subdivision, or public higher education system, who spends more
than five hours in any month or more than $250, not including the individual's own travel
expenses and membership dues, in any year, for the purpose of attempting to influence
legislative action or administrative action, or the official action of a metropolitan governmental
unit, by communicating or urging others to communicate with public or local officials.
Subd. 18. "Public official" means any:
(a) member of the legislature;
(b) constitutional officer in the executive branch and the officer's chief administrative
deputy;
(c) member, chief administrative officer or deputy chief administrative officer of a state
board or commission which has at least one of the following powers: (i) the power to adopt,
amend or repeal rules, or (ii) the power to adjudicate contested cases or appeals;
(d) commissioner, deputy commissioner, or assistant commissioner of any state
department as designated pursuant to section 15.01 ;
(e) individual employed in the executive branch who is authorized to adopt, amend or
repeal rules or adjudicate contested cases;
(f) executive director of the state board of investment;
(g) executive director of the Indian affairs intertribal board;
(h) commissioner of the iron range resources and rehabilitation board;
(i) commissioner of mediation services;
(j) deputy of any official listed in clauses (e) to (i);
(k) judge of the workers' compensation court of appeals;
(I) administrative law judge or compensation judge in the state office of administrative
hearings or referee in the department of jobs and training;
(m) solicitor general or deputy, assistant or special assistant attorney general;
(n) individual employed by the legislature as secretary of the senate, chief clerk of the
house, revisor of statutes, or researcher, legislative analyst, or attorney in the office of senate
counsel and research or house research;
(0) member or chief administrative officer of the metropolitan council, regional transit
board, metropolitan transit commission, metropolitan waste control commission, metropolitan
parks and open spaces commission, metropolitan airports commission or metropolitan sports
facilities commission;
(p) the director of the racing commission, the director of the gambling control board, the
director of the state lottery, and the deputy director of the state lottery;
(q) director or the division of gambling enforcement in the department of public safety;
(r) member or executive director of the higher education facilities authority; or
(s) member of the board of directors or president of the Minnesota world trade center
corporation.

Subd. 25. Local official. "Local official" means a person who holds elective office in a
political subdivision or who"is appointed to or employed in a public position in a political
subdivision in which the person has authority to make, to recommend, or to vote on as a
member of the governing body, major decisions regarding the expenditure or investment of
public money.

Subd. 26. Metropolitan governmental unit. "Metropolitan governmental unit" means any
of the seven counties in the.metropolitan area as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2, a
regional railroad authority established by one or more of those counties under section 398A.03,
a city with a population of over 50,000 located in the seven-county metropolitan area, the
metropolitan council, a metropolitan agency as defined in section 473.1 21, subdivision 5a, the
Minnesota state high school league, and ~innesotaT echnology, Inc.

Subd. 27. Political subdivision. "Political subdivision" means the metropolitan council,
a metropolitan agency as defined in section 473.1 21, subdivision 5a, a municipality as defined
" in section 471.345, subdivision 1, the Minnesota state high school league, and Minnesota
Technology, Inc.

Subd. 28. Principal.
"Principal" means an individual or association that:
(1) spends more than $500 in the aggregate in any calendar year to engage a lobbyist,
compensate a lobbyist, or authorize the expenditure of money by a lobbyist; or
(2) is not included in clause (1) and spends a total of at least $50,000 in any calendar
year on efforts to influence legislative action, administrative action, or the official action of
governmental units, as described in section 10A.04, subdivision 6.
Minn. Stat. § 10A.03 LOBBYIST REGISTRATION provides:
Subdivision 1. Each lobbyist shall file a registration form with the Board within five days
after becoming a lobbyist.

Subd. 2. The registration form shall be prescribed by the Board and shall include (a) the
name and address of the lobbyist, (b) the principal place of business of the lobbyist, (c) the
name and address of each person, if any, by whom the lobbyist is retained or employed or OD
whose behalf the lobbyist appears, and (d) a general description of the subject or subjects on
which the lobbyist expects to lobby.
Minn. Stat. § 10A.04 LOBBYIST REPORTS provides:
Subdivision 1. Each lobbyist shall file reports of the lobbyist's activities with the Board as
long as the lobbyist continues to lobby. A lobbyist may file a termination statement at any time
after ceasing to lobby.
Subd. 2. Each report shall cover the time from the last day of the period covered by the
last report to 15 days prior to the current filing date. The reports shall be filed with the Board by
the following dates: (a) January 15; (b) April 15; and (c) July 15.
Minn. Stat. § 10A.071 CERTAIN GIFTS BY LOBBYISTS AND PRINCIPALS PROHIBITED provides:
Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) The definitions in this subdivision apply to this section.
(b) "Gift" means money, real or personal property, a service, a loan, a forbearance or
forgiveness of indebtedness, or a promise of future employment, that is given without the giver
receiving consideration of equal or greater value in return.
(c) "Official" means a public official, an employee of the legislature, or a local official of
a metropolitan governmental unit.

Subd. 2. Prohibition. A lobbyist or principal may not give a gift or request another to give
a gift to an official. An official may not accept a gift from a lobbyist or principal.

Subd. 3. Exceptions. (a) The prohibitions in this section do not apply if the gift is:
(1) a contribution as defined in section 1 0A.01, subdivision 7;
(2) services to assist an official in the performance of official duties, including but not
limited to providing advice, consultation, information, and communication in connection with
legislation, and services to constituents;
(3) services of insignificant monetary value; '
(4) a plaque or similar memento recognizing individual services in a field of specialty or
to a charitable cause;
(5) a trinket or memento of insignificant value;
(6) informational material of unexceptional value; or
(7) food or a beverage given at a reception, meal, or meeting away from the recipient's
place of work by an organization before whom the recipient appears to make a speech or
answer questions as part of a program.
(b) the prohibitions in this section do not apply if the gift is given:
(1) because of the recipient's membership in a group, a majority of whose members are
not officials, and an equivalent gift is given to the other members of the group; or
(2) by a lobbyist or principal who is a member of the family of the recipient, unless the
gift is given on behalf of someone who is not a member of that family.

Minn. Rules pt. 451 0.0100 DEFINITIONS provides:
. . .
Subp. 4. Lobbyist. "Lobbyist" means an individual as set forth in blinnesota
Statutes,section 1 0A.01, subd. 11. "Lobbyist" does not include an individual who merely
communicates with a public official to obtain information or request an interpretation of a law,
rule, or agency action.
Subp. 5. Urginglurges others to communicate. "Urgingfurges others to communicate"
means any written or oral communication by a lobbyist which requests that an individual or
association advocate a particular position to a public official concerning any legislative action
or administrative action, or which requests an individual or association to advocate a public
official initiate any particular legislative or administrative action. The term does ;not include mere
presentation of factual material without comment.

a peek at the rift between the MNGOP grassroots and legislative-lobbyist elites

Get the popcorn: a peek at the rift between the MNGOP grassroots and legislative-lobbyist elites

Progressive friends wrapped themselves in their purple beach towels yesterday and began texting Bluestem shortly thereafter, once Charley Shaw's Friday afternoon news feature in PIM, Many in GOP base angry at Legislature, floated up on their tablets.
All of the messages? Some variation on "Get the popcorn." This is a show to watch.
Why do the heathens--or whatever--rage at their leadership? Shaw sets up the case:

. . .But in the wake of the 2011 legislative session, the loudest cries of protest are coming from the Republican Party activist base, which is angry about the performance of their elected brethren who were installed in the majorities last January. . .
Some Republican activists are frustrated that the 2010 electoral victories didn’t translate into a fuller realization of the conservative agenda. Their view of the borrowing contained in the final budget ranges from dispirited to enraged, and many are also extremely critical of the way House Speaker Kurt Zellers and Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch went about setting their initial budget of roughly $34 billion.

Three GOP House committee chairs draw particular fire: Abeler, Gottwalt and Garofalo. Consider the source of their scorn for the final man in that series:

Garofalo, the chairman of the House Education Finance Committee, ran afoul of conservatives with an education quality rating system called Parent Aware. Conservatives decried the program for expanding the state’s education bureaucracy.

Bluestem's curiosity was piqued, and so I scurried to the House website, only to find it under maintenance until this afternoon. In the meantime, a bit of reading to discover the deets of the grassroots' irritation.
It wasn't poison ivy, but an alert easily found at Education Liberty Watch, in the March 28 Urgent Update on Minnesota Education Spending Bills.
It's not just the bureaucracy. It's the freedom and liberty--and the competition between private preschools and home daycares. Education Liberty Freedom EdWatch President Karen Effrem, "the only one to her knowledge of the dozens of people who testified about these bills that asked for cuts of any kind," wrote to those who insist on Education for a FREE nation:

Worse yet, after passing the House education spending bill out of the Education Finance Committee, Chairman Pat Gorafalo (R.-Farmington) added $26 million more spending to the bill in the Ways and Means Committee, including $4 million in more spending to early childhood for these scholarships.  (The spreadsheet is available here).
Rep. Garofalo and Rep. Jim  Abler (R-Anoka) were able to come to some understanding about the turf battles related to education vs. child care and policy issues of the quality rating system. They were aided by the strong work and advice of Rep. Mary Franson (R-Alexandria), a child care provider who understands the dangers of this quality rating system on private home providers.  The chairmen are both to be strongly commended for agreeing to not impose the mandates/bureaucratic burden of this “voluntary” system on private family child care providers. Rep. Garofalo should also be thanked strongly for the part of the amendment prohibiting state interference in curriculum.
In exchange for that however, Rep. Garofalo kept the statewide ramp-up of Parent Aware in his bill using the bureaucratic, central economy promoting governor’s economic development regions. The amendment also redefines preschools as both public and private for the purposes of the bill.  This means that the government controlled QRS system is imposed on private preschools instead of just public school readiness or Head Start programs as we had been led to believe was the case  This is the equivalent of giving the commissioner of education jurisdiction over private K-12 schools that accept scholarships for poor children.  This is completely unacceptable!! [emphasis in the original]

Oh noes! So what fiends dreamt up the notion of scholarships for low-income parents to send their kids to private pre-schools?
The clue came when finally, the Legislature's website was restored, along with its massive store of hundreds and hundreds of bills, including the omnibus education bill, HF 934.1 that so gave Dr. Effrem the fantods. The Parent Aware program does seem pretty complex, but I was struck by something else.
Those scholarships for low-income folks to private preschools.  Where had I seen that idea before?  Heck, reading  Sec. 4. [119C.04] EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIPS recalled the American Legislative Exchange Council's Smart Start Scholarship Program model bill, tweaked for the Gopher State.
Effrem and home daycare providers (many of whom are mothers who like to think of themselves as  stay at home moms and businesswomen at the same time) share an objection:

Even worse, the House increases early childhood spending by incentivizing poor families to put their children in preschool instead of educating them at home with early childhood scholarships . . .

Putting aside fears of leaving the education of small children to those who employ such flagrantly misplaced modifiers, this statement exposes a cultural and economic fault line on the right.
Shouldn't we avoid spending money on early childhood education--despite the benefits of that investment, sung by the gnomes of Zurich masquerading as economists at the local branch of the evil Federal Reserve bank--and thereby tighten control of the kiddies as well our belts? And allow the fiction to flourish among cultural conservatives that families don't need schools or dual-incomes (even if one parent performs work in the home in addition to rearing one's own children)? Home schooling, baby.
And what good would that public investment in early childhood education be unless it can be immediately monetized?
Shouldn't an opportunity for making money be shifted with the public dime to private preschools with more-or-less standard curriculum? Let poor families mimic the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous who compete for places in exclusive pre-schools. We've all seen that on television. Why shouldn't the private preschool operator get a piece of those dreams, rather than those dirty hippies down at the Head Start? And whet the public appetite for public funds for private scholarships and vouchers, as well as charter schools?
It's a horrible dilemma for the freedom-loving conservative who is fighting for liberty and hating on the "government schools." Homeschool? Or handing a chunk of the public exchequer to job creators at private schools?

While ALEC supports home-schooling--especially if home schooling parents or taxpayers get a chance to buy some online education via one set of its corporate and non-profit funders--another set of think tanks and corporations looks to make money by dismantling public schools simply by getting kids into privately owned bricks and mortar.  Far more of the education model bills have to do with those private schools than homeschooling.

And so you have it, dear readers, buried with the first engrossment of the K12 Education Omnibus budget bill: the battle royal within the contemporary Republican party.  Cultural conservatives who dominate the Tea Party movement (in Minnesota, at least) or "job-creating" corporatists looking to enhance profit centers via out-sourcing the function of the public schools?
Ah, yes. Pop some corn.
Photo: Pat Garofalo, hero of the revolution or grassroots Benedict Arnold? It's Sue Jeffers' call.

Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Aug 07, 2011 at 12:53 AM

DO IT NOW DOSSIER: LIVE STREAM on ALEC Aug 3

Americans Hurt by ALEC "Model Bills" Speak Out at ALEC Annual Meeting as Corporate Members & Politicians Vote on More State Legislation

Whistleblower findings document how ALEC is used by corporations to hurt families, communities

On Wednesday, August 3, a teacher, a small business owner, a reverend and a disenfranchised voter will speak out at a press conference to unveil the real human toll of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)’s "model bills."  ALEC is a vehicle by which corporations and politicians collaborate on blueprints for pro-corporate legislation to bring back to the states.

WHAT:           A Press Conference to Give Voice to the Victims of the ALEC Agenda  

WHEN:           Wednesday, August 3, 10:00 AM CDT

WHO:

• Lisa Graves, Executive Director, Center for Media and Democracy (Moderator)
• Jim Randels, a New Orleans area English teacher, will discuss attacks on public education
• Nicole Schulte will discuss her experience with new Voter-ID laws in Wisconsin
• Todd Landfried, Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform, will discuss the damage caused by draconian anti-immigrant measures
• Rev. Dr. Willie Gable Sr. will discuss the injustice of Louisiana’s new bill against health-care reform

WHERE:                     Sheraton New Orleans Hotel
                                    Bayside B, 4th Floor   
                                    500 Canal Street
                                    New Orleans, LA 70130

LIVE STREAM:        The press conference will be live-streamed for remote viewers.   

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a vehicle through which global corporations and state politicians collaborate and vote behind closed doors to design legislation that benefits the huge corporations funding ALEC. These so-called "model bills" reach into almost every area of American life, and carry serious consequences for the American people by imposing voting restrictions, undermining environmental protections, scapegoating immigrants to profit from the private prison industry and defunding public education. Learn more here. 

In addition, Common Cause will release a report, “Legislating Under the Influence: Money, power and the American Legislative Exchange Council,” which examines how nearly $400 million in campaign contributions to state legislative candidates has helped ALEC secure champions for pro-business bills in Capitols from coast to coast.  

# # #

A Stealth Way a Bill Becomes a Law: Business Week

With the help of a quiet D.C. organization called ALEC, corporations pen GOP legislation

Jeffrey Coolidge/Getty Images

By Alison Fitzgerals

Kim Thatcher, a Republican state representative in Oregon, introduced a sharply worded anti-cap-and-trade bill this year that said, “There has been no credible economic analysis of the costs associated with carbon mandates.” Apparently, that view is widely shared. Legislation with that exact language has been introduced in dozens of states, including Montana, New Hampshire, and New Mexico.

It’s not plagiarism. It’s a strategy. The bills weren’t penned by Thatcher or her fellow legislators in Helena, Concord, and Santa Fe. They were written by a little-known group in Washington with outsize clout, the American Legislative Exchange Council. Corporate benefactors such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil (XOM) help fund ALEC with membership dues and pay extra for a seat at the legislative drafting table.

Among ALEC’s prominent members are Pfizer (PFE), Wal-Mart (WMT), Bayer (BAYZF), and Visa (V), according to ALEC annual meeting documents provided by an attendee. The organization’s legislative agenda includes limiting the power of unions, fighting environmental regulations, and overturning President Obama’s health-care reform law. ALEC says it gets about 200 state laws passed each year. The corporate influence is hard to trace and can produce a return on investment that would make a hedge fund manager drool.

“This is just another hidden way for corporations to buy their way into the legislative process,” says Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, which seeks to reduce money in politics. Reagan Weber, an ALEC spokeswoman, says the group simply facilitates the sharing of information and “good conservative policy.”

ALEC was founded in 1973 by two of the conservative movement’s intellectual midwives, both now dead: Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois and activist Paul Weyrich, who also was a founder of the Heritage Foundation. As a tax-exempt organization, ALEC doesn’t disclose its corporate donors or its member lists beyond those who serve as committee chairmen.

In exchange for annual membership dues of as much as $25,000 plus a fee of $3,000 to $10,000 to get on a bill-writing “task force,” Koch and ExxonMobil representatives sat beside elected officials and policy analysts at an ALEC meeting in April 2010, helping them write model energy legislation that would later be introduced in statehouses around the country, according to the documents. The legislators pay $100 for a two-year membership. The task force bills are considered finished only after the legislators and private-sector members vote separately to approve them, giving each side a veto. Once a model bill is complete, it’s up to ALEC’s legislator members to go back to their home states and shepherd it into law.

ExxonMobil paid $39,000 in dues and task force fees to the group last year and sponsored a reception at the annual meeting in San Diego for $25,000, company spokesman Alan Jeffers says. ExxonMobil has spent about $230,000 on ALEC dues, meetings, and sponsorships over the last five years. In August it will sponsor a natural gas workshop for $45,000. “We try to provide our views on legislation to anyone who will listen, including legislators and nongovernmental organizations,” Jeffers says.

Wichita-based Koch was one of 14 ALEC “vice-chairmen,” or $25,000 sponsors, at ALEC’s 2010 annual meeting, according to the documents. The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, founded by the energy conglomerate’s chief executive officer, gave $75,858 to ALEC in 2009, according to its tax returns. The group now has 33 employees and a budget of $7 million.

“As a nonpartisan organization that includes both public- and private-sector members, ALEC’s mission aligns closely with many of the principles to which we are committed—economic freedom, limited government, and individual liberty,” says Koch spokesman Philip Ellender.

Thatcher, the Oregon legislator and an ALEC member since 2004, is happy with her membership. ”When you get input from the private sector and you get input from the public sector, you can get legislation that can be good for everyone.”

The bottom line: ALEC, a partnership of legislators and companies, says it gets about 200 state laws passed each year.

Abortion. The #MNshutdown deal breaker. Watch.

MCCL increases pressure on GOP

Posted at 8:48 PM on July 18, 2011 by Tom Scheck (1 Comments)
Filed under: 2011 Shutdown, MN Legislature, Mark Dayton

With MPR's Alex Friedrich:

The husband of Minnesota Senate President Michelle Fischbach is asking his organization's constituents to pressure legislators to reinstate one or more pro-life measures stripped by Gov. Mark Dayton as a condition of the budgetary framework agreement reached last week.

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, a group opposed to legalized abortion, sent out an action alert urging its members to contact lawmakers about the budget bill. Scott Fischbach is the executive director of the organization. The group issued an e-mail blast to thousands of supporters criticizing the budget deal and urging supporters to reinstate the cloning ban in the Higher Education bill.

Allowing the budget deal to go forward, the alert states, "means that an existing prohibition on taxpayer funding of human cloning would not continue, and for the first time since Roe v. Wade, pro-lifers would lose an existing pro-life state policy. ... In 2009, pro-lifers across the state worked tirelessly and were successful in implementing a two-year ban on taxpayer funding of human cloning. This year, if the Legislature doesn't reauthorize the ban, taxpayers will be forced to pay for cloning."

It also warned that "protecting pain-capable unborn children" and ending taxpayer funding of abortion were off the table.

MCCL's criticism of the GOP controlled Legislature is interesting since many Republican members are in line with the organization's efforts to put added restrictions on legalized abortion. But it's also intriguing since Fischbach is married to Senate President Michelle Fischbach (R-Paynesville). Sen. Fischbach chairs the Senate Higher Education Committee and is chief author of the Senate's Higher Education budget bill.

So would Scott Fischbach scuttle a deal that his wife, as a GOP leader, would normally have to back?

"We just want to hang on to the current law that we have," he said. "We want to urge (legislators) to keep the ban on taxpayer-funded cloning."

And what does Michelle Fischbach have to say about this? Does she support him? And would she still introduce the new higher-education bill - stripped of abortion and cloning policy -- despite MCCL's effort against it?

The MCCL chief wouldn't say, when reached by cell phone.

"You'll have to ask her," he said. "We don't come home at night and start talking at this bill and that bill. She does her thing and I do mine. "

Dayton stripped, among others, the anti-cloning and taxpayer-funding-of-abortions elements from the budgeting bill, calling them policy issues that did not belong in a financial bill. His plea to remove all policy provisions from the legislation was a major factor in reaching a budget deal last week.

But Scott Fischbach said that's just "spin." Those elements do indeed involve taxpayer dollars and so belong in a budget bill.

Yet when reminded that his wife is a Republican leader, he said, "No ... she was not part of that negotiation (for a framework agreement) ... at all."

Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch (R-Buffalo), he said, was responsible for taking the pro-life elements off the table.

"She agreed with the governor to get rid of all the social issues," he said.

And a lot of Republicans, he said, "don't like this plan."

Dayton and lawmakers are working out the final details of the budget. The governor is expected to call a special session once the two sides agree to the wording in all nine budget bills.

Michelle Fischbach was in caucus and not immediately available to comment.

(Chris Van Guilder, communications specialist for the Senate Republican caucus, said he would relay a message.)