A bill, prefiled for the 2014 session, concerning disclosure in “model” legislation:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1150

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES MORGAN (Sponsor), NORR AND OTTO (Co-sponsors).

4823L.01I          D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapters 21 and 105, RSMo, by adding thereto two new sections relating to model legislation.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapters 21 and 105, RSMo, are amended by adding thereto two new sections, to be known as sections 21.325 and 105.481, to read as follows:

           21.325. 1. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

           (1) “Formally adopts”, an organization votes to endorse, support, or distribute model legislation for legislative adoption;

           (2) “Model legislation”, a legislative proposal or a uniform or suggested act written, promoted, or distributed by an organization to a Missouri state senator or representative and to other public officials of any other state;

           (3) “Organization”, any partnership, firm, not-for-profit entity, or corporation that formally adopts and distributes model legislation to any Missouri state senator or representative and to other public officials of any other state.

           2. When any organization formally adopts and distributes model legislation, and that model legislation is used by a Missouri state senator or representative to propose equivalent or substantially similar legislation for introduction in the general assembly, each fiscal note prepared for the legislation by the oversight division of the committee on legislative research shall identify the organization that formally adopted and distributed the model legislation. Missouri state senators and representatives shall provide sufficient information to the oversight division for the identification required by this section.

           3. After the first reading of a bill containing or substantially similar to model legislation, a third party may request that disclosure of the source of the model legislation be added to the fiscal note by submitting a written request with documentation of the model legislation to the chair of the committee assigned the bill. The chair shall issue a ruling within ten business days of the written request. Decisions of the committee chair may be appealed to the rules, joint rules, resolutions and ethics committee of the senate or the rules committee of the house or the successor committee of such committees.

           105.481. 1. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

           (1) “Formally adopts”, an organization votes to endorse, support, or distribute model legislation for legislative adoption;

           (2) “Lobbyist”, the same meaning as the term is defined in section 105.470;

           (3) “Model legislation”, a legislative proposal or a uniform or suggested act written, promoted, or distributed by an organization to a Missouri state senator or representative and to other public officials of any other state;

           (4) “Organization”, any partnership, firm, not-for-profit entity, or corporation that formally adopts and distributes model legislation to any Missouri state senator or representative and to other public officials of any other state and that also meets at least one of the following criteria:

           (a) At least one Missouri state senator or representative serves as a member, staff, or leadership of the organization;

           (b) The organization hosts a conference, meeting, or event where model legislation is distributed and at least one Missouri state senator or representative is in attendance.

           2. Any organization that formally adopts and distributes model legislation to any Missouri state senator or representative shall register as a lobbyist under this chapter unless the organization meets one of the following criteria:

           (1) The organization that formally adopts the model legislation consists solely of individuals elected or appointed to a position in state government or employed by state government, whether compensated or uncompensated, who are acting in an official capacity;

           (2) The organization has a lobbyist registered under this chapter in this state.

           3. (1) Any lobbyist for any organization shall report the following information to the Missouri ethics commission in the same manner as other reports are required to be filed with the commission under this chapter:

           (a) The names of all Missouri state senators and representatives serving as members, staff, or leadership of the organization;

           (b) A list of all Missouri state senators and representatives attending the conference, meeting, or event where that model legislation was distributed;

           (c) The amount of compensation by scholarship funds, money, or other financial support paid to or on behalf of any Missouri state senator or representative, including the family and guests of such Missouri state senator or representative, for the attendance at a conference, meeting, or event for the legislative adoption of model legislation;

           (d) The names of any entity or individuals who contributed money towards the compensation reported under paragraph (c) of this subdivision. When possible, the report shall identify the entities or individuals who contributed to each recipient’s compensation;

           (e) A copy of the program agenda for the conference, meeting, or event where the model legislation was distributed, and a copy of all model legislation distributed;

           (f) A financial interest statement of any person, partnership, firm, or corporation that voted to formally adopt the model legislation.

           (2) The report required under this subsection shall be submitted within thirty days of the last day of the conference, meeting, or event where the model legislation was formally approved or distributed.

           4. Any Missouri state senator or representative who receives compensation for attending a conference, meeting, or event for the legislative adoption of model legislation from any person, partnership, firm, corporation, or organization required to register as a lobbyist under this chapter shall report such compensation as a gift or an honorarium under this chapter.

That’s transparency, don’t you think?

It’ll never get through the right wingnut republican controlled General Assembly. In fact, we could wager that it will languish in perpetuity in that place where good bills go to die, to be mocked by all the tenther Sharia law federal nullification Agenda 21 gun bills which will breeze through with veto proof majorities.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been in the news lately. The Guardian Newspaper managed to get hold of a trove of ALEC documents that have helped to cast more light on the activities of the secretive, corporate-funded group that has sponsored tight relationships with state legislators in order to push preferred rightwing policies. ALEC has gone so far as to actually  author “model” legislation it then presents to tame legislators so that they can file it under their own names.

Among the documents the Guardian exposed was, tellingly, a loyalty oath intended for ALEC-recruited representatives in state government. As the Kansas City Star‘s Barbara Shelly describes it:

One of the most interesting documents is a proposed job description for the legislators designated to head up their state delegations. Along with striving to increase membership in ALEC by 10 percent a year and informing the group of all public information requests that include ALEC documents, it was proposed that state chairs take a loyalty oath: “I will act with care and loyalty and put the interests of the organization first.

What? These are elected officials. They are to put the interests of their states and constituents first. Apparently at some level people realized that, because the draft job description was never adopted. But the very suggestion demonstrates ALEC’s eagerness to control these lawmakers.

Shelly goes on to observe that several lawmakers in both Kansas and Missouri are active ALEC collaborators. And, in Missouri at least, one can conjecture with a fair degree of confidence that few state pols known to be complicit with ALEC would have had any qualms about signing a loyalty oath. Even if they balked at the bald statement of priorities in the pledge, most of our Missouri ALEC-ites seem to be spiritually in sync with its intention. When it comes to ALEC and Missouri Republicans, it’s a love match, no pre-nup needed.

Take for instance, Missouri GOP State Senator Ed Emery, the state chairman for ALEC in Missouri. He is, to put it bluntly, upfront about the role that ALEC plays in Missouri government:

… In the world of term-limits, an association like ALEC is invaluable in assisting state legislators by assembling the private and public expertise that can effectively identify and clarify even the most complex issues.

In other words, poorly informed legislators can chillax and let corporate dogsbody ALEC do all the heavy lifting. ALEC surely has the best interests of Missourians at heart after all, no self-interest there.

Of course, ALEC doesn’t stop at doing the legislator’s work for him or her – they’re quite willing to pay for the privilege. Just ask House speaker Tim Jones who, according to blogger Randy Turner, received a total of $2,672.58 from ALEC in 2013 2012. Turner also observes that while other members of the  legislature likely received gifts from ALEC, they managed to keep them under wraps. Writing about reports filed by lobbyists in the wake of the 2012 ALEC convention in Salt Lake City, Turner notes:

Not one Democrat and only a handful of Missouri Republicans attended the national American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, in July, but Missouri Ethics Commission documents that went online Saturday indicate that state lobbyists are crediting most of their expenses to the entire General Assembly.

By doing so, the expenses are not credited to any particular legislator, though those attending the convention may have received as much as hundreds of dollars worth of gifts from lobbyists representing special interests that are trying to curry the favor of the legislators.

The fact that lobbyists and pols alike try to hide the possible quid pro quo says it all. That legislators’ ALEC ties aren’t a statewide scandal would be incomprehensible in a sane political climate. Surely folks who rant and scream about how a moderate health care reform represents a horrific incursion of big government into individual life ought to be up in arms when they learn that state government is being abandoned – maybe even sold – to corporations looking only to enhance their bottom lines.

 

Missouri’s Attorney General Chris Koster is the lead signatory  of a letter signed by 47 AGs in other states that asks Congress to make a small change – two words – in a federal statute that exempts online services such as Backpage.com from any liability for the material posted on their sites. This provision of the 1996 law have been called into question in the wake of recent court rulings holding that state efforts to target online ads that offer minors for sex conflict with the federal law. According to Koster the changes are necessary because when:

… corporations are knowingly generating revenue from what is widely or universally viewed as criminal conduct, the (federal law) should not stand as a shield for corporate revenues.

Koster and his AG pals are on the side of God and family values here, right? Who could fault them for going after human trafficking, particularly when it involves minors? Republicans who, publicly at least, asiduously curry favor with the sexually repressive religious right ought to really like this initiative. If the fact that Democrats like Koster are behind it is a downer for the more avidly partisan of the GOPers, we could at least expect them to hold their peace on the topic.

Well, if that is what you think, you’d be wrong. To start with, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has the AGs’ initiative in their sights. Add in lots of the state-level GOPers who are well-compensated ALEC groupies and you’ve got a good picture of who Koster and his colleagues are up against. These folks are already preparing their counter offensive:

The [ALEC] task force drafted a resolution for adoption by state legislators urging Congress to reject the attorneys general’s request. It could be ratified by the association’s executive board as soon as October.

It’ll be interesting to see if the strongly ALEC-attuned GOPers in the Missouri legislature brings this model resolution or something similar to the floor next session. If they do, don’t say I didn’t warn you it was coming.

What is it that ALEC and its minions object to about efforts to protect sexually exploited children? Most obviously, of course, ALEC is notable for its resentment of any government intrusion into corporate mores unless it takes the form of taxpayer subsidies, tax credits, etc. The specific objections in this case are that regulating the sex ads would pssibly be ineffective, and would impose a unnecessary burden on businesses because it could “force startup companies to keep track of thousands of specific state laws and could lead to government intrusion into other Internet areas.” This, in turn, ALEC claims, would stifle investment in Internet businesses and slow growth in a developing economic sector.

First of all, thousands of state laws? Seems like an awful lot of legislation on one topic – human trafficking – to come out of fifty states. And do you think folks who might turn a profit on an online business wouldn’t invest because the owners might have to do due diligence in regard to relevant regulations? Don’t businesses that function across state lines have to do this type of thing all the time? It does seem credible that folks might not be inclined to invest in operations that derive profit from what Koster described as “criminal conduct” if it put them in the cross-hairs of the law, but isn’t that as it should be? It all seems a little far-fetched to me. But that’s just the way I think. Who knows.

What I really wonder about is how GOP legislators who go along with ALEC on this issue are going to square support for tools that assist in the sexual exploitation of minors with their insistence on trying to regulate women’s reproductive health down to the nth degree, or their rabidly moralistic response to issues of LGBT equality. If they are so worried about female promiscuity and gay sex how can they give the okay to abuse kids in the name of the free market? Will their family values base understand?  

A brief but important comment published by Robert Reich at Salon (h/t Daily Kos):

Suppose a small group of extremely wealthy people sought to systematically destroy the U.S. government by (1) finding and bankrolling new candidates pledged to shrinking and dismembering it; (2) intimidating or bribing many current senators and representatives to block all proposed legislation, prevent the appointment of presidential nominees, eliminate funds to implement and enforce laws, and threaten to default on the nation’s debt; (3) taking over state governments in order to redistrict, gerrymander, require voter IDs, purge voter rolls, and otherwise suppress the votes of the majority in federal elections; (4) running a vast PR campaign designed to convince the American public of certain big lies, such as climate change is a hoax, and (5) buying up the media so the public cannot know the truth.

Would you call this treason?

If not, what would you call it?

And what would you do about it?

Strong words. But maybe not too much so – simply consider these tidbits of recent Missouri political news:

1. First comes the Missouri GOP pols’ contribution to the effort to gum up the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). As we noted yesterday, Senator Roy Blunt is prominently engaged in Republican efforts to sabotage the ACA, with shrill support from various Missouri House members like Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4). The congressional chorus is backed up by an advertising campaign, chock full of blatant lies, and funded by the Koch brothers. Together the one percenters and their congressional GOP lackeys, including our Missouri guys, are attempting to launch a mini coup d’etat:

Instead of trying to make the law of the land work, instead of doing the hard job of governance – like seriously considering a recent business-backed bill that would’ve tweaked the employer mandate – they’ve chosen the path of partisan sabotage. They continue to attack the law […], behaving as if it’s still 2009 (when the cry of “death panels!” led the league in lying). Worse yet, they’re actively working to prevent the public from learning more about what the law actually says.

2. At the state level, The Turner Report published a revealing report authored by State Representative Ed Emery (R-31) in which he discusses the role of the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in Missouri government:

Missouri has a representation on each of the [ALEC] task forces, and our involvement ensures that Missouri’s interests and perspectives are a part of every deliberation. Federalism makes each state a laboratory, and ALEC involvement provides Missouri state government the best opportunity to develop effective government policies and avoid harmful ones. I hope you approve.

ALEC brings corporate lobbyists and state legislators together (on ALEC’s dime) and has been behind much of the slew of anti-worker, anti-union, anti-teacher, anti-tax and pro-privatization initiatives produced by Missouri’s legislators this session, at times even providing model legislation for our legislators to crib from. Emery may not be the brightest light in the room, but he is at least open about the role of the usually secretive organization and its influence buying operation – which may, of course, be exactly because he isn’t the brightest light in the room.

3. The Turner Report also noted the $1.2 million dollars Rex Sinquefield contributed to a group dedicated to overturning Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of legislation passed this session that would have cut Missouri’s corporate taxes almost to nothing, decimating the revenue stream that ensures government functioning. This donation joins Sinquefield’s other very sizeable donations to groups that support his anti-tax, pro-educational privatization goals. Just this summer, Sinquefield has already put down almost two million dollars to bolster the down payment he’s already paid out in his effort to purchase the state.

And bear in mind that these examples are the result of twenty minutes cursory searching. One can only imagine the length of this piece were I to try to be comprehensive. What is clear is that when Reich paints a picture of politicians doing the bidding of the very wealthy for the benefit of the very wealthy, selling out government to do what is best for corporations and at the behest of rich ideologues, and sabotaging laws that these rich poobahs don’t like, Missouri’s GOP political class could have provided the model.

My question: Are we sending traitors to Washington D.C. and Jefferson City, or just borderline felons? And along with Robert Reich, I wonder what we’re going to do about it.

 

The initial and persistent reason cited by Republican state legislators for the terrible tax “reform” bill, HB253, that they sent to Governor Nixon is that it is necessary if we are to compete with Kansas in securing and retaining jobs. If businesses relocate to Kansas, which has gutted its tax system, they take their jobs with them, or so the argument goes.

The Missouri Society of Certified Public Accountants succinctly summarizes the content of the bill as follows:

HB253 reduces personal [to 5.5%] and corporate tax rates [to 3.25%], establishes for a deduction for flow through income for businesses, and increases the personal exemption amount for low income taxpayers. The legislation offsets the costs of these reductions by implementing the Streamlined Sales tax agreement, expanding Nexus for out of state vendors, and setting revenue growth targets that must be met before the rate reductions are fully implemented.

Although legislators try to lowball the yearly amount of revenue the state would forfeit, putting the cost at around $500 million – which is bad enough – the Missouri Budget Project argues that the tax cuts will cause the state to ultimately lose close to a billion dollars. As for our stalwart lawmakers fear of Kansas, the Post-Dispatch’s David Nicklaus notes that:

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal Washington think tank, recently looked at six states that enacted big tax cuts between 2000 and 2007, and five more that cut income taxes in the 1990s, and found that they gained no particular economic advantage.

Nevertheless, the race to the bottom in regard to corporate taxes is a growing phenomena, particularly in red states.This in spite of the fact that there are possibly better ways to deal with corporate taxes that would address revenue needs without aggravating the ill-perceived worry about competitivenes. Jia Lynn Yang of WaPo’s Wonkblog, cites the example of California’s new sales-based corporate tax law:

… Let’s say a company earns 20 percent of its sales in California. The company would pay 20 percent of its worldwide sales to California at the state’s corporate tax rate. No need to worry about where the firm has offices or where its employees work – and no chance of the firms shifting their income to other states using elaborate, hard-to-trace methods.

Although California’s new law has an elective approach that could be problematic, this sales-based system has been touted as a solution to corporate taxation on a national-level – it would put a stop to corporations like Apple moving their profits off-shore to avoid U.S. taxes. Whether or not it would offer a solution to a state like Missouri – it does not address the issue of the “right” corporate rate – it does show that there are better ways to approach corporate taxes than letting business off the hook entirely without compensating adequately for the lost revenue – or by sticking the state’s middle and working classes with the bill in terms of higher stales taxes, which the Missouri legislation originally proposed to do.

Unfortunately, coming up with such solutions takes a commitment to use government to further the welfare of Missouri’s citizens, along with at least a modicum of intelligence; it also precludes ideological predispositions against taxes as an article of faith. Even more significantly for many Missouri GOP lawmakers, such solutions would not garner big checks from big-time progressive taxation opponents like Rex Sinquefield or the corporate pooh-bahs behind the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), who have been pulling the strings of many of our state pols for some time.

Corruption in Jefferson City? What do you think? Today the AP writes that:

Campaign finance and ethics reform have taken a secondary position at the Capitol, where much of the focus has been on economic development, taxes and the state’s Medicaid health care program for the poor. Lawmakers have about a month left before their mandatory adjournment.

Currently, anyone with a legislative ax to grind can donate whatever they want to the lawmakers of their choice. The sky’s the limit. GOPers claim that that’s okay as long as folks know where the money’s coming from, but transparency rules are, in fact, not only very easy to evade, but, the evidence suggests, often evaded.

So, if the GOP lawmakers, the folks who currently control what gets done in Jefferson City, are both honest and serious about letting us know that everything is aboveboard, why aren’t they willing to let Democratic backed legislation to cap campaign donations make it out of committee? Are they afraid to publicly debate the question? And why do GOPers, many of whom are living high on lobbyists’ hogs, dismiss ethics legislation as just some airy-fairy nonsense that they may get around to when they aren’t busy with really important issues?

According to House Speaker Tim Jones, “lawmakers are focused on other issues this session that ‘impact Missourians more than an inside the Beltway ethics discussion.'” This dismissive attitude is mirrored by the Senate President Pro Tem, Republican Tom Dempsey, who claims that:

“We’ve been working on our business, pro-growth strategies, and I’m not sure we’re going to be able to address those items – at least as Senate legislation this year,” said Dempsey, R-St. Charles. “But we’ll continue to take a look at them.”

Dare I suggest that one might ask about the “impact” on Missourians of empty conspiracy fads like the the United Nations Agenda 21 (a U.N. sustainability planning initiative, not ratified by the U.S. and with no bearing on U.S. law – although Senator Brian Nieves is sure that the federal government has rezoned land belonging to a couple of his constituents as part of its enforcement), or the nefarious efforts of the Department of Revenue to, according to various black helicopter enthusiasts, implement the federal real ID and/or register Missourians’ guns through the “back door.” All topics taken up by legislators who are too busy to deal with the perception of egregious ethics violations on their part.

Of course, the more important point is that the GOP’s putative “pro-growth” agenda, which is cited by Senator Dempsy, heavily favors corporate interests. And while I might be missing something, aren’t these the very entities that usually write those big, unlimited campaign checks and fund many of the lobbyists who ply Missouri statehouse denizens with fancy meals, tickets to sporting events and other thoughtful and expensive trinkets, spending in the process an amount in the vicinity of $1 million a year?  

To a casual observer, it looks like those corporate interests are getting what they pay for. Consider the on-going effort to pass right-to-work bills, to take down prevailing wage laws, etc., all of which stiff the little guy to the benefit of those who hold the strings of the purses that pols depend on. Kansas City Star Jefferson City correspondent Jason Hancock writes:

Take, for example, the roughly $8,200 spent by a handful of lobbyists to treat lawmakers to meals last July in Salt Lake City at the convention of the American Legislative Exchange Council [i.e. ALEC], a conservative organization that has drawn criticism in recent years for its efforts to bring together corporations and lawmakers to craft bills for introduction in legislatures nationwide.

Which lawmakers made the trip to Utah and attended those get-togethers was not disclosed. Each of the lobbyists reported the gifts as going to the “entire General Assembly.”

No matter how you cut it, it doesn’t look good when several Missouri politicians manage to hide their cozy relationship with ALEC, which has been called “a corporate bill mill,” and which, according to Progress Missouri, has been responsible for more than 30 corporate-friendly bills introduced into the Legislature over the past decade.

Does any of this suggest that we’re dealing with more than the appearance of corruption, and that, at the very least, we should be concerned about who’s in the driver’s seat in Jefferson City?

Friday evening about 250 people gathered at the Ethical Society of St. Louis to hear Bob Edgar, President of Common Cause, and a panel of local political activists discuss the role that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is playing in our national and state politics. The program, sponsored by the Missouri Progressive Action Group (MOPAG) and the Ethical Society and moderated by KWMU’s Don Marsh, consisted of a general presentation by Mr. Edgar, followed by presentations from a panel consisting of:

Denise Lieberman, Senior Attorney, Advancement Project;

Chris Gunther, President Missouri Naional Education Association;

Byron Clemons, Regional VP, Amrican Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO;

John Hickey, Executive Director, Sierra Club Missouri Chapter;

David Cook, President, Local 655 United Food and Commercial workers.

Mr. Edgar’s presentation was filmed by Progress Missouri and video (3 prts.) can be viewed by following the links below:

Bob Edgar of Common Cause on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Part 1.wmv

Bob Edgar of Common Cause on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Part 2.wmv

Bob Edgar of Common Cause on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Part 3.wmv  

HIGHLIGHTS:

Bob Edgar established the theme of the presentation, which was the pernicious influence of corporate money on the American political system. He noted that, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizen United Decision, we are increasingly moving towards a plutocratic system of government to the detriment of our democracy. ALEC is one of the important mechanisms for furthering this evolution. Simply-put, it is a corporate-funded organization which brings corporations and state legislators(mostly, but not entirely, Republicans) together to write model legislation that favors corporate goals. (See this Progress Missouri resource for more information on ALEC.)

Edgar emphasized the fact that ALEC identifies itself as a charity for IRS purposes although, based on a cache of over 4,000 documents that Common Cause has obtained, their activities are, by almost any definition, lobbying. However, by claiming 501(c)(3) charitable status, corporations that contribute to ALEC are able to write-off their donations on their taxes. Edgar and his wife have filed a legal suit to force the IRS to investigate ALEC’s right to claim charitable status. Details, including a whistleblower letter from Common Cause to the IRS and other information about money in today’s politics are available on the Common Cause Website.

Memorable Quote: Edgar quoted his wife, a former operating room nurse, on the Citizens United decision which implies that corporations count the same as people in terms of privileged speech “… I’ll believe that coporations are people when they get colonoscopies.”

Panelists: The five panelists brought the impact of ALEC home to Missouri. They talked about what ALEC, through [the actions of ALEC-afiliated state legislators], has been trying to do to Missourians in the areas of vote suppression, education, the environment, and union busting.

Denice Lieberman talked about the ALEC inspired laws that are intended to suppress voting rights for certain constituencies such as African-Americans, young voters, and poorer elderly, who all tend to vote Democratic in large numbers. In Missouri one such bill is HB 2109, put forward by GOP Rep. Shane Schoeller (who is, incidentally, a Republican candidate for Secretary of State – the office responsible for oversight of state elections) which, in the words of a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial writer, was “horrendous for a variety of reasons.” Schoeller, who says his constituents are worried about voter fraud, was unable to point to even one example of such fraud. Lieberman’s Advancement Project was able to squelch a ballot initiative aimed at amending the state constitution to restrict voting rights, which was also advanced by Schoeller, because, after bring suit, they were able to convince a judge that the language of the summary was patently dishonest. (Video of Leiberman’s presentation)

Chris Gunther had a big assignment detailing the numerous attacks on public education that have been launched in Missouri. She explained that one of ALEC’s ideological goals is to privatize public eduction and eliminate teacher’s unions; hence the numerous attacks on teachers and public schools that we witnessed this year, most of them emanating from ALEC affiliated legislators (More on ALEC and public education here). Attacks have ranged from efforts to widen the role of charters, allow “non-profits” to sponsor charters, eliminate teacher tenure, and introduce merit pay based on standardized test results. These proposals serve ideological, not educational ends since there is, as Gunther noted, large bodies of research that shows that they do not work to improve education. (Video of Gunther’s presentation.)

Byron Clemons also spoke to the efforts of ALEC inspired legislators to undermine public schools in Missouri (some names, Jane Cunningham, for example, evoked hisses from the audience). He also widened the scope to include Rex Sinquefield, who works hand-in-hand with those inspired by ALEC to gut our public educational system in the name of “reform.” He noted that Sinquefiled had tried to achieve some of the same goals in other cities such as Chicago, but settled to do his mischief in Missouri where he must have been gratified to find that he could buy “a whole bunch of Missouri legislators” for the price of one Chicago alderman. (Video of Clemens presenation.)

John Hickey drilled down into one particular piece of anti-environmental legislation, HCR 49,  in order to look at the type of strategies that are being put into play.  HCR 49 is simply a non-binding resolution that, according to the official summary, “calls on Congress to disapprove the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards regulation and ensure that the EPA replaces it with a sensible regulation.” What’s such a big deal about a non-binding resolution, Hickey asked,  that it could inspire action on the part of ALEC and their proxies in a state legislature? The point of the resolution, however, becomes clearer, he explained when one considers the fact that sometime next week it is expected that that the U.S. Senate will vote on a resolution that would void the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and keep the EPA from ever re-issuing such safeguards.

And guess what endangered Democratic Senator might be influenced by such a ho
me-state resolution? If you say Claire McCaskill, you’d be right on the money. Remember that Missouri’s Ameren is one of the dirtiest coal-burning producers of electricity in the nation (high mercury emissions) – and the lesson we can take from Hickey’s analysis is that the big money men behind ALEC have thought it all through carefully and have already bought the pawns they need to carry out their strategies.

David Cook talked mostly about the prevalence of ALEC-written right-to-work laws that have been popping up with regularity in Missouri. He colorfully likened right-to-work to his right to join an industrial executive’s fancy, private club without paying dues. In essence right-to-work comes down to a question of fairness. Everyone reaps the benefits of the union; everybody should have to pay for it. It also has pragmatic aspects, since wages are universally driven downwards in right-to-work states – which is one of the reasons why corporations like ALEC find them so appealing, of course.

Cook also referred to the spate of corporations that have recently left ALEC after its began to receive public attention. He cautioned the audience against thinking that all of these organizations have renounced ALEC’s goals; he contended that they just want to avoid the bad PR that association with ALEC might currently bring them. (Video of Cook’s presentation.)

Edited slightly for clarity and links have been added to videos of panaelists’ presentations.

For those of you who don’t know what the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is, the folks at The Nation succinctly summarize the group’s activities:

ALEC practices stealth advocacy; it writes bills for legislators, refines that legislation through task forces where its business members wield veto power, then quietly shepherds the finished “model” bills to passage. Their mission accomplished, ALEC’s business members reward the group with massive contributions – nearly $400 million from 2000-10, according to Common Cause.

ALEC is one of the tools developed by corporate interests in order to purchase the government corporations want – which rarely seems to coincide with what’s good for the rest of us. ALEC wants to  bust unions, repeal minimum wages, privatize public lands and public services, cut corporate taxes and corporate accountability – you get the picture.

Progress Missouri has reported extensively on ALEC’s influence in Missouri and has issued a comprehensive report identifying ALEC sponsored legislation that has been introduced in Jefferson City, as well as the names of state lawmakers who are known to be associated with ALEC. The authors caution us, though, that:

Identifying the list of Missouri legislators who are part of ALEC is a difficult task, because ALEC operates largely in secret. Even though they claim to be a legislative membership organization, there is no full list of members made public by the organization.

It’s not surprising that ALEC and its legislator protégés prefer to operate in the dark. In fact, after organizations like Progress Missouri and Common Cause, among others, started shining a light on ALEC, several of its corporate partners began to pull their support (find a list here), and some lawmakers have dropped their membership – including Missouri Rep. Mike Colona. ALEC itself has disbanded a few of its more controversial “non-economic” task forces.

But there are still numerous corporations willing to pony up outsize gobs of cash so that ALEC can buy itself some government, and the organization still has lots of active task forces. Common Cause has made public a complete list of ALEC contributors and their task force involvement. Needless to say, it makes for interesting reading – I’m going to think twice before I buy from Amazon again.  

In case you’re interested, three of the corporations listed are headquartered here in Missouri. The fact that Peabody Energy is on the list isn’t much of a surprise; nor did the presence of Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. shock me too much. But I was a bit annoyed to find that my own Internet provider, Charter Communications, was paying to play with with such lowlifes.

As a matter of fact, I’m so disturbed that I’m going to let Charter know about it. As I’ve noted above, pressure does work. Peabody Energy is a lost cause probably, but here is contact information along with the contact page for Anheuser Busch.

Common Cause is also putting together a petition to the IRS asking that the ALEC’s tax status be investigated. Losing its tax-exempt status could really put a crimp in its activities. You can sign the petition here. Another petition asking corporations to withdraw from ALEC can be signed here.

 

In 2010 about 20% of eligible Missouri voters went to the polls. Not surprisingly, a majority of that 20% were the foaming at the mouth Tea Partiers and other like-minded souls who were all riled up by anti-Obamacare agit-prop of organizations like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity (not to mention the simple fact of the first black president). One of the results of that election was that a crop of impenetrably hard-right pols were introduced into the Missouri legislature.

As a result, the real work of government has been left to patronage groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which supply anti-union, anti-education, anti-environmental “model” legislation that best serves their anti-worker, anti-tax, corporate purposes. Since such corporate groups are so willing to do the hard work for them, the junior Representatives have been free to ride their favorite hobby horses into the legislative arena. Most recently we’ve seen bills to combat the non-existent threat of Sharia law and bills that the promote hard-currency schemes of paranoid gold-bugs – oh, and don’t forget the bill that would allow bullies to torment gay classmates with impunity.  

Now State Rep. Kurt Bahr (R-19) has married the desire to carry water for the corporatocracy with the 10th amendment fetishism of many of those on the right-wing fringe. Well in advance of the Supreme Court’s decision about the constitutionality of Obamacare, this former intern of U.S. Rep. Todd Akin (R-2) (says it all, doesn’t it?) has introduced HB1534 which asserts that if anybody in Missouri tries to implement the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare), they will be subject to criminal charges. Bob Priddy at the MissouriNet Blog sums up Bahr’s position:

So let’s see if we understand Rep. Bahr. He has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United States says there are three separate and co-equal branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial. Rep. Bahr argues that a legislature in one of the 50 states can make a judicial ruling as it affects only the people of that state. (The PP&ACA is so unconstitutional that anyone implementing any part of it is a criminal.) It appears he should start getting ready to issue warrants because some parts of the Affordable Healthcare Act already are being implemented in Missouri.

Wouldn’t you know that, first-time around, the rampaging GOP nullifiers in the House passed this piece of idiocy 109-41. Details of the debate, including some very amusing audio, can be heard here. It’s worth reading (and listening to); Rep. Chris Kelly aptly sums up the Democrats’ frustration with Bahr’s thick-headed embrace of nullification, declaring that “this is breathtaking in its contempt for the Constitution of the United States.”

Bahr’s last (first? middling?) stand also works well with the goals of the mostly anonymous corporate types who finance organizations like ALEC. Ed Quillen of the Denver Post has argued that the rabid anti-Obamacare frothing of politicians like Bahr is just another facet of the attack on workers that the corporate elite is waging through their GOP proxies. Writing about why the GOP is doing little to actually promote job creation, but lots to benefit “job-creators,” he states that Republicans aren’t just stepping on the brakes because they want our Democratic president to fail:

When it comes to jobs, there’s more to the story than the normal political desire to defeat someone of the other party. Republicans like employers, those noble “job-creators” vexed by bureaucracy and regulation. They don’t like workers.

If jobs are hard to come by, then employers have more power, just as it’s a lot easier to say “take this job and shove it” if you know they’re hiring down the street. That’s another reason Republicans want to keep unemployment high.

This also helps explain the Republican resistance to universal health care. If you must rely on your employer for health insurance, that helps keep you in your place, and your employer literally has power of life and death over you.

Bahr’s spite-fueled legislative tantrum directed at the ACA may be feel-good medicine for those who are inclined to constitutional posturing, but it is also intended to insure that it is the unfettered market – that is to say, employers, and ultimately, the corporatocracy – that will have the ultimate power over our lives. Quillen correctly observes that the model that the right embraces is that of the Deep South where the Republican “oligarchs”:

… want “a compliant, poorly educated, low-wage workforce with as few labor, workplace safety, health care, and environmental regulations as possible.

Dare I mention that, when it comes to the legislative crop of 2010 we get a do-over this November?

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission,  a contribution for Representative Timothy Jones (r):

Contribution in Excess of $500 Received Within 48 Hours

C051087 CITIZENS FOR TIMOTHY W JONES [pdf] 1/17/2012

American Legislative Exchange Council 1101 Vermont Avenue NW 11th Floor Washingto[n], DC 20005 1/17/2012 $1,071.39

Heh, even more efficiency.

Previously: Campaign Finance: ALEC, ALEC, they can write bills for you! (January 14, 2012)