… is at least partially fulfilled by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). CommonBlog reports:
ALEC boasts that a third of all state legislators in the US are members, introducing around 1,000 ALEC bills every year.
Which leads to an interesting question: what is appropriate and inappropriate for such an organization to do? They craft bills and deliver them to legislators nation-wide, naturally (or is it?) with their own interests at heart.
Yet here is one of those conundrums of democracy – the legislators cannot be experts at everything. No doubt, these bills help legislators accomplish legitimate tasks, but it’s certainly worrisome when this happens:
When Florida Rep. Rachel Burgin (R- 56) introduced a bill in November calling on the federal government to reduce taxes for corporations (HM 685), she made an embarrassing mistake. Rep. Burgin was introducing a bill she had received from the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council. A bill written by the Tax Foundation, corporate members of ALEC’s ‘Tax and Fiscal Policy task force” and a group founded and funded by major corporate interests, including the billionaire Koch brothers.
All ALEC model resolutions contain a boilerplate paragraph, describing ALEC’s adherence to free market principles and limited government. When legislators introduce one of ALEC’s bills, they normally remove this paragraph. Sometimes (but only sometimes) legislators will make some slight alterations to anALEC model bill,perhaps to include something specific to them or to their state. Rep. Burgin didn’t do that. Instead she introduced a bill that was the same as the model word-for-word, forgetting even to remove the paragraph naming ALEC and describing its principles.
So it’s disturbing to think these are introduced with, at best, cosmetic alterations; one hopes they are modified during the usual rough and tumble of the legislative sessions.
Back in 2013, Molly Jackman reported on ALEC successes, failures, and causes for Brookings:
My findings are threefold. First, ALEC model bills are, word-for-word, introduced in our state legislatures at a non-trivial rate. Second, they have a good chance – better than most legislation – of being enacted into law. Finally, the bills that pass are most often linked to controversial social and economic issues. In the end, I argue that this is not good for ALEC, its corporate partners, or for the democratic process.
A lot of good information here, although this is somewhat suspect:
Of the 132 ALEC model bills introduced, 12 were enacted. One additional bill passed the New Hampshire legislature only to be vetoed by the governor. Now, a success rate of 9% may not seem high upon first glance. However, consider the fact that, in the 112th session of the U.S. Congress, less than 2% of introduced bills passed. That means that bills based on ALEC policies have a survival rate nearly 5 times that of the average bill in Congress.
Not really, as many bills are introduced in Congress as symbolic measures, or in an attempt to stir up the base of one party or the other. For example, the House GOP attempted to abolish the ACA several times (while other votes related to the ACA have to do with defunding, modifications, etc, and perhaps not all these fail). Attempting precise math on imprecise mathematical entities, yada yada yada.
But to return to the question in hand, how do we craft good law that is conducive to the common good? I think this is a harder question than is generally recognized. Should a liberal counterpart be created? No? Should the liberal legislators then have to craft each of their bills by hand?
Perhaps we just try to make too much law. But human society is complex and has many impacts, both inside and outside – and these often need to be moderated simply because humans are too self-interested.
A 2012 article on NJ.com accusing Governor Christie’s of using ALEC bills is here, where it notes:
There is nothing illegal in what ALEC does or in using its bills, but critics say New Jersey officials are handing off a cardinal duty — do your own work — to a national group with unique ties to the business world. If they’re relying on templates, critics add, state officials should publicly acknowledge any work that they do not do themselves and the source of any proposals that aren’t their own, especially when that source has an agenda.
Christie’s spokesman denies the allegations.
Legislators should listen to advocates for both sides of an issue in most cases, although personally I feel an advocate for, say, homeopathy should just be tossed out on his ear.
So…. a bunch of amateur lawmakers, often full to the brim with ideology, making laws – either with their own clumsy hands, or those whose self-interest may not align with society’s. An example from a 2002 Mother Jones article:
Not surprisingly, many of the bills benefit the companies that helped write them. Consider ALEC’s “Environmental Audit Privilege,” a measure that relieves companies of legal responsibility for their own pollution. The bill got its start in 1992, when Colorado regulators fined the Coors Brewing Company for smog-inducing air emissions at several plants. ALEC was quick to respond, drafting a measure to prevent firms from being fined if they report environmental violations at their facilities, and to keep such disclosures secret. Coors is a corporate member of ALEC, and company executive Allan Auger is a past chairman of the group, to which the Coors family’s Castle Rock Foundation is also a donor. Last year, Kentucky and Oregon passed audit-privilege laws like the one drawn up by ALEC.
A site devoted to unmasking ALEC’s fell intentions is ALEC Exposed.
UPDATE: Here’s an interactive map so you can see which member of your legislator is also an ALEC member.
