There's been a lot of talk, recently, regarding ALEC's influence in authoring voter ID laws. I recently stumbled upon a video - it's not recent, or anything - of ALEC's founder speaking to a religious right conference, stating:

Quote :

"They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been, from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populous goes down."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsl_TuFdes

I was unable to find any surrounding context to his quote, but I find it quite damning in and of itself.

[Edited on April 10, 2012 at 11:47 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2012 11:42:57 PM

I've never heard anything about ALEC and thought, "Hey, that's nice."

It's just another non-transparent way for companies and special interest groups to buy direct access to legislators.

4/10/2012 11:48:52 PM

^^ All I hear is someone being honest. Who seriously wants their political opponents to vote?

4/11/2012 12:30:51 AM

He's not talking about low voter turnout. He's talking about vote suppression.

4/11/2012 7:56:37 AM

I'm surprised that corporations have been slowly pulling out of ALEC over the past few weeks. I just haven't seen that level of public outcry to warrant all these high profile corporations leaving. Maybe this is a preemptive tactic or I just haven't been paying close enough attention to the anti-ALEC movement.

But for people who do not know, ALEC is a mostly conservative pro-business organization of corporations, lobbyists, and revolving door politicians, which drafts and proposes various legislation which is provided to our wonderful elected representatives before finally being introduced to legislature with sometimes minimal modifications.

You may have noticed that similar legislation has been introduced across America in GOP controlled states such as voter id, ultrasound/abortion access bills, union busting, etc. This is simply ALEC-drafted legislation propagating through the conservative legislatures. It appears to be a highly effective system with real results.

4/11/2012 9:09:08 AM

More on ALEC

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/12/outrage_over_stand_your_ground_laws

Quote :

"Amidst a movement to overturn "Stand Your Ground" gun laws after the Trayvon Martin shooting, we look at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate-funded group that worked with the National Rifle Association to pass the measures across the country. On Wednesday, the fast-food giant Wendy’s became the sixth corporation to publicly cut ties with the secretive right-wing group for backing the laws. Over the past week McDonald’s, Kraft Foods, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Intuit have all announced that they have decided to not renew their membership with ALEC. We speak with Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, which runs "ALEC Exposed," a website that published more than 800 "model" bills and resolutions secretly voted on by corporations and politicians. "We’ve seen ALEC, which is really a corporate bill mill, push legislation on all sorts of issues to make it harder for Americans to get justice, to make it harder for Americans to vote, to make it harder for Americans to have their day in court if they or their loved one is killed or injured by a corporation, by corporate greed, by a bad drug, by a product," Graves says. She notes many of the draft bills outline the privatization of Social Security, schools and prisons."

4/12/2012 3:50:54 PM

I was somewhat curious as to whether ALEC was losing its support due to its Voter ID laws or its Stand Your Ground laws. It appears that companies may be receiving pressure on both fronts.

As a side note, when I was using the search feature to see if this subject had already been posted, I found this post that JesusHChrist had made:

Quote :

"And, for a recent piece of anecdotal evidence: A Florida Congresswomen literally just turned in a bill for a vote and she FORGOT to edit out the business source's mission statement who wrote the legislation for her. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/02/417488/florida-gop-alec-forget/?mobile=nc"

4/12/2012 5:27:09 PM

I'm still not getting the point. There is a political organization in this country which lobbies for political ends you disagree with? Color me shocked.

4/12/2012 6:15:46 PM

Quote :

"All I hear is someone being honest. Who seriously wants their political opponents to vote?"

I would view influencing popular opinion on a given issue toward agreement with that viewpoint as an acceptable means to that end.

I would view preventing people who don't agree with a viewpoint from having an opportunity to vote on that point as an unacceptable means to that end.

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 9:33 PM. Reason : ]

4/12/2012 9:32:23 PM

Quote :

"I would view preventing people who don't agree with a viewpoint from having an opportunity to vote on that point as an unacceptable means to that end."

Nope. having "bad" intentions does not make someones actions unacceptable. If they achieve this goal by, say, scrutinizing records to prevent ballots from people they disagree with that voted twice, then their behavior is completely acceptable. If they do exactly the same thing by beating said double-voters up on the way to the poles, then their behavior is unacceptable.

Making voters show ID before voting will indeed prevent some people they disagree with from voting at all, nevermind twice. That does not automatically mean requiring ID is a bad thing or otherwise unacceptable.

4/13/2012 1:56:30 AM

Quote :

"Making voters show ID before voting will indeed prevent some people they disagree with from voting at all, nevermind twice. That does not automatically mean requiring ID is a bad thing or otherwise unacceptable."

The 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 all say you're an idiot.

[Edited on April 13, 2012 at 1:30 PM. Reason : ]

4/13/2012 1:29:13 PM

The Supreme Court says you're an idiot. None of the Amendments you listed say anything about requiring ID to vote.

Besides, you oppose the first amendment on corporate speech, so why should you be allowed to wrap yourself in the constitution this time?

4/13/2012 5:05:16 PM

Yeah yeah, corporations are people too, right Willard?

4/13/2012 5:08:32 PM

Winning debates against LoneSnark is so easy. You just let him post.

4/13/2012 5:52:02 PM

^^ And only people you agree with enjoy constitutional protections. We know. Some guy working for citizens united gave up his rights when he took the job. If he wants to be considered human again he can always quit, right?

^ Glad to see you've given up on your idiotic position, given how many states already require voter ID.
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

[Edited on April 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/14/2012 10:29:18 AM

Exposing ALEC: How Conservative-Backed State Laws Are All Connected

Quote :

"To itself, ALEC is an organization dedicated to the advancement of free market and limited government principles through a unique "public-private partnership" between state legislators and the corporate sector. To its critics, it's a shadowy back-room arrangement where corporations pay good money to get friendly legislators to introduce pre-packaged bills in state houses across the country."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/exposing-alec-how-conservative-backed-state-laws-are-all-connected/255869/

4/14/2012 12:39:11 PM

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/23/alec_attacks_shareholders/

Corporations have certain 'personal' rights because corporations are made up of people. But, when the very people who give a corporation its personhood oppose the way a corporation exercises those rights, it's a violation of the corporation's free speech.

ALEC should just get it over with and propose a Constitutional amendment that defines 'we the people' as corporations and actual natural persons as mere personal property.

4/23/2012 11:24:35 PM

misrepresentation of the facts. The shareholders had their say when they set up the corporation. They wrote a corporate charter which outlines how the corporation will be run. If the shareholders want to be asked every-time the corporation decides to spend money, they being shareholders can draft a new corporate charter themselves which says so. But for the government to instead come in and attempt to impose such a charter upon the shareholders is NOT a defense of shareholder rights.

4/24/2012 12:00:52 AM

I'm sure I've posted these before...but whatevs.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuGE1VxVsYo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAKL3Rl_Ihc&feature=sh_e_se&list=SL

4/27/2012 3:48:23 PM

Another Fault Lines video that's somewhat relevant to ALEC is this one, Disenfranchised in America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCRC6NbRshc

[Edited on April 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM. Reason : my internet speed requires me to drop the video to 480p]

4/27/2012 4:57:02 PM

Bump

12/2/2012 11:39:55 AM

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/snakeoiltothestates.pdf

Study finds that states that scored highly on the ALEC-Laffer Economic Competitive Index were more likely to have slower growth in GDP, employment, and income.

12/2/2012 11:55:28 AM

An important time to remember who is really writing the laws in Florida and NC.

7/13/2013 11:35:28 PM

^ Very true. I believe ALEC was behind stand your ground.

7/13/2013 11:54:44 PM

oh god, those evil people who dare to disagree with me!!!

7/13/2013 11:59:36 PM

The problem isn't merely that they disagree with what is good and right but that they use their special degree of access to push their harmful agenda through.

7/14/2013 4:34:37 AM

Specifics Supplanter? Stand Your Ground laws played no part in the prosecution or the defense of the Martin case.
So why is it

Quote :

"An important time to remember who is really writing the laws in Florida and NC."

[Edited on July 14, 2013 at 8:51 AM. Reason : ...]

7/14/2013 8:50:57 AM

only in the jury instructions

7/14/2013 9:05:14 AM

^ How so? Jury instruction with regards to 2nd Degree, Manslaughter, Reasonable Doubt, or Self-defense?

7/14/2013 9:28:41 AM

Didn't it also have something to do with the decision not to initially arrest, which helped spark the national attention this case got.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/us/george-zimmerman-to-appear-in-court.html

Quote :

"Florida’s expansive self-defense law, Stand Your Ground, was cited initially as a reason why no charges were brought."

7/14/2013 10:20:28 AM

^ You raised the issue. Don't put the burden on someone else to explain why ALEC has anything to do with the Martin case.

7/14/2013 10:26:09 AM

^^^"Self-Defense" is closer to it; from pp. 12-13 of the instructions: http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

Quote :

"JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force. “Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real. If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."

[Edited on July 14, 2013 at 12:09 PM. Reason : bolding mine, underline in original

7/14/2013 12:09:20 PM

Stand your ground was not used as by the defense during arguments, but it was part of the jury instructions as noted above:

Quote :

""The exact instruction to the jury was that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat and had a right to stand his ground and meet force with force — including deadly force. Those jury instructions incorporate the Stand Your Ground law.""

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/7/15/after_aiding_zimmermans_case_alec_backed

7/17/2013 1:43:45 PM

7/17/2013 7:37:31 PM

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/03/alec-funding-crisis-big-donors-trayvon-martin

12/4/2013 4:55:30 PM

[Edited on December 4, 2013 at 5:01 PM. Reason : -]

12/4/2013 5:00:54 PM

^ from that article.

Quote :

" a draft agreement prepared for the board meeting proposed that Alec's chairs in each of the 50 states, who are drawn from senior legislators, should be required to put the interests of the organisation first, thus setting up a possible conflict of interest with the voters who elected them;"

LOL

12/4/2013 5:03:57 PM

o look they're calling homeowners "freeriders" because they install solar panels and therefore don't need to pay the power company for electricity: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/alec-freerider-homeowners-assault-clean-energy

12/7/2013 9:18:28 PM

utilities are required to run wire to thier houses and have enough capacity to support them when the sun doesn't shine. who should pay for these things? the customers who don't have solar panels?

12/7/2013 10:16:09 PM

^ are you joking?

Their motivation and implementation of that law is crooked and corrupt.

12/8/2013 1:54:17 AM

do you agree that there is a cost associated with maintaining the capability to provide power to those with solar panels when the sun isn't shining?

12/8/2013 9:30:22 AM

You make it sound as though these people don't pay an electric bill when they use electricity from the grid. Your next argument could just as easily be bitching about people who use CFLs or other energy efficient devices/appliances because they aren't using enough electricity from the power companies. Should people be punished and called "freeloaders" for installing solar water heaters or build a home that uses a thermal envelope instead of a heating/cooling system at all?

12/8/2013 10:13:29 AM

lol, just lol.

12/8/2013 10:21:21 AM

^^^ technically the person with the solar panels is paying for them by providing extra electricity to the grid in the sunny weather when it would most likely be peak usage and the power company might have had to increase power output to meet peak demand.

12/8/2013 10:44:28 AM

^^^

Exactly.

It's not like these people are building a house in the middle of nowhere, putting panels on it, then demanding the electric company hook them up.

The vast majority of people are normal electric customers, who pay to have a meter installed that lets them send power back to the grid. Charing people extra in that situation to do this is idiotic.

Maybe the article is not correctly portraying what ALEC is trying to do, but based on their track record, it's most likely something degenerate to society.

12/8/2013 12:03:44 PM

this is why electric vehicles pay a special permit fee

12/8/2013 12:48:00 PM

am i the only one itt who understands the concept of stand-by power and the costs associated with it?

Quote :

"Should people be punished and called "freeloaders" for installing solar water heaters or build a home that uses a thermal envelope instead of a heating/cooling system at all?"

there should be a flat monthly fee for being connected to the grid and then a $/kWh rate. the current system punishes low income folks who cannot afford to install solar panels, but still have to pick up the stand-by power tab for the folks with them.

not to mention that they're already paying for the other folks' residential solar panels via the subsidies, which are the only way to make residential panels economically viable.

[Edited on December 8, 2013 at 4:19 PM. Reason : afsd]

12/8/2013 4:14:41 PM

am i the only one itt who understands the concept of peak power usage and the costs associated with it?

in the summer, power companies have to start up less efficient generators or run the larger ones at a less efficient, higher rate to keep up with all the air conditioners running on a sunny day. Having some extra generation from some solar panels would help reduce that amount and would make up for any stand-by power the people with solar would use on cloudy days.

12/8/2013 4:26:50 PM

Quote :

"Having some extra generation from some solar panels would help reduce that amount and would make up for any stand-by power the people with solar would use on cloudy days."

this makes no sense

12/8/2013 4:35:28 PM

Set em up ------------->

12/15/2013 12:50:49 AM