ALEC Exposed in Missouri - 2012-04-16

2

Report Highlights ................................................................................................................... 3

ALEC 101 ............................................................................................................................... 4

The Corporate Bill Mill Remaking Missouri Law ............................................................................... 4

Why is ALEC's Influence in Jefferson City Important? ...................................................................... 5

Additional Resources on ALEC's Extreme Agenda ............................................................................ 6

Missouri Legislators with ALEC Ties ........................................................................................ 7

ALEC "Model" Legislation Introduced In Missouri ................................................................. 10

Legislators' Financial Ties to ALEC ........................................................................................ 12

Missouri Taxpayer Funds Spent on ALEC Memberships & Junkets .................................................... 19

Candidate Campaign Expenditures to ALEC ........................................................................................ 20

ALEC & ALEC Staff Donations to Missouri Candidate Committees ..................................................... 22

Exposed: ALEC's "Model" Legislation in the Missouri General Assembly ............................... 23

So-Called 'Right to Work' Bills ............................................................................................................. 25

Private Attorney Retention Act ........................................................................................................... 34

Voter Registration Obstacles .............................................................................................................. 41

Resolution Opposing Food and Beverage Taxes ................................................................................. 44

Re-Casting the Tenth Amendment ..................................................................................................... 49

Anti-Affordable Care Act Amendment ................................................................................................ 52

Resolution Asking Congress to Privatize Social Security ..................................................................... 53

"Parents Rights" Resolution ................................................................................................................ 57

Mortgage Fraud Act ............................................................................................................................ 58

Private Property Protection Act .......................................................................................................... 60

Asbestos Legislation ............................................................................................................................ 64

Resolution Endorsing Electoral College .............................................................................................. 70

"The Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act” ...................................................................................... 73

"The Autism Scholarship Program Act” .............................................................................................. 75

3

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate bill mill that is exerting

extraordinary and secretive influence in the Missouri legislature and in other states. Through ALEC,

corporations hand Missouri legislators wish lists in the form of "model" legislation that often directly

benefit their bottom line at the expense of Missouri families. Numerous ALEC model bills are crafted

behind closed doors by corporations, for corporations. Elected officials who are members of ALEC

bring ALEC legislation back to Missouri as their own ideas and important public policy innovations,

without disclosing that corporations crafted and pre-voted on the bills at closed-door meetings with

legislators who are part of ALEC.

ALEC provides legislators with a means to appear highly active in the legislative process by secretly

outsourcing their role in drafting legislation to corporate special interests. "It is funded and

dominated by free-market and corporate interests," writes the Kansas City Star, "who work with like-

minded legislators to shield corporations from legal action, limit the rights of workers,

disenfranchise voters, radically privatize the public education system, hinder the ability of

government to regulate and curb polluters, and further skew our democracy in the favor of

corporations and their political allies."

Almost 50 legislators in Missouri have been identified as having ties to ALEC, and the number may

be much higher. 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. Missouri legislators

with ALEC ties include Majority Leader Tim Jones, Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer, Lt.

Governor Peter Kinder, Speaker Steve Tilley, Rep. Shane Schoeller, Rep. Cole McNary, Sen. Jane

Cunningham and Senator and Former Speaker Ron Richard.

Progress Missouri has identified more than two dozen corporation-friendly bills introduced in the

Missouri General Assembly that echo ALEC model bills. ALEC bills in Missouri include so-called right

to work laws, voter registration hurdles, a "parent trigger act," a "parents rights" resolution, purely

political resolutions "reaffirming 10th amendment rights," a "private attorney retention act," an Anti-

Affordable Care Act ballot measure, a resolution opposing food and beverage taxes, an "asbestos

fairness act," a resolution supporting the electoral college, a "castle doctrine" law, a resolution

encouraging congress to undermine Social Security, and a "private property protection act."

4

As noted by the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed project, the American

Legislative Exchange Council is not simply a lobbying group or a front group. It is much more

powerful than that. Corporations behind ALEC's closed doors hand state legislators the changes

to the law that they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators,

corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote

with legislators to approve "model" bills, and also fund almost all of ALEC's operations.

Participating legislators, who are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, bring ALEC

proposals back to Missouri and other statehouses as their own ideas and important public

policy innovations, without disclosing that corporations crafted and pre-voted on the bills

alongside legislators in closed-door meetings at fancy resorts. ALEC boasts that it has over

1,000 of these bills are introduced by legislative members every year, with at least one in every

five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a "unique," "unparalleled" and

"unmatched" organization.

"ALEC is a group funded by corporations and conservative activists. It beguiles

conservative state lawmakers with wining and dining at annual conferences

and the chance to mingle with deep-pocketed donors. In return, lawmakers

promote the group's 'model legislation,' bills aimed at things like stripping

workers of protections and requiring photo identification to vote."

- Kansas City Star, 04/6/2012

Why would a legislator be interested in advancing cookie-cutter bills that are giveaways for

multinational corporations located outside of Missouri? ALEC's appeal rests largely on the fact

that legislators receive trips, food and lodging that provide many part-time legislators and their

families with vacations, along with the opportunity to rub shoulders with prospective donors to

their political campaigns. For a few hours of work on a task force and a couple of workshops by

ALEC experts, part-time legislators can bring the whole family to ALEC's annual convention, vote

in private meetings with corporate lobbyists , stay in swank hotels and attend parties, all

heavily subsidized by the corporate till. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported after the 2011

ALEC conference in New Orleans, "corporate benefactors made sure Missouri lawmakers

attending the conference were well fed and hydrated."

http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/alec-puppetmaster-state-legislatures-finally-getting-pushback/#storylink=cpy

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_080e66c9-e170-5d85-8ba3-d2a4f904f148.html

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_080e66c9-e170-5d85-8ba3-d2a4f904f148.html

5

ALEC provides legislators with a means to appear highly active in the legislative process while

outsourcing by transferring their role in drafting legislation to corporate special interests "It is

funded and dominated by free-market and corporate interests," writes the Kansas City Star,

"who work with like-minded legislators to push various agendas." And what are these various

corporate agendas? Here is a taste:

ALEC works fervently to promote laws that would shield corporations from legal

accountability to Missouri citizens and limit the rights of workers in the state. The

group's model legislation would roll back laws regarding corporate liability for harming

state residents, workers' compensation and on the job protections, collective bargaining

and organizing rights, and prevailing wage and minimum wage laws. ALEC is a main

proponent of bills that undermine organized labor by stripping public employees of

collective bargaining rights and that weaken the power of workers in the private sector

through so-called "right to work" laws. They also push "regulatory flexibility" laws that

lead to massive deregulation of rules designed to protect the health of Missouri families.

It is no surprise that the director of ALEC's Commerce, Insurance and Economic

Development Task Force previously worked as a Koch Associate at the Charles G. Koch

Charitable Foundation, which is funded by billionaire Charles Koch of Koch Industries.

ALEC is directly tied to the emerging trend among state legislatures to limit the ability

of American citizens to vote through restrictive "voter ID" laws. Using

demonstrably false allegations of "voter fraud," right-wing politicians are pursuing

policies that disenfranchise students and other at-risk voters--including the elderly and

the poor--who are unlikely to have drivers' licenses with their current residence and

who previously could vote showing proof of residence and other identification. By

suppressing the vote of such groups of likely Democratic voters, ALEC's model "Voter ID

Act" grants an electoral advantage to Republicans while undermining the fundamental

right to vote in America. In addition, ALEC wants to make it easier for corporations to

participate in the political process. Their Public Safety and Elections Task Force includes

Sean Parnell of the Center for Competitive Politics, one of the most vociferous pro-

corporate involvement in elections groups in the nation, and promotes legislation that

would devastate campaign reform and increase corporate influence in elections.

Despite constitutional problems, negative impacts on public schools, bias against

disadvantaged students, and comprehensive studies that demonstrate that private

school voucher programs failed to make any substantial improvements to education,

ALEC pushes vouchers as a way to privatize public education and transfer Missouri tax

dollars from public institutions to private profits. Under the guise of "school choice,"

http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/bait-and-switch-tax-shift-would-hurt-many/

http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/bait-and-switch-tax-shift-would-hurt-many/

http://www.politicususa.com/en/epi-report-f-right-to-work-laws-do-not-effectively-promote-economic-growth

http://www.serconline.org/alec/alec20.html

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=50360319&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=d9D7&locale=en_US&srchid=9faefe95-c535-4cce-9d68-f23d47db33bd-0&srchindex=13&srchtotal=29&pvs=ps&pohelp=&goback=.fps_*1_Courtney_O%27brien_*1_*1_*1_*1_*51_*1_Y_*1_*1_*1_false_2

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=50360319&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=d9D7&locale=en_US&srchid=9faefe95-c535-4cce-9d68-f23d47db33bd-0&srchindex=13&srchtotal=29&pvs=ps&pohelp=&goback=.fps_*1_Courtney_O%27brien_*1_*1_*1_*1_*51_*1_Y_*1_*1_*1_false_2

http://www.campusprogress.org/articles/conservative_corporate_advocacy_group_alec_behind_voter_disenfranchise/

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/05/state-disenfranchisement-schemes/

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fraud_of_voter_id_laws

http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/citizens-blindsided-secret-corporate-money-the-2010-elections-and-america-#corpdefenders

http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/citizens-blindsided-secret-corporate-money-the-2010-elections-and-america-#corpdefenders

http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/IJ-ALEC-school-choice.pdf

6

ALEC pushes bills with titles like "Parental Choice Scholarship Act" and the "Education

Enterprise Act" that establish or expand private school voucher programs.

At the bidding of its major donors like Exxon Mobil and Koch Industries, ALEC is a

powerful force behind state-level legislation that would hinder the ability of the

people to regulate and curb polluters through governmental power. ALEC has

previously said that carbon dioxide "is beneficial to plant and human life alike," and it

promotes climate change denialism. The group's model legislation assails EPA emissions

guidelines and greenhouse gas regulations, destabilizes regional climate initiatives,

permits free-reign for energy corporations, and pushes for massive deregulation of

some of the biggest polluters on the planet.

As states face challenging budget deficits, ALEC wants to make it more difficult to

generate revenue in order to close shortfalls. Such bills include the "Super Majority

Act," which makes it so complicated for legislatures to change tax policy that California

voters overturned the law; the "Taxpayer Bill of Rights," which brought fiscal disaster to

Colorado; and measures to eliminate capital gains and progressive income taxes. The

main beneficiaries of ALEC's irresponsible fiscal policies are corporations and the

wealthiest taxpayers.

For more information on the one-stop shop for corporations looking to identify friendly state legislators

and work with them to get special-interest legislation, please see:

ALEC Exposed, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy

ALECExposed.com

"ALEC: The Voice of Corporate Special Interests In State Legislatures"

People for the American Way, PFAW.org.

"Beyond Dinner and a Movie: ALEC Actively Courts State Lawmakers"

National Institute on Money and Politics, FollowTheMoney.org

"Our Step-by-Step Guide to Understanding ALEC's Influence on Your State Laws."

Pro Publica, ProPublica.org.

"Legislating Under the Influence; Money, Power, and the American Legislative

Exchange Council."

Common Cause, CommonCause.org.

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/04/04/04climatewire-conservative-group-drafts-promotes-anti-epa-29249.html

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/04/04/04climatewire-conservative-group-drafts-promotes-anti-epa-29249.html

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=10

http://www.grist.org/climate-policy/2011-03-16-koch-group-alec-cut-paste-attack-regional-climate-initiatives

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/11/voters-pass-prop-25-allowing-legislative-majority-vote-to-pass-california-budget.html

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=753

http://alecexposed.com/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

http://alecexposed.com/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/alec-the-voice-of-corporate-special-interests-state-legislatures

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/alec-the-voice-of-corporate-special-interests-state-legislatures

http://www.followthemoney.org/press/PrintReportView.phtml?r=454

http://www.followthemoney.org/press/PrintReportView.phtml?r=454

http://www.propublica.org/article/our-step-by-step-guide-to-understanding-alecsinfluence-

http://www.propublica.org/article/our-step-by-step-guide-to-understanding-alecsinfluence-

http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/MONEYPOWERANDALEC.PDF



7

Identifying the list of Missouri legislators who are part of ALEC is a difficult task, because ALEC operates

largely in secret. Even though it claims to be a legislative membership organization, there is no full list of

legislators that are members of ALEC anywhere on their website.

However, we do have a few sources open to us: the Missouri Ethics Commission, Sunshine Law requests

with Capitol offices, and the Center for Media and Democracy. Progress Missouri has identified almost

40 Missouri legislators and politicians as ALEC members and supporters through state Sunshine Law

requests and reviews of Missouri Ethics Commission data. The community of researchers supporting the

Center for Media and Democracy's ALECExposed.com website have also identified additional Missouri

politicians as ALEC members and supporters, all of whom are also listed below, bringing the total to

nearly 50 elected officials.

Sue Allen, R- Town & Country

Walt Bivins, R-St. Louis

Ellen Brandon, R- Cape Girardeau

Mike Colona, D-St. Louis

Stanley Cox, R-Sedalia

Gary Cross, R- Lee's Summit

Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau

Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield

Charlie Denison, R-Springfield

Bob Dixon, R-Greene

Tony Dugger, R-Hartville

Ed Emery, R-Lamar

Doug Ervin, R- Kearney

Doug Funderburk, R-St. Peter's

Ted Hoskins, D-Berkeley

Rodney Hubbard, D-St. Louis

Steve Hunter, R-Joplin

Rod Jetton, R- Marble Hill

Caleb Jones, R-California

Kenny Jones, R-Clarksburg

Tim Jones, R-Eureka

Peter Kinder, R-Statewide

Andrew Koenig, R-Winchester

Bart Korman, R- High Hill

Michele Kratky, D-St. Louis

Jim Lembke, R-Lemay

Cole McNary, R-Chesterfield

Brian Nieves, R-Washington

Gary Nodler, R-Joplin

Darrell Pollock, R-Lebanon

Ron Richard, R-Joplin

Luann Ridgeway, R-Clay County

Lyle Rowland, R-Cedarcreek

Rodney Schad, R-Versailles

Shane Schoeller, R-Willard

Jason Smith, R-Salem

Joe Smith, R-St. Charles

Bill White, R-Joplin

Marilyn Williams, D-Dudley

Brian Yates, R-Lee's Summit

http://mec.mo.gov/

http://www.prwatch.org/

8

House Majority Leader Timothy Jones, ALEC

State Chairman, Education Task Force

Rep. Jason Smith , ALEC State Chairman and

Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force

Speaker Steven Tilley; Public Safety and

Elections Task Force

Rep. Shane Schoeller, Tax and Fiscal Policy

Task Force

Rep. Andrew Koenig; Tax and Fiscal Policy

Task Force

Rep. John J. Diehl; Telecommunications and

Information Technology Task Force

Rep. Cole McNary; Telecommunications and


Rep. Walt Bivins, Energy, Environment and

Agriculture Task Force

Rep. Stanley Cox; Civil Justice Task Force

Former Rep. Ed Emery, former State Chairman

Rep. Rodney Schad; Telecommunications and


Rep. Vicki Schneider; Civil Justice Task Force

Rep. Darrell L. Pollock; Telecommunications

and Information Technology Task Force

Rep. Shelley Keeney; International Relations

Task Force

Rep. Donna Lichtenegger; Health and Human

Services Task Force

Rep. Keith Frederick; Health and Human

Senate President Pro Tem Robert Mayer; Civil

Justice Task Force

Sen. Jane Cunningham; Education Task Force

Sen. Ron Richard; Commerce, Insurance and

Economic Development Task Force

Sen. Mike Parson; Public Safety and Elections

Task Force

Sen. Brian Nieves; Civil Justice Task Force

Sen. Jim Lembke; International Relations Task

Force

Former Sen. John Griesheimer; Energy,

Environment and Agriculture Task Force

Rep. Ellen Brandom; Health and Human

Services Task Force

Rep. Eric Burlison; Health and Human Services

Task Force

Rep. Mike Kelley; Education Task Force

Rep. Barney Fisher; Energy, Environment and

Agriculture Task Force

Rep. Dave Hinson; Public Safety and Elections

Task Force

Rep. Sue Entlicher; Public Safety and Elections

Task Force

Rep. Tony Dugger; Public Safety and Elections

Task Force

Rep. Noel Torpey; Tax and Fiscal Policy Task

Force

Rep. Paul R. Curtman; Tax and Fiscal Policy

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Politicians#Missouri_Legislators_with_ALEC_Ties

9

Services Task Force

Rep. Sue Allen, ALEC Health and Human

Services Task Force and International

Relations Task Force member

Rep. William White; Health and Human

Services Task Force

Rep. Jerry Nolte; International Relations Task

Force

Rep. Scott D. Dieckhaus; Education Task Force

Rep. Bill Lant; Commerce, Insurance and

Economic Development Task Force

Rep. Sandy Crawford; Commerce, Insurance

and Economic Development Task Force

Task Force

Rep. Zachary Wyatt; Telecommunications and


Former Rep. Cynthia Davis

Rep. Therese Sander

Rep. Doug Ervin

Former Rep. Ted Hoskins, ALEC "State

Legislator of the Year" in 2009

Former Rep. Rodney Hubbard, ALEC "State

Legislator of the Year" in 2007

Rep. Mike Colona

Rep. Michele Kratky

Sen. Jack Goodman, spoke on "Saving Dollars

and Protecting Communities: State

Successes in Corrections Policy" at 2011

ALEC Annual Meeting

10

Progress Missouri has more than two dozen corporation-friendly bills introduced in the Missouri General

Assembly with provisions that echo ALEC model bills. The following list does not include ALEC language

snuck into larger legislation, or bills inspired by ALEC models but re-written to match Missouri statutes.

Year Bill Sponsor ALEC Model Topic

2012 HB 1086 Bill White ALECExposed.com Right to Work for Less

2012 HB1539 Tim Jones ALECExposed.com "Parent Trigger Act"

2012 HB2109 Shane Schoeller ALECExposed.com Voter registration Hurdles

2012 HCR 50 Kurt Bahr ALECExposed.com "Parents Rights" Resolution

2012 HCR 7 Lyle Rowland ALECExposed.com "Reaffirming 10th Amendment rights"

2012 SB 438 Robert Mayer ALECExposed.com Right to Work for Less

2012 SB 514 Jason Crowell ALECExposed.com Right to Work for Less

2012 SB 547 Chuck Purgason ALECExposed.com Right to Work for Less

2011 HB255 Stanley Cox ALECExposed.com "Private Attorney Retention Act"



2011 SB 1 Luann Ridgeway ALECExposed.com Right to Work for Less





2010 HCR 44 Joe Smith ALECExposed.com Food and Beverage Resolution


2010 SJR 25 Jane Cunningham ALEC.org "Freedom of Choice in Healthcare Act"

2009 HCR 13 Jim Guest ALECExposed.com "Reaffirming 10th Amendment rights"

2008 HB 2137 Brian Yates Heartland.org "Asbestos Fairness Act"

2008 HCR 44 Bob Dixon ALECExposed.com Electoral college

2008 SB 727 Charlie Shields ALECExposed.com "Mortgage Fraud Act"

2007 HB 189 Kenny Jones ALECExposed.com "Castle Doctrine" Law

2006 HB1103 Kenny Jones ALECExposed.com "Castle Doctrine" Law

2005 HB877 Steve Hunter ALECExposed.com Right to Work for Less

2004 SCR 22 Peter Kinder ALECExposed.com Personal Retirement Accounts

2000 HB 1798 Marilyn Williams ALECExposed.com "Private Property Protection Act"

2006 SB 962 Luann Ridgeway ALECExposed.com

“Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act”

http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB1086&year=2012&code=R

http://j.mp/alec_rtw

http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=hb1539&year=2012&code=R

http://j.mp/alec_trigger


http://j.mp/alec_voterreg

http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HCR50&year=2012&code=R

http://j.mp/alec_parental


http://j.mp/alec_tenther

http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=38


http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/bts_web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=94




http://ow.ly/5Ncad

http://j.mp/alec_attorney

http://ow.ly/5NbZk


http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=hcr12&year=2011&code=R













http://j.mp/alec_food




http://www.alec.org/2011/01/alec-state-legislators-warn-boehner-that-obamacare-will-cost-states-big-if-not-repealed/



http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills081/bills/HB2137.htm

http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/19915.pdf

http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills081/bills/HCR44.htm



http://j.mp/alec_mortgagefraud


http://j.mp/alec_castle



http://house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills051/bills/HB877.HTM


http://www.senate.mo.gov/04info/bills/sc022.htm

http://j.mp/alec_privatizess

http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills00/biltxt00/intro00/HB1798I.htm

http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/4/47/3G9-The_Private_Property_Protection_Act_Exposed.pdf


http://alecexposed.org/w/images/7/79/2D8-THE_AUTISM_SCHOLARSHIP_PROGRAM_ACT_Exposed.pdf

11

Year Bill Sponsor ALEC Model Topic

2008 HB 1886 Dwight Scharnhorst ALECExposed.com “The Autism Scholarship Program Act”



12

The following chart documents just some of financial connections between state legislators and ALEC. This does not include donations by

employees of ALEC corporate members to Missouri legislators' election campaigns. Additional financial information is being examined.

Legislator Party & Hometown

Documentation of Membership Dues Paid?

Received Campaign Contribution from ALEC ?

Gifts Received & ALEC Events Attended

Connections to known ALEC Bills and other associations

Allen, Sue R- Town & Country

YES Attended ALEC conference in San Diego in 2010. The trip was paid for by the American Physical Therapy Association.

In 2011, used campaign funds to pay ALEC membership fee.

Bivins, Walt R-St. Louis Signed ALEC letter defending polluters. (See letter here)

Brandon, Ellen R- Cape Girardeau

From 2009-2010, ALEC provided Brandon with $1000 for travel and lodging expenses related to ALEC conferences in Atlanta, GA and San Diego, CA

Colona, Mike D-St. Louis YES In 2010, used campaign funds to pay ALEC $425 in membership fees. Also, see St. Louis Post Dispatch story describing ties here

http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/3/3b/EPALetterforSenate.pdf

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_a7c08603-30c0-58df-9b19-0942328a2257.html

13






Cox, Stanley R-Sedalia Used campaign funds on ALEC conference registration.

Signed ALEC letter defending polluters. (See letter here) In 2010, used campaign funds to pay for ALEC conference registration.

Sponsored HB 255

Cross, Gary R- Lee's Summit

YES Attended conference 11/27/11 In 2011, used campaign funds to pay ALEC membership fee.

Crowell, Jason R-Cape Girardeau

SB 888

Cunningham, Jane R-Chesterfield $75 From 2001-2010, ALEC provided Jane Cunningham with more than $33,000 in lodging and travel expenses related to ALEC board meetings and conferences. She attended over 30 such meetings and conferences. Locations included: Chicago, IL, Las Vegas, NV, San Francisco, CA, San Diego, CA, New Orleans, LA, Phoenix, AZ, Hilton Head, SC (2), Washington, DC (7), Jackson Hole, WY…

Member of ALEC board from 2005 to 2010, according to forms filed with IRS by ALEC and an ALEC press release. In 2007 she was the Secretary of the ALEC Board of Directors, and in 2008 she was the Treasurer. Sponsor of SJR25/Proposition C

Denison, Charlie R-Springfield YES $600 Used campaign funds to pay ALEC dues.

In 2011, used campaign funds to pay $475 on ALEC dues.


http://house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB255&year=2011&code=R


14






Dixon, Bob R-Greene HCR 44

Dugger, Tony R-Hartville YES In 2011, used campaign funds to pay ALEC membership fee.

Emery, Ed R-Lamar Signed ALEC letter defending polluters. (See letter here) Former State Chairman; Legislator of Year, 2006

Ervin, Doug R- Kearney From 2007-2009, ALEC provided Ervin with over $4500 for travel and lodging expenses related to ALEC conferences in Atlanta, GA, Durham, NC, San Diego, CA, Washington, DC (2), Chicago, IL, Philadelphia, PA, and Hilton Head, SC.

Spent $650 of campaign funds on ALEC registration in 2009.

Funderburk, Doug R-St. Peter's YES In 2009 and 2010, spent $785 in campaign funds on ALEC membership and conference fees.

Hoskins, Ted D-Berkeley Legislator of Year, 2009

Hubbard, Rodney D-St. Louis Legislator of Year, 2007

Hunter, Steve R-Joplin YES Used campaign funds to register for an ALEC event.

In 2011, used campaign funds to pay ALEC registration fee. Sponsored HB 877

Jetton, Rod R- Marble Hill Spent campaign funds on ALEC legislative magazine in 2008.



../../../AppData/Roaming/AppData/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Word/•%09http:/house.mo.gov/content.aspx%3finfo=/bills051/bills/HB877.HTM

15






Jones, Caleb R-California YES Used campaign funds to register for ALEC event.

In 2011, campaign used funds to pay for ALEC registration fees.

Jones, Kenny R-Clarksburg Sponsored HB 189

Jones, Tim R-Eureka YES $1,292.31 Used campaign funds to register; received multiple golf gifts at 2010 ALEC conference from lobbyists Travis Brown and John Sondag. In 2008-2010, ALEC provided Jones with more than $6,800 for travel and lodging expenses related to ALEC conferences, including two conferences in Washington, DC, one conference in Atlanta, GA, one conference in Memphis, TN, and one conference in San Diego, CA.

Signed ALEC letter on defending polluters. Spent over $2000 in campaign funds on ALEC conference registration fees and ALEC membership fees. Sponsored HB393 and HB 1539 State Chairman (See here)

Kinder, Peter R-Statewide

Attended 2010 ALEC Conference w/ taxpayer funds

Also attended numerous ALEC conference as Senator San Diego, 1995 New Orleans, 1997 Chicago, IL, 1998 Nashville, TN, 1999 New Orleans, 1999 Los Angeles, 2001 Washington, DC, 2002

Sponsored SCR 22 Spoke at 2010 Conference.




http://www.alec.org/about-alec/state-chairmen/


16






Koenig, Andrew R-Winchester YES $2,233.68 In 2008-2010, ALEC provided Koenig with more than $1,800 for travel and lodging expenses related to three ALEC conferences in Washington, DC. Used $896 in campaign funds to travel to ALEC events.

In 2008, 2009, and 2010 used campaign funds to pay over $1500 on ALEC membership and conference fees.

Korman, Bart R- High Hill YES Used campaign funds to pay ALEC membership dues.

In 2011, used campaign funds to pay ALEC membership dues.

Kratky, Michele D-St. Louis Used campaign funds to travel to ALEC events.

In 2010, used $1000 in campaign funds on aircraft travel and lodging for ALEC event.

Lembke, Jim R-Lemay YES Used campaign funds to pay for ALEC membership dues and registration fees.

In 2009 and 2010, used $475 in campaign funds to pay ALEC registration and membership fees.

McNary, Cole R-Chesterfield $300 In 2010, ALEC provided McNary with $600 for travel and lodging expenses related to ALEC conferences in Washington, DC and San Diego, CA.

Nieves, Brian R-Washington Used campaign funds In 2009, used $350 in campaign contributions for the purpose of an ALEC conference.

Nodler, Gary R-Joplin Used campaign funds In 2006 and 2007, used $500 in campaign contributions for ALEC registration fees.

17






Pollock, Darrell R-Lebanon $1459.94 In 2010, ALEC provided Pollock with over $1400 for travel and lodging expenses related to an ALEC conference in San Diego, California. Used campaign funds to pay for ALEC registration fees.

In 2010, used campaign $510 in campaign funds on ALEC registration fees.

Richard, Ron R-Joplin Member, Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force

Ridgeway, Luann R-Clay County In 2001, ALEC provided Pollock with around $ 1800 for travel and lodging expenses related to an ALEC conference in Washington, DC.

Donated $1,475 in campaign funds for ALEC scholarships in 2010.

Rowland, Lyle R-Cedarcreek Sponsored HCR 7

Schad, Rodney R-Versailles $500 Signed ALEC letter defending polluters. (See letter here)

Schoeller, Shane R-Willard YES In 2008-2009, ALEC Shane Schoeller with $1,500 for travel expenses related to ALEC conferences, including one conference in Washington, DC, and one conference in Atlanta, GA.

In 2011, Schoeller's campaign used funds to pay for ALEC membership dues.



18






Smith, Jason R-Salem In 2008-2009, ALEC provided Smith with almost $2,000 in travel expenses related to ALEC conferences, including one conference in Washington, DC, one conference in Atlanta, GA, one conference in Memphis, TN, and one conference in Chicago, IL

In 2011, used $375 on in campaign funds on ALEC registration fees. State Chairman (See here)

Smith, Joe R-St. Charles Sponsored HCR 44

White, Bill R-Joplin Sponsored HB 1086

Williams, Marilyn D-159 Sponsored HB 1798

Yates, Brian R-Lee's Summit YES Used campaign funds to pay for membership dues.

In 2007, used campaign funds to pay for ALEC membership dues.

Sources:

Missouri Ethics Commission

ALEC.org ALEC.org

ALECExposed.com http://alecexposed.org/w/images/7/72/ALEC_State_Chairmen_Exposed.pdf

ALEC.org http://www.alec.org/AM/PDF/NRTF/EPALetterforSenate.pdf

SourceWatch.org http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Politicians

Turner Report research shows that all of the following attended the 2010 ALEC conference: Darrell Pollock, R-Lebanon, John Diehl, R-Town and

Country; Doug Funderburk, R-St. Peter's; Chuck Gatschenberger, R-Lake St. Louis; Sue Allen, R-St. Louis; Ellen Brandom, R-Sikeston; Cole McNary, R-

Chesterfield; Jason Smith, R-Salem; Ed Emery, R-Lamar; and Timothy Jones, R-Eureka, Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield; John Griesheimer, R-

Washington; and Luann Ridgeway, R-Smithville. http://rturner229.blogspot.com/2010/10/taxpayers-lobbyists-foot-bill-for.html

http://www.alec.org/about-alec/state-chairmen/




http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=State_Chairmen&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=13614

http://alecexposed.org/w/images/7/72/ALEC_State_Chairmen_Exposed.pdf

http://www.alec.org/AM/PDF/NRTF/EPALetterforSenate.pdf

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Politicians

http://rturner229.blogspot.com/2010/10/taxpayers-lobbyists-foot-bill-for.html

19

Fiscal Year Agency Name Category Description Detail Description Vendor Name Payments

2009 Legislature Professional Development Organization Memberships American Legislative Exchange $5,800.00

2010 Legislature Professional Development Organization Memberships American Legislative Exchange $50.00

2010 Office of Lt. Governor Professional Development Convention, Conference & Training Fees American Legislative Exchange $700.00



Source: Missouri Accountability Portal

78jj

This snapshot is for the most recent three years, although the financial connections between Missouri politicians and ALEC go back much farther.

20

Candidate Name Recipient Date Purpose Amount

Charlie Denison ALEC , Washington, DC 6/3/2011 Dues $475.00

Caleb Jones ALEC , Washington, DC 4/7/2011 Registration $100.00

Tim Jones (R-Eureka) ALEC , Washington, DC 3/31/2011 Registration Fee For Conference $599.00

Bart Korman ALEC , Washington, DC 2/16/2011 Dues $100.00

Sue Allen ALEC , Washington, DC 2/7/2011 Fee $100.00


Shane Schoeller ALEC , Washington, DC 1/31/2011 Membership Dues $100.00

Tony Dugger (R-Hartville) ALEC , Washington, DC 1/25/2011 Membership $100.00

Luann Ridgeway (R-Clay County) ALEC , Washington, DC 12/10/2010 Scholarship Funding $1,475.00

Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia) ALEC , Washington, DC 12/8/2010 Conference Registration $150.00

Tim Jones (R-Eureka) ALEC , Washington, DC 12/5/2010 Spring Conference Registration Fee $200.00

Mike Colona (D-St. Louis) ALEC , Washington, DC 11/28/2010 Legislative Convention $425.00

Michele Kratky ALEC , Washington, DC 11/14/2010 Airfare And Hotel $1,002.85

Mike Colona (D-St. Louis) ALEC , Washington, DC 11/10/2010 Legislative Seminar & Membership Fee $425.00

Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis County) ALEC , Washington, DC 11/10/2010 Alec Registration $525.00


Jim Lembke (R-Lemay) ALEC , Washington, DC 10/26/2010 Conference Registration $375.00

Tim Jones (R-Eureka) ALEC , Washington, DC 9/23/2010 States & Nation Policy Summit Registration Fee $375.00

Darrell Pollock ALEC , Washington, DC 6/15/2010 Registration $510.00

Darrell Pollock ALEC , Washington, DC 6/15/2010 Registration $510.00

Tim Jones (R-Eureka) ALEC , Washington, DC 5/25/2010 Registration Fee-Conference $660.00

Doug Funderburk (R-St. Peter's) ALEC , Washington, DC 2/13/2010 Conference Fee $410.00

Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis County) ALEC , Washington, DC 11/13/2009 Conference $600.00

21

Candidate Name Recipient Date Purpose Amount

Mike Colona (D-St. Louis) ALEC , Washington, DC 10/20/2009 Conference $350.00

Doug Ervin ALEC , Washington, DC 5/28/2009 Registration $650.00

Doug Funderburk (R-St. Peter's) ALEC , Washington, DC 5/14/2009 Annual Dues $375.00

Enterprise Holdings PAC ALEC , Washington, DC 3/11/2009 Contribution $2,500.00

Jim Lembke (R-Lemay) ALEC , Washington, DC 1/20/2009 Dues $100.00

Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis County) ALEC , Washington, DC 11/24/2008 Travel Expenses $896.07

Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis County) ALEC , Washington, DC 11/19/2008 Membership Fee $400.00

Speaker Jetton Leadership Fund ALEC , Washington, DC 6/26/2008 Legislative Magazine $375.00

Gary Nodler (R-Joplin) ALEC , Washington, DC 5/16/2007 Registration $275.00

Jack Goodman ALEC , Washington, DC 2/5/2007 Membership $200.00

Grassroots For Hunter ALEC , Washington, DC 1/25/2007 Registration $100.00

Brian Yates (R-Blue Springs) ALEC , Washington, DC 1/11/2007 Membership Dues For Official Office $100.00

Gary Nodler (R-Joplin) ALEC , Washington, DC

Registration $275.00

22

Politician Donor Date Amount Note

Andrew Koenig ALEC , Washington, DC 1/16/2011 $500.00



Timothy W Jones ALEC , Washington, DC 1/21/2011 $1192.31

Timothy W Jones ALEC , Washington, DC 3/10/2010 $500.00 Reimbursement for travel

Timothy W Jones ALEC , Washington, DC 10/21/2010 $50.00 Refund for early registration

Darrell Pollock ALEC , Washington, DC 9/17/2010 $1459.94 Reimbursement

Andrew Koenig ALEC , Washington, DC 1/12/2009 $896.07 Reimbursement for travel

Jane Cunningham Lori Roman, Annapolis, MD 21401, ALEC Executive Director 4/17/2008 $50.00

Jane Cunningham Todd Kruse, Apple Valley, MN 55124, ALEC Field Representative 11/16/2007 $75.00

Jane Cunningham Todd Kruse, Apple Valley, MN 55124, ALEC Field Representative 11/16/2007 $75.00

Rodney Schad ALEC , Washington, DC 9/2/2008 $500.00

23

Year Bill Sponsor Link to ALEC

Model

Topic

2012 HB 1086 Bill White ALECExposed.com Right to Work for Less


2012 HB2109 Shane Schoeller ALECExposed.com Voter registration Hurdles

2012 HCR 50 Kurt Bahr ALECExposed.com "Parents Rights" Resolution


2012 SB 438 Robert Mayer ALECExposed.com Right to Work for Less











2010 HCR 44 Joe Smith ALECExposed.com Food and Beverage Resolution


2010 SJR 25 Jane Cunningham ALEC.org "Freedom of Choice in Healthcare Act"

2009 HCR 13 Jim Guest ALECExposed.com "Reaffirming 10th Amendment rights"

2008 HB 2137 Brian Yates Heartland.org "Asbestos Fairness Act"

2008 HCR 44 Bob Dixon ALECExposed.com Electoral college

2008 SB 727 Charlie Shields ALECExposed.com "Mortgage Fraud Act"

2007 HB 189 Kenny Jones ALECExposed.com "Castle Doctrine" Law

2006 HB1103 Kenny Jones ALECExposed.com "Castle Doctrine" Law

2005 HB877 Steve Hunter ALECExposed.com Right to Work for Less

2004 SCR 22 Peter Kinder ALECExposed.com Personal Retirement Accounts

2000 HB 1798 Marilyn Williams ALECExposed.com "Private Property Protection Act"

2006 SB 962 Luann Ridgeway ALECExposed.co

m

“Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act”

















http://ow.ly/5Ncad


http://ow.ly/5NbZk









































24

Year Bill Sponsor Link to ALEC

Model

Topic

2008 HB 1886 Dwight

Scharnhorst

ALECExposed.com “The Autism Scholarship Program Act”



25

For decades, Republican politicians and powerful corporate interests have pushed so-called

right to work bills that are all about politics -- not economics. This legislation is designed by

ALEC corporate interests and their allied politicians to harm their political opponents by

eliminating public employee unions seen as supporting elected officials that look out for

workers' interests.

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer,

Sen. Jason Crowell, Sen. Chuck Purgason, Sen. Luann Ridgeway, Rep. Bill White, Former Rep.

Steve Hunter

Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Barney Fisher, Ed Emery, Don

Phillips, Todd Smith, Mike Dethrow, Mike Cunningham, Theresa Sander, Kathy Chinn, Marilyn

Ruestman, Dennis Wood, Brad Roark, Davis Day, Rex Rector, Bill Deeken, Tom Self, Otto

Bean, Peter Myers, Brian Munzlinger, Steve Hobbs, Kevin Wilson, And John Quinn (Co-

Sponsors of HB 877)

Missouri Bills: SB 514, SB 438, SB 547,SB 1, SB 109, SB 197, SB 206, SB 888, HB877, HB 1086

ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_rtw

ALEC Model Legislation


MO Language in

SB 514, SB 438, SB 547,SB 1, SB 109, SB 197,

SB 206, SB 888, HB877, HB 1086

Section 3. {Labor organization.}

The term "labor organization" means any

organization of any kind, or agency or

employee representation committee or

union, that exists for the purpose, in whole or

in part, of dealing with employers concerning

wages, rates of pay, hours of work, other

conditions of employment, or other forms of

compensation

290.590. 1. As used in this section,

the term "labor organization" means any

organization of any kind or agency or

employee representation committee or union

which exists for the purpose in whole or in

part of dealing with employers concerning

wages, rates of pay, hours of work, other

conditions of employment, or other forms of

compensation.

No person shall be required, as a condition of No person shall be required as a condition or























26

employment or continuation of employment:

(A) to resign or refrain from voluntary

membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or

voluntary financial support of a labor

organization;

(B) to become or remain a member of a labor

organization;

(C) to pay any dues, fees, assessments, or

other charges of any kind or amount to a

labor organization;

(D) to pay to any charity or other third party,

in lieu of such payments, any amount

equivalent to or a pro-rata portion of dues,

fees, assessments, or other charges regularly

required of members of a labor organization;

or

(E) to be recommended, approved, referred,

or cleared by or through a labor organization.

continuation of employment to:

(1) Become or refrain from becoming a

member of a labor organization;

(2) Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other

similar charges however denominated of any

kind or amount to a labor organization;

(3) In lieu of the payments listed under

subdivision of this subsection, pay to any

charity or other third party any amount

equivalent to, or on a pro rata basis, any

dues, fees, assessments, or other charges

required of members of a labor organization.

Section 6. {Agreements in violation, and

actions to induce such agreements, declared

illegal.}

Any agreement, understanding, or practice,

written or oral, implied or expressed,

between any labor organization and

employer that violates

the rights of employees as guaranteed by

provisions of this chapter is hereby declared

to be unlawful, null and void, and of no legal

effect…

3.

Any agreement, understanding, or practice,

written or oral, implied or expressed,

between any labor organization and

employer that violates the rights of

employees as guaranteed under this section

is declared to be unlawful, null and void, and

of no legal effect.

Section 9. {Civil remedies.}

Any employee harmed as a result of

any violation or threatened violation of the

provisions of this chapter shall be entitled to

5. (2)

Any person injured as a result of

any violation or threatened violation of this

section may recover any and all damages of

27

injunctive relief against any and all violators

or persons threatening violations and may in

addition thereto recover any and all damages,

including costs and reasonable attorney fees,

of any character resulting from such violation

or threatened violation.

Such remedies shall be independent of and in

addition to the penalties and remedies

prescribed in other provisions of this chapter.

any character resulting from such violation or

threatened violation

including costs and reasonable attorney fees.

Such remedies shall be independent of and in

addition to the other penalties and remedies

proscribed under this section.

Section 10. {Duty to investigate.}

It shall be the duty of the prosecuting

attorneys of each county (or the attorney

general of this state) to investigate

complaints of violation or threatened

violations of this chapter and to prosecute all

persons violating any of its provisions, and to

take all means at their command to ensure its

effective enforcement.

6.

It shall be the duty of the prosecuting

attorney of each county and of the attorney

general of this state to investigate complaints

of violation or threatened violation of this

section and to prosecute any person violating

this section and to use all means at their

command to ensure the effective

enforcement of this section.

28

According to the Associated Press, the bill "would enable parents, if a majority agreed, to

convert a public school to a charter or get vouchers to send their children elsewhere if they're

unhappy with their current school… Dave Wright, president of the Missouri School Boards'

Association, called the bill's three options 'simple and unproven' and inadequate for solving

schools' complex problems. He also said parents of a single school shouldn't be given direct

power over it because their decisions affect local property owners who pay taxes to the school

district."

This legislation would allow a single vote to undermine the opportunity for a generation or

more of children to attend public schools, while redirecting tax dollars from public schools to

private institutions including for-profit school companies, even potentially "online" school

companies that would receive a huge portion of per pupil fees without the expense of providing

buildings, desks, sports, and the other social education of schools. ALEC's education task force is

co-chaired by a for-profit online school corporation.

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Tim Jones, ALEC State Co-Chair

Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Scott Dieckhaus, Cole McNary, Jay

Barnes, Todd Richardson, Andrew Koenig, Shane Schoeller and Gary Cross (HB 393). Gary

Fuhr, Bill Lant, Stanley Cox, Galen Higdon, and Doug Funderburk (HB1539)

Missouri Bills: HB393, HB1539

ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_trigger

ALEC Model Legislation HB393

Section 1: {Short Title}

This act may be cited

as the "Parent Empowerment and Choice Act"

or the "Parent Trigger Act."

Section 2. {Definitions}

For purposes of this article, the following

definitions apply:

(A) "Parent" means the natural or adoptive

parent or guardian of a dependent child.

160.1200. 1. The provisions of sections

160.1200 to 160.1206 shall be known

as the "Parent Empowerment and Choice

Act" or the "Parent Trigger Act".

2. As used in sections 160.1200 to 160.1206,

the following terms mean:

(1) "Parent", the natural parent or adoptive

parent or guardian of a dependent child;

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1703709.html





http://ow.ly/5NbZk

29

(B) "School district of enrollment" means a

school district other than the school district in

which the parent of a pupil resides, but in

which the parent of the pupil nevertheless

intends to enroll the pupil pursuant to this

article.

(C) "School district of residence" means a

school district in which the parent of a pupil

resides and in which the pupil would

otherwise be required to enroll pursuant to

state code.

Section 3. {Parent Empowerment}

For all public schools where more than one-

half of the parents or legal guardians of pupils

attending the school, or a combination of

more than one-half of the parents or legal

guardians of pupils attending the school and

the elementary or middle schools that

normally matriculate into a middle or high

school, as applicable, sign a petition

requesting the local educational agency to

implement one or more of the three

interventions identified pursuant to Section

(5), the local educational agency shall

implement the option requested by the

parents.

Section 4. {Intervention Implementation}

The local educational agency shall notify the

Superintendent and the state board upon

receipt of a petition and upon its final

disposition of that petition. The local

education agency is given 180 days to

implement the chosen model of reform.

(2) "School district of enrollment", a school

district other than the school district in which

the parent of a pupil resides, but in which the

parent of the pupil nevertheless intends to

enroll the pupil under sections 160.1200 to

160.1206;

(3) "School district of residence", a school

district in which the parent of a pupil resides

and in which the pupil would otherwise be

required to enroll under state law.

160.1202. 1.

For all public schools where more than fifty

percent of the parents of pupils attending

school, or a combination of more than fifty

percent of the parents of pupils attending the

school and the elementary or middle schools

that normally matriculate into a middle or

high school, as applicable, sign a petition

requesting the local educational agency to

implement one or more of the three

interventions identified under subsection 3 of

this section, the local educational agency shall

implement the option requested by the

parents.

2. The local educational agency shall notify

the superintendent and the state board upon

receipt of a petition and upon its final

disposition of that petition. The local

educational agency shall have one hundred

eighty days to implement the chosen model

of reform.

30

Section 5. {School Intervention Models}

There are three school intervention models:

restart model, school closure, or educational

choice model. Each is described below.

(A) Restart model. A restart model is one in

which an LEA converts a school or closes and

reopens a school under a charter school

operator, a charter management organization

(CMO), or an education management

organization (EMO) that has been selected

through a rigorous review process. (A CMO is

a non-profit organization that operates or

manages charter schools by centralizing or

sharing certain functions and resources

among schools. An EMO is a for-profit or non-

profit organization that provides ''whole-

school operation'' services to an LEA.) A

restart model must enroll, within the grades it

serves, any former student who wishes to

attend the school.

(B) School closure. School closure occurs

when an LEA closes a school and enrolls the

students who attended that school in other

schools in the LEA that are higher achieving.

These other schools should be within

reasonable proximity to the closed school and

may include, but are not limited to, charter

schools or new schools for which

achievement data are not yet available. In the

event that no such school exists, the district

will implement the educational choice model.

(C) Educational choice. Educational choice

3. There are three school intervention

models: restart model, school closure, and

educational choice.

(1) A restart model is one in which a local

educational agency converts a school or

closes and reopens a school under a charter

school operator, a charter management

organization, or an education management

organization that has been selected through a

rigorous review process. A charter

management organization is a nonprofit

organization that operates or manages

charter schools by centralizing or sharing

certain functions and resources among

schools. An education management

organization is a for-profit or nonprofit

organization that provides whole school

operation services to a local educational

agency. A restart model shall enroll, within

the grades it services, any former student

who wishes to attend the school.

(2) School closure occurs when a local

educational agency closes a school and

enrolls the students who attended that

school in other schools within the local

educational agency that are higher achieving.

These other schools should be within

reasonable proximity to the closed school and

may include, but are not limited to, charter

schools or new schools for which

achievement data are not yet available. In the

event no such school exists, the district shall

implement the educational choice model.

(3) Educational choice occurs when a local

31

occurs when an LEA implements a school

voucher program pursuant to Section 6.

Section 6. {Universal Educational Vouchers}

(A) Any student of, or student who would

naturally matriculate into, a school triggered

for the educational choice reform option will

have the option to receive a monetary

voucher to cover the cost of attendance at

any private or other public school.

(B) Any student of a triggered school wishing

to attend a private school will qualify for an

annual scholarship in an amount equal to the

lesser of:

(1) 75 percent the triggered school's annual

cost per pupil, including both operational and

capital facility costs; or

(2) 75 percent the dollar amount the resident

school district would have received to serve

and educate the eligible student from state

and local sources had the student enrolled

there.

(C) Any student of a triggered school wishing

to attend a different public school will qualify

for any public school with no additional fee.

(D) Funds available to a student are

calculated using an average of the last three

(3) budget years and recalculated each year.

educational agency implements a school

voucher program under section 160.1204.

160.1204. 1.

Any student of, or student who would

naturally matriculate into, a school triggered

for the educational choice reform option shall

have the option to receive a monetary

voucher to cover the cost of attendance at

any private or other public school.

2. Any student of a triggered school wishing

to attend a private school shall qualify for an

annual scholarship in an amount equal to the

lessor of:

(1) Seventy-five percent of the triggered

school's annual cost per pupil, including both

operational and capital facility costs; or

(2) Seventy-five percent of the dollar amount

the resident school district would have

received to serve and educate the eligible

student from state and local sources had the

student enrolled there.

3. Any student of a triggered school wishing

to attend a different public school shall

qualify for any public school with no

additional fee.

4. Funds available to a student are calculated

using an average of the last three budget

years and recalculated each year.

32

(E) Funds are made available to each student

until the earlier of (1) completion of their high

school degree or (2) their 21st birthday.

(F) Students receiving voucher monies are to

be counted in the enrollment figures of their

LEAs for the purposes of calculating future

voucher monies.

(G) Students receiving voucher monies more

than the cost of tuition in a private school are

given the opportunity to store that money in

an Educational Savings Account (ESA) to be

used for any additionally encumbered

educational expenses. Qualifying expenses

include but are not limited to tutoring,

lessons, educational camps, school materials,

textbooks, educational software.

(H) There are no additional regulatory powers

granted to the state in this legislation:

(1) The education voucher reform option

does not expand the regulatory authority of

the state, its officers, or any school district in

any way.

(2) Any regulatory board in existence must be

represented in at least half by members not a

part of the public school system.

Adopted by the Education Task Force at the

2010 States & Nation Policy Summit,

December 3, 2010. Approved by the ALEC

5. Funds are made available to each student

until the earlier of completion of his or her

high school degree or his or her twenty-first

birthday.

6. Students receiving voucher moneys are to

be counted in the enrollment figures of their

local educational agencies for the purposes of

calculating future voucher moneys.

7. Students receiving voucher moneys more

than the cost of tuition in a private school are

given the opportunity to store that money in

an educational savings account to be used for

any additionally encumbered educational

expenses. Qualifying expenses include but are

not limited to tutoring, lessons, educational

camps, school materials, textbooks, and

educational software.

160.1206. There are no additional regulatory

powers granted to the state in sections

160.1200 to 160.1206.

The educational voucher reform option of

section 160.1204 does not expand the

regulatory authority of the state, its officers,

or any school district in any way.

Any regulatory board in existence shall be

represented in at least half by members not a

part of the public school system.

33

Board of Directors, January 7, 2011.

34

Rep. Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia) has publicly acknowledged that 'his' legislation was modeled on an

ALEC proposal, spurred by concern about fees paid to private lawyers as part of the national

settlement with tobacco companies. (Missouri Lawyers Media, 03/20/11, and Summary of HB

255, 2011)

For decades, ALEC has been funded in part by tobacco companies and their lawyers. Reynolds

sits on ALEC's board and also sponsors cigar parties at ALEC resort meetings.

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Stanley Cox

Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Bob Nance and Chuck

Gatschenberger (HB 255). Bob Nance, Chuck Gatschenberger, Bryan Stevenson, and Walt

Bivins (HB 2236).

Missouri Bills: HB255, HB2236

ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_attorney%20

ALEC Model HB255

Section 1. {Title}

This act may be known as the Private

Attorney Retention Sunshine Act


A. For the purposes of this Act, a contract in

excess of $1,000,000 is one in which the fee

paid to an attorney or group of attorneys,

either in the form of a flat, hourly, or

contingent fee, and their expenses, exceeds

or can be reasonably expected to exceed

$1,000,000.

B. For the purposes of this Act, "fees" shall

include any compensation for legal services

however measured, including but not limited

to flat, hourly, and contingent fees.

484.500. 1. This act shall be known as the

"Private Attorney Retention Act".

2. (1) For the purposes of this section, a

contract in excess of one million dollars is one

which the fee paid to an attorney or group of

attorneys, either in the form of a flat, hourly,

or contingent fee, and their expenses,

exceeds or can be reasonably expected to

exceed one million dollars.

(2) For purposes of this section "fees" shall

include any compensation for legal services

however measured, including but not limited

to flat, hourly, and contingent fees.

http://ow.ly/5Ncad




http://ow.ly/5Ncad

35

Section 3. {Procurement}

Any state agency or state agent that wishes

to retain a lawyer or law firm to perform legal

services on behalf of this state, where the

fees and expenses for such services will

exceed or can be reasonably expected to

exceed one hundred thousand dollars

($100,000), shall not do so until an open and

competitive bidding process has been

undertaken. [Refer to existing state

thresholds and requirements for procuring

outside services by bid]

Section 4. {Oversight}

No state agency or state agent shall enter

into a contract for legal services exceeding

one million dollars ($1,000,000) without the

opportunity for legislative review of the terms

of the contract in accordance with Section 5.

Section 5. {Implementation}

A. Except as provided in Section 5(E), any

state agency or state agent proposing to

enter into a contract for legal services

exceeding $1,000,000

shall file a copy of the proposed contract with

the clerk of the House of Representatives and

shall also accompany such proposed contract

with a

written statement that identifies:

(1) the reasons the state should retain private

counsel and the consideration of

alternatives;

3. Any state agency or state agent that

wishes to retain a lawyer or law firm to

perform legal services on behalf of this state,

where the fees and expenses for such

services will exceed or can be reasonably

expected to exceed one hundred thousand

dollars, shall not do so until an open and

competitive bidding process has been

undertaken.

4. No state agency or state agent shall enter

into a contract for legal services exceeding

one million dollars without the opportunity

for legislative review of the terms of the

contract in accordance with the provisions of

subsection 5 of this section.

5. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (5) of

this subsection, any state agency or state

agent proposing to enter into a contract for

legal services exceeding one million dollars

shall file a copy of the proposed contract with

the clerk of the house of representatives and

shall also accompany such proposed contract

with a written statement that identifies:

(a) The reasons the state should retain

private counsel and the consideration of

alternatives;

36

(2) the open and competitive bidding process

that has been undertaken with respect to the

proposed legal services;

(3) the reasons for the selection of the lawyer

or law firm that is the proposed contracting

party;

(4) the past or present relationship, if any,

between such lawyer, law firm, or any

partner or other principal in such law firm and

the state agency or state agent proposing to

enter into the contract; and

(5) if the contract contemplates that all or

part of the fee is contingent on the outcome

of the legal proceeding, the reasons the

contingent fee arrangement is believed to be

in the state's interest and any efforts

undertaken to obtain private counsel on a

non-contingent fee basis.

B. Except as provided in Section 5(F), the clerk

of the House of Representatives, with the

approval of the President of the Senate and

the Speaker of the House of Representatives,

shall promptly refer such proposed contract

and written statement to the appropriate

committee for review.

C. Within 45 days after the filing of said

proposed contract and statement with the

clerk, the reviewing committee may hold a

public hearing on said proposed contract and,

(b) The open and competitive bidding

process that has been undertaken with

respect to the proposed legal services;

(c) The reasons for the selection of the lawyer

or law firm that is the proposed contracting

party;

(d) The past or present relationship, if any,

between such lawyer, law firm, or any

partner or other principal in such law firm and

the state agency or state agent proposing to

enter into the contract; and

(e) If the contract contemplates that all or

part of the fee is contingent on the outcome

of the legal proceeding, the reasons the

contingent fee arrangement is believed to be

in the state's interest and any efforts

undertaken to obtain private counsel on a

noncontingent fee basis.

(2) Except as provided in subdivision (6) of

this subsection, the clerk of the house of

representatives, with the approval of the

president of the senate and speaker of the

house of representatives, shall promptly refer

such proposed contract and written

statement to the appropriate committee for

review.

(3) Within forty-five days after the filing of

the proposed contract and statement with

the clerk, the reviewing committee may hold

a public hearing on the proposed contract

and, whether or not a public hearing is held,

37

whether or not a public hearing is held, shall

issue a report to the referring state agency

or state agent. Said report shall include any

recommended changes to the proposed

contract approved by the committee. If the

reviewing committee recommends no

changes to the proposed contract within 45

days of the initial filing of the proposed

contract with the clerk of the House of

Representatives, the referring state agency or

state agent may enter into the proposed

contract. If the report of the reviewing

committee recommends changes to the

proposed contract in accordance with this

paragraph, the state agency or state agent

shall review said report and prepare a revised

contract as deemed appropriate in view of

said report and shall file with the clerk of the

House of Representatives a copy of the

revised contract.

D. If the revised contract does not contain all

changes recommended by the reviewing

committee, the referring state agency or

state agent shall include with the revised

contract filed with said clerk a letter stating

the reasons why the recommended changes

were not adopted. Said clerk shall promptly

refer such letter and revised contract to the

reviewing committee, which may hold

additional hearings and issue additional

reports in its discretion. Not earlier than 45

days after the filing of such letter and revised

contract its discretion. Not earlier than 45

days after the filing of such letter and revised

contract with the clerk, the referring state

agency or state agent may enter into the

revised contract. Notwithstanding anything in

shall issue a report to the referring state

agency or state agent. The report shall

include any recommended changes to the

proposed contract approved by the

committee. If the reviewing committee

recommends no changes to the proposed

contract within forty-five days of the initial

filing of the proposed contract with the clerk

of the house of representatives, the referring

state agency or state agent may enter into

the proposed contract. If the report of the

reviewing committee recommends changes

to the proposed contract in accordance with

the provisions of this subdivision, the state

agency or state agent shall review the report

and prepare a revised contract as deemed

appropriate in view of the report and shall file

with the clerk of the house of representatives

a copy of the revised contract.

(4) If the revised contract does not contain all

changes recommended by the reviewing

committee, the referring state agency or

state agent shall include with the revised

contract filed with the clerk a letter stating

the reasons why the recommended changes

were not adopted. The clerk shall promptly

refer such letter and revised contract to the

reviewing committee, which may hold

additional hearings and issue additional

reports in its discretion. Not earlier than

forty-five days after the filing of such letter

and revised contract with the clerk, the

referring state agency or state agent may

enter into the revised contract.

Notwithstanding any provision of this

subsection, any revised contract containing

terms not previously reviewed or

38

this Section, any revised contract containing

terms not previously reviewed or

recommended by said reviewing committee

that can reasonably be expected to increase

the fees and expenses to be paid shall be

treated as a new proposed contract and shall

be filed and reviewed in accordance with

Paragraphs AD.

E. In the event that the legislature is not in

session and the state agency or state agent

wishes to enter into a contract for legal

services exceeding $1,000,000, the proposed

contract and written statement described in

Sec. 5(A)(1) and (2) shall be filed with the

Governor in addition to the clerk of the House

of Representatives. Except as provided in

Sec. 5(F), the Governor shall establish a five-

member interim committee consisting of five

state legislators, one each to be appointed by

the Governor, the Speaker of the House,

the President of the Senate, and the minority

leader in each house of the legislature, to

execute the legislative oversight duties set

forth in paragraphs B-C of this section. All

deadlines and responsibilities set forth in

those paragraphs shall apply as though the

interim committee were a committee of the

legislature.

F. In the event the state agency or state agent

in a writing filed with the Governor and

the clerk of the House of Representatives

states that time exigencies require that the

state retain counsel before the periods

recommended by the reviewing committee

that can reasonably be expected to increase

the fees and expenses to be paid shall be

treated as a new proposed contract and shall

be filed and reviewed in accordance with

subdivisions (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this

subsection.

(5) In the event that the legislature is not in

session and the state agency or state agent

wishes to enter into a contract for legal

services exceeding one million dollars, the

proposed contract and written statement

described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of

subdivision (1) of this subsection shall be filed

with the governor in addition to the clerk of

the house of representatives. Except as

provided in subdivision (6) of this subsection

the governor shall establish a five-member

interim committee consisting of five state

legislators, one each to be appointed by the

governor, the speaker of the house of

representatives, the president pro tem of the

senate, and the minority leader in each house

of the legislature, to execute the legislative

oversight duties set forth in subdivisions (2)

and (3) of this subsection. All deadlines and

responsibilities set forth in those subdivisions

shall apply as though the interim committee

were a committee of the legislature.

(6) In the event the state agency or state

agent in a writing filed with the governor and

the clerk of the house of representatives

states that time exigencies require that the

state retain counsel before the periods

39

provided in Section 5(A) – (D) have elapsed,

and provides the reasons therefor, the

Governor shall establish a five-member

committee, with members appointed as

provided in Section 5(E), to which the


described in Section 5(A)(1) and (2) shall be

referred. Said committee shall consult with

the state agency or state agent to establish an

expedited schedule for review and

recommendations on the proposed contract.

Section 6. {Contingent Fees} – Maximum

Hourly Charges}

A. At the conclusion of any legal proceeding

for which a state agency or agent retained

outside counsel on a contingent fee basis, the

state shall receive from counsel a

statement of the hours worked on the case,

expenses incurred, the aggregate fee

amount, and a breakdown as to the hourly

rate, based on hours worked divided into fee

recovered, less expenses.

B. In no case shall the state incur fees and

expenses in excess of $1,000 per hour for

legal services. In cases where a disclosure

submitted in accordance with paragraph (a)

of this section indicates an hourly rate in

excess of $1,000 per hour, the fee amount

shall be

reduced to an amount equivalent to $1,000

per hour.

Section 7. {No Expansion of Authority}

provided in subdivisions (1), (2), (3), and (4) of

this subsection have elapsed, and provides

the reasons therefor, the governor shall

establish a five-member committee, with

members appointed as provided in

subdivision (5) of this subsection to which the


described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of

subdivision (1) of this subsection shall be

referred. The committee shall consult with

the state agency or state agent to establish an

expedited schedule for review and

recommendations on the proposed contract.

6. (1) At the conclusion of any legal

proceeding for which a state agency or state

agent retained outside counsel on a

contingent fee basis, the state shall receive

from counsel a statement of the hours

worked on the case, expenses incurred, the

aggregate fee amount, and a breakdown as to

the hourly rate, based on hours worked

divided into fee recovered, less expenses.

(2) In no case shall the state incur fees and

expenses in excess of two hundred fifty

dollars per hour for legal services. In cases

where a disclosure submitted in accordance

with subdivision (1) of this subsection

indicates an hourly rate in excess of two

hundred fifty dollars per hour, the fee

amount shall be reduced to an amount

equivalent to two hundred fifty dollars per

hour.

7. Nothing in this section shall be construed

40

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to

expand the authority of any state agency or

state agent to enter into contracts where no

such authority previously existed.

to expand the authority of any state agency

or state agent to enter into contracts where

no such authority previously existed.

41

"House Bill 2109 is horrendous for a variety of reasons," wrote the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on

April 11, 2012. "Examining its origins, its sloppy construction and its potentially devastating

results sheds light on how far modern conservative ideals have drifted from what Mr. Reagan

had espoused for the Republican Party." This bill makes it more difficult for American citizens

residing in Missouri to register to vote using IDs and proof of residency that have traditionally

been accepted for decades in the state.

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Shane Schoeller

Missouri Bills: HB2109

ALEC 'Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act' Model: http://j.mp/alec_voterreg

HB2109

house.mo.gov

Alabama HB56

legislature.state.al.us

http://latindispatch.com

ALEC's Taxpayer and Citizen

Protection Act

alecexposed.org

2. (1) A person applying to

register with an election

authority or a deputy

registration official shall identify

himself or herself by

presenting a form of personal

identification that provides

evidence of United States

citizenship. All such forms

presented under this subsection

shall be kept confidential by the

election authority, and shall

include one of the following:

(k) Evidence of United States

citizenship shall be

demonstrated by one of the

following documents, or a

legible photocopy of one of the

following documents:

(F) The county recorder shall

reject any application for

registration that is not

accompanied by satisfactory

evidence of United States

citizenship. Satisfactory

evidence of citizenship shall

include any of the following:

(a) A copy of a birth certificate[,

a Native American tribal

document, other proof of

United States citizenship,] that

verifies United States

citizenship to the satisfaction of

the election authority;

(2) The applicant's birth

certificate that verifies United

States citizenship to the

satisfaction of the county

election officer or Secretary of

State.

(2) A legible photocopy of the

applicant's birth certificate that

verifies citizenship to the

satisfaction of the county

recorder.

(b) A valid Missouri drivers

license or [other form of

(1) The applicant's driver's

license or nondriver's

(1) The number of the

applicant's driver License or

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-latest-in-voting-hypocrisy-republicans-target-military-voters/article_10f28a57-f638-5784-9498-401790c46aa0.html#ixzz1rqOe4eFo



http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills121/biltxt/intro/HB2109I.htm

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/searchableinstruments/2011rs/bills/hb56.htm

http://latindispatch.com/2011/06/09/text-of-alabama-immigration-law-hb-56/

http://alecexposed.org/w/images/f/f6/7K12-Taxpayer_and_Citizen_Protection_Act_Exposed.pdf

42

personal identification at the

time of registration] nondriver

license, or a drivers license or

nondriver identification card

issued by the equivalent

governmental agency of

another state if such license or

card indicates that the person

has presented proof of United

States citizenship upon

application for such license or

card;

identification card issued by the

division of motor vehicles or the

equivalent governmental agency

of another state within the

United States if the agency

indicates on the applicant's

driver's license or nondriver's

identification card that the

person has provided satisfactory

proof of United States

citizenship.

nonoperating identification

license

issued after October 1, 1996 by

the Department of

Transportation or the

equivalent Governmental

agency of another state within

the United States if the agency

indicates on the applicant's

driver license or nonoperating

identification license that the

person has provided satisfactory

proof of United States

citizenship.

(c) Pertinent pages of the

applicant's United States valid

or expired passport identifying

the applicant and the

applicant's passport number, or

presentation to the election

authority of the applicant's

United States passport;

(3) Pertinent pages of the

applicant's United States valid

or expired passport identifying

the applicant and the

applicant's passport number, or

presentation to the county

election officer of the

applicant's United States

passport.

(3) A legible photocopy of

pertinent pages of the

applicant's United States

passport identifying the

applicant and the applicant's

passport number or

presentation to the

county recorder of the

applicant's united states

passport.

(d) The applicant's United

States naturalization

documents or the number of

the certificate of naturalization.

If only the number of the

certificate of naturalization is

provided, the applicant shall

not be included in the

registration rolls until the

number of the certificate of

naturalization is verified with

the United States Citizenship

and Immigration Services, or its

successor agency, by the

election authority or the

secretary of state, under 8 U.S.C.

Section 1373(c), as amended;

(4) The applicant's United States

naturalization documents or the


naturalization. If only the


naturalization is provided, the

applicant shall not be included

in the registration rolls until the



the United States Bureau of

Citizenship and Immigration

Services by the county election

officer or the Secretary of State,

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c).

(4) A presentation to the county

recorder of the applicant's

United States naturalization

documents or the number of

the certificate of naturalization.

If only the number of the

certificate of naturalization is

provided, the applicant shall

not be included in the

registration rolls until the



the United States immigration

and naturalization service by the

county recorder.

43

(e) Other documents or

methods of proof of United

States citizenship issued by the

federal government under the

Immigration and Nationality

Act of 1952, as amended;

(5) Other documents or

methods of proof of United

States citizenship issued by the

federal government pursuant to

the Immigration and Nationality

Act of 1952, and amendments

thereto

(5) Other documents or

methods of proof that are

established pursuant to the

immigration reform and control

act of 1986.

(f) The applicant's Bureau of

Indian Affairs card number,

tribal treaty card number or

tribal enrollment number;

(6) The applicant's Bureau of

Indian Affairs card number,

tribal treaty card number, or

tribal enrollment number.

(6) The applicant's bureau of

Indian affairs card number,

tribal treaty card number or

tribal enrollment number.

44

Makers of high-fructose corn syrup beverages and other fast foods have underwritten ALEC's

operations over the years while also supporting bills to limit taxes being proposed to address

the increase in health care costs attributable to diseases related to the consumption of these

products. ALEC legislators have helped advance the agenda of such corporations.

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Joe Smith

Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Larry Wilson

Missouri Bills: HCR 44

ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_food

ALEC Model Food and Beverage Resolution HCR 44 in 2010

WHEREAS this global recession has spread

economic stress across all income

levels, with lower and middle-income Americans

especially hard hit;

Whereas, this global recession has spread

economic stress across all income levels,

with lower- and middle income Americans

especially hit hard; and

WHEREAS a frugal lifestyle and stretching the

daily living expenses is a necessity for

hardworking lower and middle income

Americans;

Whereas, a frugal lifestyle and stretching the daily

living expenses is a necessity for hardworking

lower- and middle-income Americans; and

WHEREAS governments faced with their own

economic shortfalls reflexively pursue

indiscriminate taxes rather than reigning in

expenditures;

Whereas, governments faced with their own

economic shortfalls reflexively pursue

indiscriminate taxes rather than reigning in

expenditures; and

WHEREAS it is vital that public policy makers help

hardworking Americans retain their tenuous hold

on financial security by shielding them from even

more burdensome discriminatory taxes; and

Whereas, it is vital that public policymakers help

hardworking Americans retain their tenuous hold

on financial security by shielding them from even

more burdensome discriminatory taxes:

NOW THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT:

__________________________fully supports

hardworking Americans, and opposes all

efforts – federally and on the state level – to

impose discriminatory taxes on food

and/or beverages.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the members

of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-

fifth General Assembly, Second Regular Session,

the Senate concurring therein, fully support the

hardworking Americans and oppose all efforts,

federally and on the state level, to impose

discriminatory taxes on food or beverages.



http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/e/ef/8D0-A_Resolution_in_Opposition_to_Discriminatory_Food_and_Beverage_Taxes_exposed.pdf


45

This bill is based on an NRA-conceived bill that first passed in Florida in 2005 and then was

adopted as an ALEC model at a closed-door meeting later that year with ALEC Criminal Justice

Task Force co-chair Wal-Mart (the largest seller of long guns and ammunition) at the helm. Key

provisions of this bill have been supported by ALEC legislators in 34 states, by the NRA's count,

and have resulted in an increase in people shot, including unarmed citizens killed, by people

asserting that they are immune from prosecution as a result of these changes made by this law.

The "Castle Doctrine" is a deceptive misnomer because Missourians and Americans from every

other state already had a long-standing right of self-defense in their homes (their "castles") but

this law expands the circumstances in which a person can shoot to kill another person and get

immunity from prosecution and civil damages for the death of another.

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Kenny Jones

Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Rodney Schad, Charles Portwood,

Barney Fisher, Gary Dusenberg, James Whorton, Doug Ervin, Belinda Harris, Brian Baker,

Timothy Flook, Therese Sander, Raymond Weter, Brian Munzlinger, Walt Bivins, Cynthia

Davis, Jason Smith, Marilyn Ruestman, Mike McGhee, David Sater, Edward Robb, Danielle

Moore, and Michael Frame (HB 189). Peter Myers, Timothy Meadows, James Whorton, Doug

Ervin, Brian Munzlinger, Jason Smith, Mike Dethrow, Bill Deeken, Tom Loehner, Michael

Parson, and Rodney Schad (HB 1103)

Missouri Bills: HB 189, HB1103

ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_castle

ALEC Castle Doctrine Act 2007: HB 189

Section 1. {Home Protection, Use of Deadly Force,

Presumption of Fear of Death or Harm}

1. A person is presumed to have held a

reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or

great bodily harm to himself or herself or another

when using defensive force that is intended or

likely to cause death or great bodily harm to

another if:

563.043.

1. A person is presumed to have held a

reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or

great bodily harm to himself or herself or another

when using defensive force that is intended or

likely to cause death or great bodily harm to

another if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force

was used was in the process of unlawfully and

(1) The person against whom the defensive force

was used was in the process of unlawfully and




http://alecexposed.org/w/images/7/7e/7J2-Castle_Doctrine_Act_Exposed.PDF


46

forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully

entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied

vehicle, or if that person had removed or was

attempting to remove another against that

person's will from the dwelling, residence, or

occupied vehicle; and

forcefully entering or had unlawfully and forcibly

entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied

vehicle, or if that person had removed or was

attempting to remove another against that

person's will from the dwelling, residence, or

occupied vehicle; and

b. The person who uses defensive force knew or

had reason to believe that an unlawful and

forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was

occurring or had occurred.

(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or

had reason to believe that an unlawful and

forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

2. The presumption set forth in Subsection (1)

does not apply if:

2. The presumption set forth in subsection 1 of

this section does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is

used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident

of the dwelling residence, or vehicle, such as an

owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an

injunction for protection from domestic violence

or a written pretrial supervision order of no

contact against that person; or


is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident

of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an

owner, lessee, titleholder, and there is not an

injunction for protection from domestic violence

or a written pretrial supervision order of no

contact against that person; or

b. The person or persons sought to be removed is

a child, grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful

custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the

person against whom the defensive force is used;

or

(2) The person or persons sought to be removed

is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the

lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship

of the person against whom the defensive force is

used; or

c. The person who uses defensive force is

engaged in a criminal activity or is using the

dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further

a criminal activity; or

(3) The person who uses defensive force is

engaged in an unlawful activity or is

using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle

to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom defensive force is

used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in

[insert appropriate reference to

state/commonwealth code, which defines the

term "law enforcement officer" or similar], who

enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence,

or vehicle in the performance of his or her official

duties and the officer identified himself or herself

in accordance with applicable law, or the person

using force knew or reasonably should have

known that the person entering or attempting to


is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or

attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or

occupied vehicle in the performance of his or her

official duties and the officer identified himself or

herself in accordance with any applicable law or

the person using force knew or reasonably should

have known that the person entering or

attempting to enter was a law enforcement

officer

47

enter was a law enforcement officer.

3. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful

activity and who is attacked in any other place

where he or she has a right to be has no duty to

retreat and has the right to stand his or her

ground and meet force with force, including

deadly force if

he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do

so to prevent death or great bodily harm to

himself or herself or another, or to prevent the

commission of a forcible felony.

3. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful

activity and who is attacked in any

other place where he or she has a right to be has

no duty to retreat and has the right to

stand his or her ground and meet force with force

if he or she reasonably believes it

necessary to do so to prevent death or great

bodily harm to himself or herself or another

or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony

4. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or

attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence,

or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so

with the intent to commit an unlawful act

involving force or violence.

4. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or

attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence,

or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so

with the intent to commit an unlawful act

involving force or violence.

2. A person who uses force as permitted in

Section (1) [and other state codes which are

affected/amended by this legislation and which

refer to the use of force including deadly force] is

justified in using such force and is immune from

criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of

such force, except when:

a. The person against whom force was used is a

law enforcement officer as defined in [insert

appropriate reference to state/commonwealth

code, which defines the term "law enforcement

officer" or similar], who was acting in the

performance of his or her duties and the officer

identified himself or herself in accordance with

applicable law; or

563.058. 1. A person who uses force as permitted

in sections 563.031, 563.036, 563.043, and

563.046, is justified in using such force and is

immune from criminal prosecution and civil

actions for the use of such force, unless the

person against whom force was used is a law

enforcement officer who was acting in the

performance of his or her official duties and the

officer identified himself or herself in accordance

with any applicable law or

b. The person using force knew or reasonably

should have known that the person was a law

enforcement officer.

563.058.

the person using force knew or reasonably should

have known that the person was a law

enforcement officer.

48

Section2. {Immunity from Criminal Prosecution

and Civil Action}

1. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal

prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in

custody, and charging or prosecuting the

defendant.

563.058.

As used in this subsection, the term "criminal

prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in

custody, and charging or prosecuting the

defendant.

3. A law enforcement agency may use standard

procedures for investigating the

use of force as described in subsection (2), but the

agency may not arrest the person for using force

unless it determines that there is probable cause

that the force that was used was unlawful

2. A law enforcement agency may use standard

procedures for investigating the use of force as

described in subsection 1 of this section, but the

agency may not arrest the person for using force

unless it determines that there is probable cause

that the force that was used was unlawful.

4. The court shall award reasonable attorney's

fees, court costs, compensation for loss of

income, and all expenses incurred by the

defendant in defense of any civil action brought

by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant

is immune from

prosecution as provided in subsection (2).

3. The court shall award reasonable attorney's

fees and court costs, compensation for loss of

income, and all expenses incurred by the

defendant in defense of any civil action brought

by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant

is immune from prosecution as provided in

subsection 1 of this section.

49

This resolution represents an attempt to re-interpret the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution

in order to thwart federal regulations. Although it is not mentioned in this resolution, one of

the objectives of such efforts is to make it more difficult to regulate polluters whose products

may endanger the health and safety of Missouri families.

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Lyle Rowland (HCR 7 & HCR 12), Jim

Guest (HCR13)

Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Don Phillips, Rodney Schad, Paul

Curtman, Thomas Long, Bill Lant, Paul Fitzwater, Melissa Leach, Craig Redmon, Cloria Brown,

Charlie Denison, Marsha Haefner, Wanda Brown, Sue Allen, Kathie Conway, Tony Dugger,

Andrew Koenig, Mike Thompson, Lyndall Fraker, and Kent Hampton. Doug Ervin (HCR13).

Missouri Bills: HCR 7, HCR 12, HCR 13

ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_tenther

ALEC Model "Reaffirming 10th Amendment

Rights

2012: HCR 7

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States specifically

provides that, "The powers not delegated to the

United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited

by it to the States, are reserved to the States

respectively, or to the people"; and


Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by

the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,

are reserved to the States respectively, or to the

people"; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment was part of the

original Bill of Rights, which was proposed on

September 25, 1789, ratified by three-fourths of

the states, and went into effect on December 15,

1791; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total

scope of federal power as being that specifically

granted by the Constitution of the United States

and no more; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment limits the

scope of federal power and prescribes that the

federal government was created by the states

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the

Tenth Amendment means that the federal

government was created by the states specifically





http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/a/a2/4B3aResoluting_Reaffirming_Tenth_Amendment_Rights_Exposed.pdf

http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/a/a2/4B3aResoluting_Reaffirming_Tenth_Amendment_Rights_Exposed.pdf


50

specifically to be an agent of the states, to be an agent of the states; and

rather than the states being agents of the federal

government; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2012, the states are

demonstrably treated as agents of the federal

government; and

WHEREAS, when taking the oath of office, all

members of the General Assembly of [Insert

State] solemnly swear that they will support the

Constitution of the United States and the

Constitution of {Insert State} ; and

WHEREAS, many federal mandates are in direct

violation of the Tenth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States and infringe

upon both the reserved powers of { Insert State}

and the people's reserved powers; and

WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in

violation of the Tenth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court

ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144

(1992), that Congress may not simply

commandeer the legislative and regulatory

processes of the states by commanding them to

enact and enforce regulatory programs; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has

ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408

(1992), that Congress may not simply

commandeer the legislative and regulatory

processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in

Printz v. United States/Mack v. United States, 521

u.s. 898 (1997), reaffirmed that the Constitution

of the United States established a system of "dual

sovereignty" that retains "a residuary and

inviolable sovereignty" by the states;

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous

administrations and some now pending from the

present administration and from Congress may

further violate the Constitution of the United

States:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that { Insert

State} hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United

States over all powers not otherwise enumerated

and granted to the federal government by the

Constitution of the United States; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the

members of the Missouri House of

Representatives, Ninety-sixth General Assembly,

Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring

therein, hereby claims sovereignty for the State of

Missouri under the Tenth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States over all powers

not otherwise enumerated and granted to the

federal government by the Constitution of the

United States; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution

shall serve notice to the federal government of

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall

serve as a notice and demand to the federal

51

our demand to maintain the balance of powers

where the Constitution of the United States

established it; and

government, as our agent, to cease and desist,

effective immediately, mandates that are beyond

the scope of these constitutionally-delegated

powers; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we state our

intentions to ensure that all government agencies

and their agents and employees operating

w1thtn the geographic boundaries of { Insert

State}, or whose actions have an effect on the

inhabitants, lands, or water of { Insert State},

shall operate within the confines of the original

intent of the Constitution of the United States;

and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that suitable copies of

this resolution be delivered to the President of

the United States, the President pro tempore of

the United States Senate, the Speaker of the

United States House of Representatives, and each

member of the congressional delegation of

{Insert State}.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of

the Missouri House of Representatives be

instructed to prepare a properly inscribed copy of

this resolution for the President of the United

States, the President of the United States Senate,

the Speaker of the United States House of

Representatives, the Speaker of the House and

President of the Senate of each state's legislature

of the United States of America, and each member

of the Missouri Congressional delegation.


Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by

the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,

are reserved to the States respectively, or to the

people"; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total

scope of federal power as being that specifically

granted by the Constitution of the United States

and no more; and

52

ALEC claims on its website that Missouri "passed the ALEC model as a statute."

From ALEC.org: "In December 2008, ALEC adopted as model legislation the Freedom of Choice

in Health Care Act, which helps states block a government requirement to purchase health

insurance. Now 42 states have either introduced or announced that they will introduce ALEC's

Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act. Six states (Virginia, Idaho, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana,

and Missouri) passed the ALEC model as a statute, and two states (Arizona and Oklahoma)

passed the model as a constitutional amendment. An active citizen initiative is also underway in

Mississippi." Missouri has long had a requirement that drivers purchase automotive insurance,

and the federal bill was based on efforts to ensure that all Americans were included in the pool

of people with health insurance and access to health care.

A case challenging these and other provisions is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme

Court. The so-called "individual mandate" was pushed hard by right-wing politicians and think

tanks in the 1990s as an alternative to the Clinton health care reforms and the idea of "single-

payer" health care for Americans or what is known as "Medicare for all." Even though the

requirement to purchase insurance was initially embraced by numerous Republican politicians

for several years, including then-governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney and former Senator

Kit Bond, when it was embraced by President Obama as an alternative way to deal with the

crisis in budget-busting health care costs and the number of people under-insured, this

formerly "conservative" compromise was denounced by politicians opposed to the

administration.

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Jane Cunningham

Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Jim Lembke, Kevin Engler, Gary

Nodler, Delbert Scott, Brad Lager, Rob Mayer, John Griesheimer, Matt Bartle, Tom Dempsey,

Norma Champion, Jason Crowell, Luann Ridgeway, Jack Goodman, Bill Stouffer, Eric Schmitt,

Chuck Purgason, Scott Rupp, Kurt Schaefer, Dan Clemens, and Carl Vogel

Missouri Bills: SJR 25

ALEC Claim: http://www.alec.org

"Missouri...passed the ALEC model as a statute."

http://www.alec.org/2011/01/alec-state-legislators-warn-boehner-that-obamacare-will-cost-

states-big-if-not-repealed/





53

This legislation by then-Senator Peter Kinder "urges Congress to amend the Social Security Act

and other statutes to allow Missouri citizens to voluntarily opt-out of the federal Social Security

System and invest their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts."

The effort to privatize social security has been funded since the mid-1970s by the Koch family

and other billionaires. Workers have a variety of options for personal retirement accounts that

risk being gambled and lost on Wall Street, in addition to the guaranteed income provided by

Social Security to older and disabled Americans. Most Americans do not realize that the future

solvency of the Social Security fund could be secured by taxing all income earned rather than

the current loophole for people who earn more than $105,000 a year or who earn all their

income from capital gains. Taking more funds out of the social security pool for private

investment in Wall Street would weaken the fund and increase the risk to workers of having no

pension income or social safety net as they age or if they become disabled.

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Peter Kinder

Missouri Bills: SCR 22

ALEC Claim: http://j.mp/alec_privatizess

ALEC Model on Personal Retirement Accounts 2004: SCR 22

WHEREAS, Social Security is a federal program

that does not recognize the retirement needs of

many Americans; and

WHEREAS, Social Security is a federal program that

does not recognize the retirement needs of many

Missourians; and

WHEREAS, Social Security tax revenues alone will

be insufficient to pay current benefits as early as

the year 2015; and

WHEREAS, Social Security tax revenues alone will

be insufficient to pay current benefits as early as

the year 2015; and

WHEREAS, the Social Security Trust Funds may be

completely exhausted by the year 2037; and

WHEREAS, the Social Security Trust Funds may be

completely exhausted by the year 2037; and

WHEREAS, the investment return on Social

Security contributions made by workers

today is significantly below that available from

other sources; and

WHEREAS, the investment return on Social

Security contributions made by workers today is

significantly below that available from other

sources; and

WHEREAS, workers deserve the opportunity to

invest more productively for their own

WHEREAS, workers deserve the opportunity to

invest more productively for their own



http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/d/d4/1J2-Resolution_Urging_Congress_To_Modernize_the_Social_Security_System_With_Personal_Retirement_Accounts_-_PRAs_Exposed.pdf


54

retirements; and retirements; and

WHEREAS, more retirement investment

opportunities might dramatically increase

workers' savings rate and retain more young

adults who otherwise would leave the state

for jobs elsewhere; and

WHEREAS, more retirement investment

opportunities might dramatically increase workers'

savings rate and retain more young adults who

otherwise would leave the state for jobs

elsewhere; and

WHEREAS, the unfunded liability of the Social

Security system exceeds $9 trillion, according to

the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System; and

WHEREAS, the unfunded liability of the Social

Security system exceeds $9 trillion, according to

the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System; and

WHEREAS, many workers are already facing very

low or even negative rates of return on their

lifetimes of Social Security contributions; and

WHEREAS, many workers are already facing very

low or even negative rates of return on their

lifetimes of Social Security contributions; and

WHEREAS, the aging of the U.S. population

means that fewer and fewer active workers will

be supporting more and more retirees under

today's pay-as-you-go financing for

Social Security; and

WHEREAS, the aging of the United States

population means that fewer and fewer active

workers will be supporting more and more retirees

under today's pay-as-you-go financing for Social

Security; and

WHEREAS, this ratio of retirees to workers has

shrunk from 15 to 1 in 1950 to less than

3 to 1 today and soon will fall to less than 2 to 1;

and

WHEREAS, this ration of retirees to workers has

shrunk from 42 to 1 in 1935 when the program

was first started, to less than 3 to 1 today and

soon fall to less than 2 to 1; and

WHEREAS, raising payroll or income taxes to

compensate for this demographic

shrinkage will mean that today's workers get an

even worse return on their federal

retirement contributions than they do now; and

WHEREAS, raising payroll or income taxes to

compensate for this demographic shrinkage will

mean that today's workers get an even worse

return on their federal retirement contributions

than they do now; and

WHEREAS, broadly cutting Social Security

benefits also would worsen rates of return;

and

WHEREAS, broadly cutting Social Security benefits

also would worsen rates of return; and

WHEREAS, states and localities that allow their

own employees to invest a portion of

their taxes for retirement have shown that

workers can do better for themselves with

such accounts than under Social Security; and

WHEREAS, states and localities that allow their

own employees to invest a portion of their taxes

for retirement have shown that workers can do

better for themselves with such accounts than

under Social Security; and

WHEREAS, an increasing number of countries,

including Australia, Chile, Poland,

WHEREAS, an increasing number of countries,

including Australia, Chile, Mexico, Poland,

55

Sweden and the United Kingdom, now allow their

citizens to allocate their taxes to such

personal retirement accounts; and

Hungary, Khazakstan, Sweden, and the United

Kingdom, now allow their citizens to allocate their

taxes to such personal retirement accounts; and

WHEREAS, the Social Security Trustees have

consistently and repeatedly stated in their

annual reports that the Social Security system

will be unable to deliver on its long-term

promises under its current financing scheme; and

WHEREAS, the Social Security Trustees have

consistently and repeatedly stated in their annual

reports that the Social Security system will be

unable to deliver on its long-term promises under

its current financing scheme; and

WHEREAS, the public, especially younger people,

are therefore rightfully suspicious of

Social Security's ability to deliver on its long-term

promises to them; and

WHEREAS, the public, especially younger people,

are therefore rightfully suspicious of Social

Security's ability to deliver on its long-term

promises to them; and

WHEREAS, bipartisan Social Security reform

proposals now before Congress would

address these problems by creating a system of

personal accounts with a portion of Social

Security taxes; and

WHEREAS, bipartisan Social Security reform

proposals now before Congress would address

these problems by creating a system of personal

accounts with a portion of Social Security taxes;

and

WHEREAS, the Social Security Administration's

own actuaries have judged these

bipartisan proposals to be fiscally sound for the

next 75 years; and

WHEREAS, the Social Security Administration's

own actuaries have judged these bipartisan

proposals to be fiscally sound for the next 75

years; and

WHEREAS, these proposals would reduce or

eliminate the pressure for higher taxes or

broadly reduced benefits while reducing Social

Security's unfunded liability; and

WHEREAS, these proposals would reduce or

eliminate the pressure for higher taxes or broadly

reduced benefits while reducing Social Security's

unfunded liability; and

WHEREAS, these proposals would not affect

people in or near retirement, or those

eligible for or drawing Social Security's disability

benefits;

WHEREAS, these proposals would not affect

people in or near retirement, nor those eligible for

or drawing Social Security's disability benefits; and

WHEREAS, the Congress has been unable to pass

meaningful Social Security reform; and

WHEREAS, the State of Missouri has shown that it

invests in a fiscally responsible manner and is

capable of administering pension programs; and

WHEREAS, the citizens of the State of Missouri

deserve better than what Social Security can

56

deliver:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the

State/Commonwealth of {Insert

State} urges the Congress of the United States to

enact legislation amending the Social

Security Act and other statutes to allow workers

to allocate a portion of their Social

Security taxes to personal retirement accounts

that they themselves would own and

control, and to reject legislation that raises

federal retirement taxes, broadly reduces

Social Security benefits, or fails to lower Social

Security's unfunded liability; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the

members of the Missouri Senate, Ninety-Second

General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the

House of Representatives concurring therein,

hereby urges the Congress of the United States to

enact legislation amending the Social Security Act

and other statutes to allow the citizens of the

State of Missouri to voluntarily opt-out of the

federal Social Security System and invest their

Social Security taxes in personal retirement

accounts that they themselves would own and

control, the retirement accounts and investments

to be approved by the State Treasurer's Office and

the program to be modeled in a manner similar in

concept to the Missouri Saving for Tuition 529

program; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this

Resolution be sent to each member of

Congress.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the

Missouri Senate be instructed to prepare properly

inscribed copies of this resolution for the

President of the United States, the President of

the United States Senate, Speaker of the United

States House of Representatives, and the

members of the Missouri Congressional

delegation.

57

From the Center for Media and Democracy: "This 'model'... attempts to dress up the effort to

privatize the American tradition of public education as a parental right, creating a political

wedge issue while also elevating these privatization efforts to "constitutional" status, which can

then be used as a weapon to strike down any statute that is purported to infringe on the rights

granted by this vague amendment."

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Kurt Bahr

Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Mellissa Leach, Paul Fitzwater, Rick

Brattin, Sandy Crawford, Diane Franklin, Chrissy Sommer, Ronald Schieber, Sue Allen, Lindell

Shumake, Tim Jones, John McCaherty, Thomas Long, Wayne Wallingford, Steven Tilley, Brent Lasater,

Eric Burlison, Andrew Koenig, Mark Parkinson, Nick Marshall, and Mike Kelley


ALEC Claim: http://j.mp/alec_parental

ALEC Model Legislation MO Language in 2012: HCR 50

Be it resolved that the state constitution be

amended to read as follows:

The right of parents to direct the upbringing and

education of their children shall not be

infringed. The legislature shall have power to

enforce, by appropriate legislation, the

provisions of this section.

WHEREAS,

the right of parents to direct the upbringing and

education of their children is a fundamental right

protected by the Constitution of the United States

and the State of Missouri; and



http://alecexposed.org/w/images/e/e8/2D5-Parental_Rights_Amendment_Exposed.pdf


58

This bill focuses on home-owners rather than on the mortgage industry and its fraudulent and

deceptive lending practices that left numerous Missouri families with escalating interest and

balloon payments nearly impossible to repay in exchange for short-term lower payments by the

homeowner and major income and profits to banks through re-financing schemes.

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Charlie Shields

Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Michael Gibbons

Missouri Bills: SB 727

ALEC Claim: http://j.mp/alec_mortgagefraud

ALEC Model Legislation

Mortgage Fraud Act

MO Language in

2008: SB 727

As used in this Act:

4. For the purposes of this section the following

terms shall have the following meanings:

(A) "Mortgage lending process" means the

process through which a person seeks or obtains

a mortgage loan, including

solicitation, application, or origination,

negotiation of terms, third-party provider

services, underwriting, signing and closing,

and funding of the loan.

(1) "Mortgage lending process", the process

through which a person seeks or obtains a

residential mortgage loan including solicitation,

application, origination, negotiation of terms,

third-party provider services, underwriting,

signing, closing, and funding of the loan;

(A) A person commits the offense of mortgage

fraud if the person does any of the following with

the intent to defraud:

(1) knowingly makes any material misstatement,

misrepresentation, or omission during the

mortgage lending process, intending that it be

relied upon by a mortgage lender, borrower, or

any other party to the mortgage lending process;

(2) knowingly uses or facilitates the use of any

material misstatement misrepresentation, or

omission, during the mortgage lending process,

intending that it be relied upon by a mortgage

A person commits residential mortgage fraud if,

with the intent to defraud, the person engages in

any of the following practices:

(1) Knowingly makes any deliberate misstatement,

misrepresentation, or omission during the

mortgage lending process that is relied on by a

mortgage lender, borrower, or other party to the

mortgage lending process;

(2) Knowingly uses or facilitates the use of any

deliberate misstatement, misrepresentation, or

omission during the mortgage lending process that

is relied on by a mortgage lender, borrower, or



http://alecexposed.org/w/images/d/d7/7I1-Mortgage_Fraud_Act_Exposed.pdf


59

lender, borrower, or any other party to the

mortgage lending process;

other party to the mortgage lending process;

(3) files or causes to be filed with any county

recorder in {insert state} any document that the

person knows contains a

material misstatement, misrepresentation, or

omission; or

(4) Files or causes to be filed with the office of the

county recorder of any county of this state any

document relating to a residential mortgage loan

that the person knows to contain a deliberated

misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission.

(4) receives any proceeds or any compensation

in connection with a mortgage loan that the

person knows resulted from a

violation of this section.

(3) Receives any proceeds or other moneys in

connection with a residential mortgage loan that

the person knows resulted from a violation of

subdivisions (1) or (2) of this subsection;

60

This bill would make it more difficult for states and cities to regulate polluting industries,

factory farms, or other activities by embracing a re-interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to

allow a property owner to claim a "regulatory" taking of property if a regulation affects

property values. Such an interpretation makes it more difficult for the people's representatives

to protect the health and safety of Missouri families from businesses that attempt to use their

property in ways that expose others to harm or nuisances.

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Marilyn A. Williams

Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Gary Wiggins, Sam Leake, Kenneth

Legan, Bill Ransdall, Phillip Britt, Peter Myers, James Graham, Daniel Hegeman, Dan Ward,

Jerry McBride, Denny Merideth, Bill Foster, Todd Richardson, Mark Elliot, Martin (Bubs)

Hohulin, Jim Kreider, and Lanie Black

Missouri Bills: HB 1798

ALEC Model: ALECExposed.com

Model Private Property Protection Act MO Language in 2000: HB 1798

Section 3. {Inverse condemnation.}

(A) Regulatory takings.

Whenever implementation by the State or any of

its political subdivisions of any regulatory

program operates to reduce the fair market value

of real property for the uses permitted at the

time the owner acquired the title, or {insert

date}, whichever is later, the property shall be

deemed to have been taken for the use of the

public. Such regulatory programs include, but are

not limited to, land use planning or zoning

programs.

523.254.

1.

Whenever implementation by the state or any of

its political subdivisions of any regulatory program

operates to reduce by at least twenty percent the

fair market value of real property for the uses

permitted at the time the owner acquired the title,

or on the effective date of sections 523.250 to

523.262, whichever is later, the property shall be

deemed to have been taken for the use of the

public.

(B) Compensation Required. The owner or user

shall have the right to require

condemnation by and just compensation from

the governmental unit, or units, when

more than one governmental unit is involved,

2. The owner of the property which suffered the

regulatory taking shall have the right to require

condemnation by and just compensation from the

governmental unit, or units if more than one

governmental unit is involved, imposing the





61

imposing the regulation resulting in

decreased value, or to receive compensation for

the reduction in value caused by

government action, and in either case to have

such compensation determined by a jury.

When more than one governmental unit is

involved, the court shall determine the

proportion each unit shall be required to

contribute to the compensation.

regulation resulting in decreased value, or to

receive compensation for the reduction in value

caused by government action, and in either case to

have such compensation determined by a jury. If

more than one governmental unit is involved, the

court shall determine the proportion each unit

shall be required to contribute to the

compensation.

(C) Fair Market value. The compensation shall be

for the full value of the interest taken or for the

full amount of the decrease in fair market value.

Compensation is required pursuant to this section

only in instances where the fair market value of

the property is reduced by at least twenty percent.

(D) Conditional waivers prohibited.

Governmental units subject to the provisions of

this Act shall not make waiver of the provisions of

this Act a condition for approval of the use of real

property or the issuance of any permit or other

entitlement. Plaintiffs may accept an approval of

use, permit, or other entitlement granted by the

governmental unit

without compromising their rights under this Act

if:

3. Governmental units subject to sections 523.250

to 523.262 shall not make waiver of the provisions

of sections 523.250 to 523.262 a condition for

approval of the use of real property or the

issuance of any permit or other entitlement.

Plaintiffs may accept an approval of use, permit or

other entitlement granted by the governmental

unit without compromising their rights pursuant to

sections 523.250 to 523.262 if:

(1) A written reservation of rights is made at the

time of acceptance of said

authorization, permit, or other entitlement; or

(1) A written reservation of rights is made at the

time of acceptance of such authorization, permit

or other entitlement;

(2) By oral statement made before the

governmental unit granting the authorization,

permit, or other entitlement at a public meeting

at which the governmental unit renders

its decision.

(2) By oral statement made before the

governmental unit granting the authorization,

permit or other entitlement at a public meeting at

which the governmental unit renders its decision;

(3) The owner or user may make his/her

reservation in either or both forms.

(3) The owner or user may make his or her

reservation in either or both forms.

Section 4. {Exceptions.} No compensation shall be

required by virtue of this Act if

the regulatory program is an exercise of the

police power to prevent uses noxious in fact

or demonstrable harm to the health and safety of

the public. A use shall be deemed a

noxious use if, and only if, it amounts to a public

4. When any regulatory program resulting from a

zoning ordinance operates to change a permitted

use and the fair market value of the affected real

property is the same or greater than before the

effective date of the implementation of the

regulatory program, no compensation shall be

paid pursuant to sections 523.250 to 523.262.

62

nuisance in fact. Determination by the

governmental unit or units involved that a use is

a noxious use or poses a demonstrable

harm to public health and safety shall not be

binding upon the court. Review of the

governmental unit or units' determination shall

be de novo.

(B) Implementation defined. A program is

implemented with respect to an owner's or user's

property when actually applied to that property.

523.258

2. A program is implemented with respect to an

owner's or user's property when actually applied

to such property.

Section 6. {Regulatory rollback.}

(A) Conditional relaxation authorized. If the

governmental unit of which inverse

condemnation is successfully required under

Section 3 is unwilling or unable to pay the

costs awarded, it may instead relax the land use

planning, zoning, or other regulatory

program as it affects the plaintiff's land and all

similarly situated land in the jurisdiction

in which the regulatory program is in effect to the

level of regulation in place as of the

time the owner acquired title or {insert date},

whichever is later. In such event, the

governmental unit shall be liable to the plaintiff

landowner or user for the reasonable and

necessary costs of the inverse condemnation

action, plus any actual and demonstrable

economic losses caused the plaintiff by regulation

during the period in which it was in

effect.

523.260.

1. If the governmental unit of which inverse

condemnation is successfully required pursuant to

sections 523.250 to 523.262 is unwilling or unable

to pay the costs awarded, it may instead relax the

land use planning, zoning or other regulatory

program as it affects the plaintiff's land and all

similarly situated land in the jurisdiction in which

the regulatory program is in effect to the level of

regulation in place as of the time the owner

acquired title or on the effective date of sections

523.250 to 523.262, whichever is later. In such

event, the governmental unit shall be liable to the

plaintiff landowner or user for the reasonable and

necessary costs of the inverse condemnation

action, plus any actual and demonstrable

economic losses caused the plaintiff by regulation

during the period in which it was in effect.

(B) Constitutional requirements. This section shall

not be deemed to affect any remedy which is

constitutionally required.

2. This section shall not be deemed to affect any

remedy which is constitutionally required.

(C) Relaxation procedure. Notwithstanding any

other provision of law, the governmental

unit or units subject to an award of

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to

the contrary, the governmental unit or units

subject to an award of compensation pursuant to

63

compensation under this Act may elect to relax

the

land use planning, zoning, or other regulatory

program without further public hearings,

proceedings, or environmental review required. If

the governmental unit or units elect to

so relax the affected regulatory program, the

previously effective program shall

automatically be in effect.

sections 523.250 to 523.262 may elect to relax the

land use planning, zoning or other regulatory

program without further public hearings,

proceedings or environmental review. If the

governmental unit or units elect to so relax the

affected regulatory program, the previously

effective program shall automatically be in effect.

Section 7. {Legal challenges.} Nothing in this Act

shall be construed to preclude

property owners from bringing legal challenges

to regulatory programs affected by this

Act in instances where the regulation caused

diminution in value of the property for the

uses permitted at the time the owner acquired

title, or {insert date}, whichever is later,

nor shall it be construed to preclude property

owners from bringing legal challenges to

regulatory programs affected by this Act based

on other provisions of law.

523.262. Nothing in sections 523.250 to 523.262

shall be construed to preclude property owners

from bringing legal challenges to regulatory

programs affected by sections 523.250 to 523.262

in instances where the regulation cause

diminution in value of the property for the uses

permitted at the time the owner acquired title, or

the effective date of sections 523.250 to 523.262,

whichever is later, nor shall it be construed to

preclude property owners from bringing legal

challenges to regulatory programs affected by

sections 523.250 to 523.262 based on other

provisions of law.

64

Asbestos companies have long been members of ALEC and have sought to use ALEC legislators

to advance measures that would erase the legal liability of companies when they are purchased

by other companies, regardless of the transfer of the assets of such companies which profited

from products that killed or injured American citizens and workers (and even though asbestos

companies were long aware of the health hazards of the products (for causing cancer,

mesothelioma, or asbestosis or other diseases) and there is documentary evidence that leading

asbestos companies hid this information.

Bills like the one below would allow the owners of the company to escape responsibility for the

harms their products caused by selling the company to another corporation, effectively

privatizing profits and assets while making the public pay the costs of Americans injured or

killed by their products. Traditionally, assets and liabilities must be transferred together in a

sale of a company. This bill would alter that traditional rule to the detriment of Americans

harmed by the sale of products that contributed to the assets being transferred, thus thwarting

responsibilities for injuries and harm.

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Brian Yates

Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Bryan Pratt


ALEC Model: Asbestos Fairness Act

ALEC Model Asbestos Fairness Act MO Language in 2008's HB 2137

"Asbestos claim" means any claim, wherever or

whenever made, for damages, losses,

indemnification, contribution, or other relief

arising out of, based on, or in any way related to

asbestos, including: the health effects of

exposure to asbestos, including any claim for:

personal injury or death; mental or emotional

injury risk of disease or other injury; or the costs

of medical monitoring or surveillance, to the

extent such claims are recognized under state

law;

"Asbestos claim", any claim, wherever or

whenever made, for damages, losses,

indemnification, contribution, or other relief

arising out of, based on, or in any way related to

asbestos, including: The health effects of

exposure to asbestos, including a claim for:

Personal injury or death; Mental or emotional

injury; Risk of disease or other injury; or The costs

of medical monitoring or surveillance;





65

Any claim made by or on behalf of any person

exposed to asbestos, or a representative, spouse,

parent, child, or other relative of the person; and

Any claim for damage or loss caused by the

installation, presence, or removal of asbestos;

any claim made by or on behalf of any person

exposed to asbestos, or a representative, spouse,

parent, child, or other relative of the person; and

any claim for damage or loss caused by the

installation, presence, or removal of asbestos.

(2) "Corporation", a corporation for profit,

including a domestic corporation organized under

the laws of this state or a foreign corporation

organized under laws other than the laws of this

state;

(2) "Corporation", a corporation for profit,

including a domestic corporation organized under

the laws of this state or a foreign corporation

organized under laws other than the laws of this

state;

"Successor" means a corporation that assumes or

incurs, or has assumed or incurred, successor

asbestos-related liabilities.

(3) "Innocent successor", a corporation that

assumes or incurs or has assumed or incurred

successor asbestos-related liabilities that is a

successor and became a successor before January

1, 1972, or is any of that successor corporation's

successors; and that after a merger or

consolidation did not continue in the business of

mining asbestos, in the business of selling or

distributing asbestos fibers, or in the business of

manufacturing, distributing, removing, or

installing asbestos-containing products that were

the same or substantially the same as those

products previously manufactured, distributed,

removed, or installed by the transferor;

(d) "Successor asbestos-related liabilities" means

any liabilities, whether known or unknown,

asserted or unasserted, absolute or contingent,

accrued or unaccrued, liquidated or unliquidated,

or due or to become due, that are related in any

way to asbestos claims (as defined by this Act, as

well as any claims for damage or loss caused by

the installation, presence, or removal of asbestos)

and that were assumed or incurred by a

corporation as a result of or in connection with a

merger or consolidation, or the plan of merger or

consolidation related to the merger or

consolidation, with or into another corporation or

that are related in any way to asbestos claims

(4)"Successor asbestos-related liabilities", any

liability, whether known or unknown, asserted or

unasserted, absolute or contingent, accrued or

unaccrued, liquidated or unliquidated, or due or

to become due, which are related in any way to

asbestos claims and were assumed or incurred by

a corporation as a result of or in connection with

a merger or consolidation or the plan of merger

or consolidation related to the merger or

consolidation with or into another corporation or

which are related in any way to asbestos claims

based on the exercise of control or the ownership

of stock of the corporation before the merger or

consolidation.

66

(including property damage claims) based on the

exercise of control or the ownership of stock or

the corporation before the merger or

consolidation.

The term includes liabilities that, after the time of

the merger or consolidation for which the fair

market value of total gross assets is determined

under Section 4, were on are paid or otherwise

discharged, or committed to be paid or otherwise

discharged, by or on behalf of the corporation, or

by a successor of the corporation, or by or on

behalf of a transferor, in connection with

settlements, judgments, or other discharges in

this state or another jurisdiction.

The term shall include liabilities that, after the

time of the merger or consolidation for which the

fair market value of total gross assets is

determined under section 537.929, are or were

paid or otherwise discharged or committed to be

paid or otherwise discharged, by or on behalf of

the corporation or by a successor of the

corporation or by or on behalf of a transferor in

connection with settlements, judgments, or other

discharges in this state or in another jurisdiction;

(e) "Transferor" means a corporation from which

successor asbestos-related liabilities are or were

assumed or incurred.

(5) "Transferor", a corporation from which

successor asbestos-related liabilities are or were

assumed or incurred.

The limitations in Section 3 shall not apply to:

workers' compensation benefits paid by or on

behalf of an employer to an employee under this

State's workers' compensation act on a

comparable workers' compensation law of

another jurisdiction; Any claim against a

corporation that does not constitute a successor

asbestos-related liability; or

(3) Any obligation under the National Labor

Relations Act (29 U.S.C. Section 151, et seq.) as

amended, or under any collective bargaining

agreement.

The limitations of section 537.929 shall not apply

to: Workers' compensation benefits paid by or on

behalf of an employer to an employee under the

provisions of chapter 287, RSMo, or a comparable

workers' compensation law of another

jurisdiction; Any claim against a corporation that

does not constitute a successor asbestos-related

liability; or

3) Any obligation under the National Labor

Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 151, et seq., as

amended, or under any collective bargaining

agreement.

(a) Except as further limited in subsection (b), the

cumulative successor asbestos-related liabilities

of a corporation are limited to the fair market

value of the total gross assets of the transfer

determined as of the time of the merger or

consolidation. The corporation does not have any

responsibility for successor asbestos-related

liabilities in excess of this limitation.

537.929. 1. Except as further limited in subsection

2 of this section, the cumulative successor

asbestos-related liabilities of an innocent

successor corporation are limited to the fair

market value of the total gross assets of the

transferor determined as of the time of the

merger or consolidation. The innocent successor

corporation does not have responsibility for

67

successor asbestos-related liabilities in excess of

this limitation.

(b) If the transferor had assumed or incurred

successor asbestos-related or liabilities in

connection with a prior merger or consolidation

with a prior transferor, then the fair market value

of the total assets of the prior transferor,

determined as of the time of the earlier merger

or consolidation, shall be substituted for the

limitation set forth in subsection (a) for purposes

of determining the limitation of liability of a

corporation.

2. If the transferor had assumed or incurred

successor asbestos-related or liabilities in

connection with a prior merger or consolidation

with a prior transferor, then the fair market value

of the total assets of the prior transferor

determined as of the time of the earlier merger

or consolidation shall be substituted for the

limitation set forth in subsection 1 of this section

for purposes of determining the limitation of

liability of an innocent successor corporation.

A corporation may establish the fair market value

of total gross assets for the purpose of the

limitations under section 3 through any method

reasonable under the circumstances, including:

By reference to the going concern value of the

assets or to the purchase price attributable to or

paid for the assets in an arms-length transaction;

or

In the absence of other readily available

information from which the fair market value can

be determined, by reference to the value of the

assets recorded on a balance sheet.

(b) Total gross assets include intangible assets.

537.932.

1. An innocent successor corporation may

establish the fair market value of total gross

assets for the purpose of the limitations under

section 537.929 through any method reasonable

under the circumstances, including:

By reference to the going concern value of the

assets or to the purchase price attributable to or

paid for the assets in an arms-length transaction;

or

In the absence of other readily available

information from which the fair market value can

be determined, by reference to the value of the

assets recorded on a balance sheet.

2. Total gross assets include intangible assets.

Total gross assets include the aggregate coverage

under any applicable liability insurance that was

issued to the transferor whose assets are being

valued for purposes of this Section and which

insurance has collected or is collectable to cover

successor asbestos-related liabilities (except

compensation for liabilities arising from workers'

exposure to asbestos solely during the course of

their employment by the transferor). A

settlement of a dispute concerning such

insurance coverage entered into by a transferor

To the extent total gross assets include any

liability insurance that was issued to the

transferor whose assets are being valued for

purposes of this section, the applicability, terms,

conditions and limits of such insurance shall not

be affected by this statute, nor shall this statute

otherwise affect the rights and obligations of an

insurer, transferor or successor under any

insurance contract and/or any related

agreements, including, without limitation,

preenactment settlements resolving coverage-

68

or successor with the insurers of the transferor

before the enactment of this chapter shall be

determinative of the aggregate coverage of such

liability insurance to be included in the

calculation of the transferor's total gross assets.

related disputes, and the rights of an insurer to

seek payment for applicable deductibles,

retrospective premiums or self-insured retentions

or to seek contribution from a successor for

uninsured or self-insured periods or periods

where insurance is uncollectible or otherwise

unavailable. Without limiting the foregoing, to

the extent total gross assets include any such

liability insurance, a settlement of a dispute

concerning any such liability insurance coverage

entered into by a transferor or successor with the

insurers of the transferor before August 28, 2008,

shall be determinative of the total coverage of

such liability insurance to be included in the

calculation of the transferor's total gross assets.

Section 5.

Except as provided in Subsections (b), (c), and (d),

the fair market value of total gross assets at the

time of the merger or consolidation shall increase

annually at a rate equal to the sum of:

the prime rate as listed in the first edition of the

Wall Street Journal published for each calendar

year since the merger or consolidation, unless the

prime rate is not published in that edition of the

Wall Street Journal, in which case any reasonable

determination of the prime rate on the first day

of the year may be used, or

one percent

(b) The rate in Subsection (a) is not compounded.

537.935.

Except as provided in subsections 2 to 4 of this

section, the fair market value of total gross assets

at the time of the merger or consolidation shall

increase annually at a rate equal to the sum of:

The prime rate as listed in the first edition of the

Wall Street Journal published for each calendar

year since the merger or consolidation, unless the

prime rate is not published in that edition of the

Wall Street Journal, in which case any reasonable

determination of the prime rate on the first day

of the year may be used; and

One percent.

2. The rate found in subsection 1 of this section

shall not be compounded.

The adjustment of the fair market value of total

gross assets continues as provided under

Subsection (a) until the date the adjusted value is

first exceeded by the cumulative amounts of

successor asbestos-related liabilities paid or

committed to be paid by or on behalf of the

corporation or a predecessor, or by or on behalf

of a transferor, after the time of the merger or

consolidation for which the fair market value of

3. The adjustment of the fair market value of

total gross assets shall continue as provided in

subsection 1 of this section until the date the

adjusted value is first exceeded by the cumulative

amounts of successor asbestos-related liabilities

paid or committed to be paid by or on behalf of

the innocent successor corporation or a

predecessor or by or on behalf of a transferor

after the time of the merger or consolidation for

69

total gross assets is determined. which the fair market value of total gross assets is

determined.

(d) No adjustment of the fair market value of

total gross assets shall be applied to any liability

insurance that may be included in the definition

of total gross assets by subsection 4(c).

4. No adjustment of the fair market value of total

gross assets shall be applied to any liability

insurance that may be included in the definition

of total gross assets by subsection 3 of section

537.932.

Section 6. Scope of Chapter.

The courts in this state shall apply, to the fullest

extent permissible under the United States

Constitution, this state's substantive law,

including the limitation under this chapter, to the

issue of successor asbestos-related liabilities.

537.938.

1. The courts of this state shall construe the

provisions of sections 537.920 to 537.938

liberally with regard to innocent successors.

70

Resolutions like this seek to defend a procedural rule in the Constitution that thwarts direct

democracy by American citizens and has resulted in people being elected to the presidency

who did not win a majority of the actual votes by American citizens.

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Bob Dixon

Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Mark Parkinson


ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_attorney%20

ALEC Model Resolution http://ow.ly/5Ncca HCR44 http://ow.ly/5Ncd3

WHEREAS, the Founding Fathers rejected having

the President of the United States elected by a

national popular vote and instead chose the

Electoral College system; and

WHEREAS, the current Electoral College system

encourages presidential candidates to campaign

in large metropolitan areas and also in rural areas

and small states; and


ensures that the winning Presidential candidate

has support from multiple regions of the country;

and


respects the Founders' strong belief that

individual states should have a vital role in

electing the President of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the National Popular Vote Interstate

Compact diminishes the importance of individual

Whereas, the Founding Fathers rejected having

the President of the United States elected by a

popular vote and instead chose the electoral

college system; and

Whereas, the current electoral college system

encourages presidential candidates to campaign

in large metropolitan areas and also in rural areas

and small states; and


ensures that the winning presidential candidate

has support from multiple regions of the country;

and

Whereas, the current electoral college respects

the Founding Fathers' strong belief that individual

states should have a vital role in electing the

President of the United States; and

Whereas, the National Popular Vote Interstate

Compact diminishes the importance of individual



http://ow.ly/5Ncca

http://ow.ly/5Ncd3

71

states in presidential elections; and


respects the separation of and balance of power

and authority between the States and the Federal

government; and


ensures that (insert state)'s electoral votes are

awarded based on how the majority of the State's

citizens vote;

WHEREAS, under the National Popular Vote

Interstate Compact, (insert states)'s electoral

votes could be awarded to a candidate that the

majority of the State's citizens did not vote for;

and

WHEREAS, the current Electoral College system is

better suited to handle recounts because they

happen at the state level, which is more

manageable than if they were to happen at the

national level as they might if the National

Popular Vote Interstate Compact were adopted;

and


creates a needed balance between agrarian and

industrial interests; and


best preserves our two-party system and prevents

the fracture of America's political structure; and

WHEREAS, the United States Congress has

rejected over 1000 amendments to the

Constitution to change the Electoral College,

including amendments to change to a popular

vote system; and

WHEREAS, the constitutionality of the National

states in presidential elections; and


respects the separation of and balance of power

and authority between the States and the Federal

government; and


ensures that Missouri's electoral votes are

awarded based on how the majority of the State's

citizens vote; and

Whereas, under the National Popular Vote

Interstate Compact, Missouri's electoral votes

could be awarded to a candidate that the majority

of the State's citizens did not vote for; and

Whereas, the current electoral college system is

better suited to handle recounts because they

happen at the state level, which is more

manageable than if they were to happen at the

national level as they might if the National

Popular Vote Interstate Compact is adopted; and


creates a needed balance between agrarian and

industrial interests; and


best preserves our two-party system and prevents

the fracture of America's political structure; and

Whereas, the United States Congress has rejected

over 1000 amendments to the Constitution to

change the electoral college, including

amendments to change to a popular vote system;

and

Whereas, the constitutionality of the National

72

Popular Vote Interstate Compact is questionable

because Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution

states that no state, without the consent of

Congress, may "enter into any Agreement or

Compact with another State."

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the State of

(insert state) endorses its current Electoral

College system as the best way to elect the

President of the United States.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the State of (insert

state) shall defeat any legislation that creates a

multi-state compact for the purpose of

dismantling its current Electoral College System.

Adopted by the Criminal Justice Task Force at the

Annual Meeting, August 2007. Approved by the

ALEC Board of Directors September 2007

Popular Vote Interstate Compact is questionable

because Article I, Section 10 of the United States

Constitution states that no state, without the

consent of Congress, may "enter into any

Agreement or Compact with another State":

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the members

of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-

fourth General Assembly, Second Regular Session,

the Senate concurring therein, hereby endorse

our current electoral college system as the best

way to elect the President of the United States;

and

Be it further resolved that the General Assembly

shall defeat any legislation that creates a multi-

state compact for the purpose of dismantling our

current electoral college system.

73

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Luann Ridgeway

Missouri Bills: SB 962

ALEC Model:ALECExposed.com

The Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act MO Language in 2006: SB 962


(B) "Eligible student" means a student who:

(1) is a member of a household whose total

annual income the year before he or she receives

an educational scholarship under this program

does not exceed an amount equal to 2.5 times

the income standard used to qualify for a free or

reduced-price lunch under the national free or

reduced-price lunch program established

under 42 USC Section 1751 et seq. Once a

student receives a scholarship under this

program, the student will remain eligible

regardless of household income until the student

graduates high school or reaches 21 years of

age;1

(3) "Eligible student", a student who:

(a) Is a member of a household whose total annual

income during the year before he or she receives

an educational scholarship under this program

does not exceed an amount equal to one hundred

eight-five percent of the income standard used to

qualify for a free or reduced price lunch under the

national Free or Reduced Price Lunch Program

established under 42 U.S.C. Section 1751, et seq.

Once a student receives a scholarship under this

program, the student will remain eligible

regardless of household income until the student

graduates high school or reaches twenty-one years

of age;

(2) was eligible to attend a public school in the

preceding semester or is starting school in [state]

for the firsttime;2

(b) Was eligible to attend a public school in the

preceding semester or is starting school in

Missouri for the first time; and

(3) Resides in [state] while receiving an

educational scholarship.

(c) Resides in any city not within a county, any

home rule city with more than four hundred

thousand inhabitants and located in more

than one county, or in any school district

supervised by a special administrative board

appointed by the state board of education under

the provisions of subsection 3 of section 162.081,

RSMo, within the state of Missouri while receiving

an educational scholarship;

(C) "Low-income eligible student" means a

student who qualifies for a free or reduced-price

http://www.senate.mo.gov/06info/pdf-bill/intro/SB962.pdf




74

lunch under the national

free or reduced-price lunch program established

under 42 USC Section 1751 et seq.3

(D) "Parent" includes a guardian, custodian, or

other person with authority to act on behalf of

the child.

(4) "Parent", includes a guardian, custodian, or

other person with authority to act on behalf of the

child;

(E) "Department" means the state Department of

Revenue.

(F) “Qualifying school” means either a public

school outside of the resident school district, or

any private school that provides education to

elementary and/or secondary students and has

notified the Department of its intention to

participate in the program and comply with

program requirements.

(6) "Qualified school", either a public elementary

or secondary school outside of the district in which

a student resides or a nonpublic elementary or

secondary school in our state that complies with

all of the requirements of the program;

(G) Educational scholarships” means grants to

students to cover all or part of the tuition and

fees at either a qualifying private school or a

qualifying public school, including transportation

to a public school outside of a student’s resident

school district.

(H) “Scholarship Granting Organization” means

an organization that complies with the

requirements of the state’ school scholarship tax

credit program and provides or is approved to

provide educational scholarships to students

attending qualifying school of their parent’s

choice.

(7) "Scholarship granting organization", an

organization that complies with the requirements

of this program and provides education

scholarships to students attending qualified

schools of their parents' choice.

75

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Dwight Scharnhorst

Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Tom Self


ALEC Model: ALECExposed.com

The Autism Scholarship Program Act MO Language in 2008: HB 1886

(A) The legislative service agency may contract

with one or more qualified researchers who have

previous experience evaluating school choice

programs to conduct a study of the program with

funds other than state funds.

163.411. 1. The department shall conduct a study

of the program with funds other than state funds.

The department may contract with one or more

qualified researchers who have previous

experience evaluating similar programs. The

department may accept grants to assist in funding

this study.

(B) The study shall assess:

(1) the level of participating students' satisfaction

with the program;

2. The study shall assess:

(1)The level of participating students' satisfaction

with the program;

(2) the level of parental satisfaction with the

program;

(2) The level of parental satisfaction with the

program;

(3) the percentage of participating students who

were victimized18 because of their special needs

status at their resident school district compared

with the percentage so victimized at their

participating school;

(3) The percentage of participating students who

were bullied or harassed because of their special

needs status at their resident school district

compared to the percentage so bullied or harassed

at their qualified school;

(4) the percentage of participating students who

exhibited behavioral problems at their resident

school district compared with the percentage

exhibiting behavioral problems at their

participating school;

(4) The percentage of participating students who

exhibited behavioral problems at their resident

school district compared to the percentage

exhibiting behavioral problems at their qualified

school;

(5) the class size experienced by participating

students at their resident school district and at

their participating school; and

(5) The class size experienced by participating

students at their resident school district and at

their qualified school; and





76

(6) the fiscal impact to the state and resident

school districts of the program.

(6) The fiscal impact to the state and resident

school districts of the program.

(C) The researchers who conduct the study shall:

(1) apply appropriate analytical and behavioral

science methodologies to ensure public

confidence in the study;

3. The study shall be completed using appropriate

analytical and behavioral sciences methodologies

to ensure public confidence in the study.

(3) provide the legislature with a final copy of the

evaluation of the program.

4. The department shall provide the general

assembly with a final copy of the evaluation of the

program by December 31, 2009.

ALEC Exposed in Missouri - 2012-04-16

Documents

class size

spread economic

kansas city

large metropolitan

drawing social

reducing social

social security

impose discriminatory