ALEC Exposed in Nevada MAY 2013
Alec Exposed in Nevada
Nov 11, 2014
Nevada ALEC exposed report.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ALEC Exposed in Nevada MAY 2013
1
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 2 ABOUT ALEC ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 ALEC IN NEVADA .................................................................................................................................................... 4 NEVADAN ALEC MEMBERS AND ALUMNI .............................................................................................................. 5
Profiles of Current Office Holders ....................................................................................................................... 5 Former Office Holders ....................................................................................................................................... 10
MONEY TRAIL ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 Taxpayer Funding .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Scholarships ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Campaign Finance ............................................................................................................................................. 15
ALEC’S MODEL BILLS IN NEVADA ....................................................................................................................... 16 ALEC’s Parent Trigger In Nevada .................................................................................................................... 17 ALEC’s School Voucher Bills In Nevada ........................................................................................................... 19 ALEC's Private Schools Bill In Nevada ............................................................................................................. 24 ALEC’s Anti-Healthcare Reform Act ................................................................................................................. 27 ALEC’s English Only Bill In Nevada ................................................................................................................. 28 ALEC’s Machine Gun Bill In Nevada ................................................................................................................ 30 ALEC’s Voting Restrictions Bill In Nevada ....................................................................................................... 33
ALEC’s Ombudsman Bill in Nevada .................................................................................................................. 35
ALEC’s Federal Lands Bill In Nevada .............................................................................................................. 37 ALEC’s Bill To Cut The Minimum Wage In Nevada ......................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX: DONATIONS FROM CORPORATE FUNDERS OF ALEC TO SELECT ALEC POLITICIANS ................... 39 Senator Greg Brower ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Senator Michael Roberson ................................................................................................................................. 40 Assemblyman Cresent Hardy ............................................................................................................................. 41 Senator David Parks .......................................................................................................................................... 42 Senator James Settelmeyer ................................................................................................................................. 42 Senator Don Gustavson ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Senator Barbara Cegavske* .............................................................................................................................. 43 Senator Joseph Hardy ........................................................................................................................................ 44 Senator Ben Kieckhefer ...................................................................................................................................... 44 Assemblyman Jim Wheeler ................................................................................................................................. 44
2
Executive Summary
“Those who founded ALEC in 1973 probably did not imagine that in just 20 short years ALEC would
grow to become the most influential state level organization in the country,” Senator Bill Raggio, 1992. 1
This report documents the known reach of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in the
Nevada Legislature.
Claiming over 2,000 legislative members nationally and at least 300 corporate members, ALEC boasts it
“brings together state lawmakers and business people.” These unelected corporate representatives sit as
equals with elected officials on eight ALEC task forces, where by its own admission “both have a voice
and a vote in shaping policy.” Legislators then take these corporate approved policy ideas back to their
homes states and introduce them as their own.
This report includes information ProgressNow Nevada was able to locate on current and former
legislative members, their roles within ALEC, proposed ALEC legislation, and campaign contributions
made by ALEC corporations to ALEC members. However, because of Nevada’s weak campaign and
lobbying expenditure reporting laws and lax record keeping laws, ALEC’s true influence is not fully
known and raises many questions to be answered.
KEY FINDINGS
At least 10 current members of the Nevada Legislature have ties to ALEC. Notable past legislative
members include Senator Bill Raggio (ALEC’s 1993 National Chairman), Speaker Joe Dini,
Governor Jim Gibbons, and Congressman Jon Porter.
Since 2008, ALEC corporate members have given more than $175,000 to Nevada’s ten current
ALEC legislators.
When asked for correspondence between legislators and ALEC via a Public Records Request,
LCB responded on behalf of Senators saying ALEC communication was “so inextricably
intertwined with the policy-making and bill-drafting process that disclosure of the correspondence
would inevitably reveal the Senators’ deliberations.”
ALEC legislation has been introduced to influence education, healthcare, voting rights, worker’s
rights, and gun violence prevention laws in Nevada.
The current ALEC state chair is Senator Barbara Cegavske (R – Las Vegas).
The Legislative Counsel Bureau has been paying a membership fee to ALEC since 1993. In 2012
this membership fee was $1,000. Membership dues have varied, so no total cost can be calculated.
When contacted by ProgressNow Nevada, LCB Director Rick Combs could not identify what this
membership provides LCB or its purpose otherwise.
In 1995, Raggio, with the help of Dini, orchestrated ALEC trips being included on the list of
expenses paid for by the Legislative Commission, resulting in an unknown amount of taxpayer
dollars being spent on ALEC trips.
1 ALEC Annual Report, 1992
3
About ALEC
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate financed bill mill that brings together
thousands of lawmakers and hundreds of corporate lobbyists to sit as equals on committees and churn out
template legislation designed to help corporate bottom lines.
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "The organization, with a staff of 30 and a $5.5 million
yearly budget, teams lawmakers up with corporate interests to push decidedly pro-business bills through
state legislatures. Any lawmaker who is a member of the group can simply log on to its Web site and find
hundreds of bills to copy. They can shop for ideas on how to curb class-action lawsuits, help the
telecommunications industry or toughen the criminal justice system." [Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
8/8/2005]
ALEC’s known corporate funders include (see full list at http://www.ALECexposed.org):
Altria Eli Lilly Pfizer
Anheuser-Busch NA ExxonMobil Shell Oil
AstraZeneca Farmer’s Group Sprint Nextel
AT&T FedEx State Farm Insurance
Bayer Corp GlaxoSmithKline T-Mobile
BP K12 Inc. Takeda Pharmaceutical
Bridgepoint America Koch Industries Time Warner Cable
CenturyLink Marathon Oil UnitedHealthcare
Chevron Microsoft UPS
Comcast News Corp. Verizon
Dow Chemicals Novartis Visa
eBay Peabody Energy Yahoo!
How ALEC Works
From the Center on Media and Democracy:
Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law
they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have
membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all eight ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve
“model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative
board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's
operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those
proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and
important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills.
ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one
in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and
“unmatched” organization.
4
ALEC In Nevada
ALEC thrives in secrecy, and has for nearly 40 years. ALEC does not disclose its corporate donors,
public or private membership, and even after ALEC’s bills were leaked in the summer of 2011, ALEC did
not disclose its library of model bills until 2013. In order to attempt to hold Nevadan leaders accountable
for their actions, ProgressNow Nevada filed a public records request with Senators Cegavske, Kieckhefer,
and Brower, all of whom are known ALEC members in Nevada.
The Senators responded through Legislative Counsel Bureau staff, rejecting our request. The reply
admitted that ALEC was “so inextricably intertwined with the policy-making and bill-drafting process
that disclosure of the correspondence would inevitably reveal the Senators’ deliberations.” This striking
statement admits the great depth of the influence ALEC holds on Nevada’s legislative process. These
Senators have allowed ALEC to be inextricably intertwined with their legislative process.
The Legislative Council Bureau, responding on behalf of the Senators, claimed further legal privilege, and
the right to hide their communications with this group from the public, under the guise that “it is unlikely
that the private parties who conducted the private correspondence with the Senators would have felt
comfortable communicating their ideas to the Senators frankly and freely if they had known that their
correspondence would be disclosed to the public.” While few would doubt that ALEC would prefer to
remain in secret, the Senators audaciously argued that their interest in secretively communicating with
corporate lobbyists on radical conservative legislation outweighed the public’s interest in disclosure.
ProgressNow Nevada could not disagree more. This report is the results of our best efforts to show the
full extent of ALEC’s influence in Nevada.
5
Nevadan ALEC Members And Alumni
Profiles of Current Office Holders
Sen. Greg Brower
2
(R-15)
ALEC
Position:
None
ALEC
Corporate
Member
Donations:
$44,500 (2012 cycle)
ALEC Top
Donors:
AT&T, Bank of America State and Federal Bank,
Farmers Insurance PAC, NRA Political Victory
Fund, NV Energy
ALEC
Scholarships:
Unknown
ALEC Bills: 1 Bill:
JOINT SPONSOR: 2013 - SB 241 (Great Schools
Tax Credit Program Act)
ALEC
Position:
None
ALEC
Conventions
Attended:
It is not known if Sen. Brower has attended any
ALEC conventions.
Sen. Barbara
Cegavske3 (R-8)
ALEC
Position:
State Chair (2010 – Present) 4
5
Member, Education Task Force6
ALEC
Corporate
Member
Donations:
$8,200 (2010 and 2012 cycle)
ALEC Top
Donors:
Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Johnson &
Johnson Services, Inc.
ALEC
Scholarships:
2006-2008: $3,844.57 Since 2008: Unknown
ALEC Bills: 9 Bills:
REQUESTED: 2007 - SB 5 (Cancer Drug Donation
Act), SB 158 (The Special Need Scholarship
Program Act), SB 400 (The Foster Child
Scholarship Program Act) 2009 - SB 159 (Cancer
Drug Donation Act) 2011 – SB 310 (Freedom of
Choice in Health Care Act), SB 366 (Parent Trigger
2 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2001 3 ALEC.org, Accessed 12/11/12 4 Nevada News And Views, 12/06/10 5 ALEC.org, accessed 03/21/13 6 38th Annual ALEC Meeting, 7/1/11
6
Act) 2013 – SB 241 (Great Schools Tax Credit
Program Act)
JOINT SPONSOR: 2011 – SB 380 (No Sanctuary
Cities for Illegal Immigrants) 2013 – SB 188
(Omnibus Common Language Act)
ALEC
Conventions
Attended:
1. Attended the December, 2012 ALEC
Convention in Washington DC7
2. Attended the July, 2012 ALEC Convention
in Salt Lake City, UT8
3. Attended the April, 2011 ALEC Convention
in Cincinnati, OH9
4. Attended the December, 2010 ALEC
Convention in Washington DC10
5. Attended the August, 2010 ALEC
Convention in San Diego11
Sen. Don G.
Gustavson12
(R-14)
ALEC
Position:
Former Member, Public Safety and Elections Task
Force (Task Force disbanded April, 2012)
ALEC
Corporate
Member
Donations:
$10,750 (2008 - 2012 cycle)
ALEC Top
Donors:
Walgreen Co., AT&T, CenturyLink, Inc., Farmers
Employee Agent PAC, Union Pacific Railroad,
United Health Care Group Inc. PAC of Nevada
ALEC
Scholarships:
Unknown
ALEC Bills: 8 Bills:
REQUESTED: 2011 – SB 380 (No Sanctuary Cities
for Illegal Immigrants) 2013 – SB 188 (Omnibus
Common Language Act), SB 367 (Taxpayer Citizen
Protection Act)
JOINT SPONSOR: 2009 – AB 213 (Cancer Drug
Act), SB 366 (Parent Trigger Act), AB 311
(Business Ombudsperson Act) 2013 – AB 254
(Parent Trigger Act), SB 241 (Great Schools Tax
Credit Program Act)
ALEC
Conventions
Attended:
1. Member, Public Safety and Elections Task
Force13
2. Attended the April, 2011 ALEC Convention
in Cincinnati, OH14
3. Attended the December, 2010 ALEC
7 Sen. Cegavske 2013 Annual CE Filing 8 Sen. Cegavske 2013 Annual CE Filing 9 Sen. Cegavske, 2012 Annual CE Filing (Amended) 10 ALEC 35 Day Mailing, obtained by Common Cause, 12/03/10 11 ALEC 35 Day Mailing, obtained by Common Cause, 10/28/10 12 ALEC Public Safety & Elections Task Force Minutes, obtained by Common Cause, April 2011 13 2011 Annual ALEC Meeting, 6/30/11 14 Sen. Gustavson, 2012 Annual CE Filing
7
Convention in Washington DC15
Sen. Joseph
Hardy16
(R-12)
ALEC
Position:
Member, Health and Human Services Task Force
ALEC
Corporate
Member
Donations:
$5,750 (2012 cycle)
ALEC Top
Donors:
CenturyLink, Farmers Employee Agent PAC,
Johnson & Johnson Services Inc., Pfizer Inc.
ALEC
Scholarships:
Unknown
ALEC Bills: 6 Bills:
REQUESTED: 2011 - SJR 2 (Starting (Minimum)
Wage Repeal Act)
JOINT SPONSOR: 2009 - AB 311 (Business
Ombudsperson Act) 2011 – SB 366 (Parent Trigger
Act), SB 310 (Freedom of Choice in Health Care
Act), SB 241 (Great Schools Tax Credit Program
Act), SB 380 (No Sanctuary Cities for Illegal
Immigrants)
ALEC
Position:
Member, Health and Human Services Task Force
ALEC
Conventions
Attended:
1. Member, Health and Human Services Task
Force17
2. Attended the Nov.-Dec. 2011 ALEC
Convention in Scottsdale, AZ18
Sen. Ben
Kieckhefer19
(R-
16)
ALEC
Position:
None
ALEC
Corporate
Member
Donations:
$5,532 (2012 cycle)
ALEC Top
Donors:
Amerigroup Corporation, PhRMA, Sprint
ALEC
Scholarships:
Unknown
ALEC Bills: 3 Bills:
REQUESTED: 2011 – SB 251 (Council on
Effective Government Act)
JOINT SPONSOR: 2011 – SB 366 (Parent Trigger
Act) 2013 – SB 241 (Great Schools Tax Credit
15 ALEC 35 Day Mailing, obtained by Common Cause, 12/03/10 16 Sen. Hardy Campaign Finance Report, 01/17/12 17 38th Annual ALEC Meeting, 6/30/11 18 Sen. Hardy, 2012 Annual CE Filing 19 Nevada News And Views, 12/06/10
8
Program Act)
ALEC
Position:
None
ALEC
Conventions
Attended:
1. Attended the July, 2012 ALEC Convention
in Salt Lake City, UT20
2. Attended the Nov.-Dec. 2011 ALEC
Convention in Scottsdale, AZ21
3. Attended the April, 2011 ALEC Convention
in Cincinnati, OH22
4. Attended the August, 2010 ALEC
Convention in San Diego23
Sen. David Parks24
(D-7)
ALEC
Position:
None
ALEC
Corporate
Member
Donations:
$24,950 (2012 cycle)
ALEC Top
Donors:
AT&T Services, Inc., Atria Client Services,
CenturyLink, Farmers Insurance PAC, NV Energy,
ALEC
Scholarships:
Unknown
ALEC Bills: 1 Bill:
JOINT SPONSOR: 2009 - SB 159 (Cancer Drug
Donation Act)
ALEC
Conventions
Attended:
It is not known if Sen. Parks has attended any ALEC
conventions.
Sen. Michael
Roberson25
(R-20)
ALEC
Position:
None
ALEC
Corporate
Member
Donations:
$37,250 (2010 and 2012 cycles)
ALEC Top
Donors:
AT&T Nevada, Bayer, Cash America, CenturyLink
Inc. Employees PAC, Farmers Insurance PAC, NV
Energy, PHRMA, PhRMA
ALEC
Scholarships:
Unknown
ALEC Bills: 4 Bills:
REQUESTED: 2011 – SB 373 (Voter ID Act) 2013
20 Sen. Kieckhefer, 2013 Annual CE Filing 21 Sen. Kieckhefer, 2012 Annual CE Filing 22 Sen. Kieckhefer, 2012 Annual CE Filing 23 Nevada News And Views, 12/06/10 24 Sen. Parks Campaign Finance Report, 01/17/12 25 Sen. Roberson Campaign Finance Report, 01/15/13
9
– SB 195 (Parent Trigger Act)
JOINT SPONSOR: 2013 – SB 241 (Great Schools
Tax Credit Program Act) 2011 - SB 366 (Parent
Trigger Act)
ALEC
Conventions
Attended:
1. Attended the July, 2012 ALEC Convention
in Salt Lake City, UT26
Sen. James A.
Settelmeyer27
(R-17)
ALEC
Position:
Member, Commerce, Insurance, and Economic
Development Task Force28
ALEC
Corporate
Member
Donations:
$19, 750 (2008 – 2012 cycles)
ALEC Top
Donors:
Walgreens, Wal-Mart, Farmers, AT&T
ALEC
Scholarships:
Unknown
ALEC Bills: 6 Bills:
REQUESTED: 2009 – AB 311 (Business
Ombudsperson Act)
JOINT SPONSOR: 2011 – SB 366 (Parent Trigger
Act), SB 380 (No Sanctuary Cities for Illegal
Immigrants) 2013 – SB 188 (Omnibus Common
Language Act), SB 241 (Great Schools Tax Credit
Program Act), SB 367 (Taxpayer & Citizen
Protection)
ALEC
Conventions
Attended:
It is not known if Sen. Settelmeyer has attended any
ALEC conventions.
Assemblyman
Cresent Hardy29
(R-19)
ALEC
Position:
None
ALEC
Corporate
Member
Donations:
$28,000 (2010 and 2012 cycles)
ALEC Top
Donors:
Walgreens, NV Energy, Inc., Farmers Insurance
PAC, Farmers Employee Agent PAC, CenturyLink,
AT&T, Associated Builders and Contractors of
Nevada
ALEC
Scholarships:
Unknown
26 Sen. Roberson, 2013 Annual CE Filing 27 ALEC Task Force Documents obtained by Common Cause, August 2011 28 2011 Annual ALEC Meeting, 6/30/11 29 Assemblyman Hardy Campaign Finance report, 01/13/12
10
ALEC Bills: 3 Bills:
JOINT SPONSOR: 2013 – AB 254 (Parent Trigger
Act), AB 373 (Family Education Tax Credit), SB
241 (Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act
ALEC
Conventions
Attended:
1. Attended the July, 2012 ALEC Convention
in Salt Lake City, UT30
2. Attended the August, 2011 ALEC
Convention in New Orleans, LA31
Assemblyman Jim
Wheeler32
(R-39)
ALEC
Position:
None
ALEC
Corporate
Member
Donations:
$3,000 (2012 cycle)
ALEC Top
Donors:
AT&T, Nevada Power
ALEC
Scholarships:
Unknown
ALEC Bills: 4 Bills:
JOINT SPONSOR: 2013 – AB 254 (Parent Trigger
Act), SB 188 (Omnibus Common Language Act),
SB 241 (Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act), SB
367 (Taxpayer & Citizen Protection Act)
ALEC
Conventions
Attended:
It is not known if Asm. Wheeler has attended any
ALEC conventions.
Former Office Holders
Gov. Jim Gibbons 33
Congressman Jon Porter34
State Controller Kathy Augustine35
Sen. Bob Beers36
Sen. Warren B. Hardy II37
30 Asm. Hardy, 2012 CE Report 3 31 Asm. Hardy, 2012 Annual CE Filing 32 Assemblyman Wheeler Campaign Finance Report 10/15/12 33 ALEC 1995 SB 34 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005 35 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 36 ALEC Policy Forum, 2007 37 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12
11
Sen. Mike McGinness38
Sen. Dennis Nolan39
Sen. William J. Raggio40
Sen. Raymond Rawson41
Sen. Dean A. Rhoads42
Sen. Mike Schneider43
Sen. Sandra Tiffany44
Sen. Randolph Townsend45
Sen. Maurice Washington46
Speaker Joseph Dini, Jr. 47
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr.48
Assemblywoman Merle A. Berman49
Assemblyman Chad Christensen50
Assemblyman Ty Cobb51
Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick52
Assemblyman David Humke53
Assemblyman John Marvel54
Assemblyman Bob E. Price55
38 ALEC 1995 SB 39 Nevada News And Views, 12/06/10 40 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005 41 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 42 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005 43 ALEC 1995 SB 44 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 45 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 46 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 47 ALEC.org page archived from 12/08/00 48 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 49 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 50 Nevada Legislature, accessed 01/17/13 51 ALEC Civil Justice Task Force 35 Day Mailing, obtained by Common Cause, 07/01/10 52 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005 53 ALEC: Keeping The Promise, 1993 54 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 55 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12
12
Assemblyman Jack Regan56
Assemblyman Louis A. Toomin57
Assemblywoman Valerie Weber58
56 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 57 ALEC 1995 SB 58 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12
13
Money Trail
Taxpayer Funding
The Nevada Legislative Commission has paid membership dues to ALEC since 1993.59
Current public
records do not extend back to 1993, so it is impossible to ascertain how many taxpayer dollars have been
spent on ALEC, but dues for fiscal year 2012 cost $1,000.00.60
In 1995, Senator Raggio, ALEC’s 1993 National Chairman and Speaker Dini, an ALEC member,
attempted to get the Legislative Commission to pay for trips to ALEC Conventions. When the
commission rejected the move, Sen. Raggio attempted to remove all legislative travel from the budget.61
Sen. Raggio gave his rationale for the move:
“Committee, a matter has come to the chair's attention as a result of a Legislative Commission
meeting that was held this morning. A routine item on the agenda was to approve a travel policy
for legislators attending meetings of national organizations, to include the American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC). I might indicate that is the national legislative organization which I
served as national chairman. We have as a legislature paid dues to that, as well as to the other
legislative groups such as NCSL [National Conference of State Legislatures], CSG [Council of
State Governments], WLC [Western Legislative Council], and the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. I think that it is a regrettable policy change and is an
indication that there is some desire to play favoritism in how we treat legislators. There are a
majority of members in this legislature, of both parties, who are dues paying members of the
American Legislator Exchange Council. In addition, this legislature pays annual dues to this
organization and I think if we are going to deny that, then I think we should reflect upon what we
do otherwise. … I think unless we are going to be equitable in treating the members of this
legislature the same that we should delete that from the authority within the budget and I will
entertain a motion to delete all dues for ALEC, NCSL, CSG, and WLC and all authorization for
travel and other allowances for legislators to attend such meetings and that the budget be reopened
for that purpose.” 62
This maneuver worked, the Legislative Commission caved to Sen. Raggio’s demand, and the state began
to pay for travel to ALEC junkets. 63
In 2003 the Legislative Commission changed policies to reduce the number of reimbursed trips from three
to one.64
In 2009, the Legislative Commission temporarily stopped funding legislators’ travel for any
trips.65
Due to standard records retention schedules, no records exist to detail what money the state of
Nevada spent to finance legislators trips to ALEC conventions between 1995 and 2009.66
59 Legislative Commission Minutes, 06/29/95 60 openbudget.nv.gov, accessed 03/28/13 61 Senate Committee On Finance Minutes, 06/23/95 62 Senate Committee On Finance Minutes, 06/23/95 63 Legislative Commission Minutes, 06/29/95 64 Legislative Commission Minutes, 05/30/03 65 Legislative Commission Minutes, 05/29/09 66 Phone Interview, LCB Staff, 05/01/13
14
Scholarships
ALEC runs a series of “scholarship” programs for legislators that allow corporate special interests to give
gifts to lawmakers without being subject to normal limits and disclosure rules. The system works by
having corporations donate to the fund to “reimburse” legislators for travel. These transfers can range
into the thousands of dollars, and yet remain entirely undisclosed despite state lobbyist disclosure laws,
and gift prohibitions. Scholarship accounts are used to circumvent prohibitions of gifts. Even in places
like Wisconsin where a lobbyist is forbidden to buy a legislator a cup of coffee, they are able donate
thousands of dollars to legislators’ trips.67
These scholarships are illegal in at least three states.68
The Center for Media and Democracy was able to uncover the funds’ balance sheets, and glimpse into the
system for the years 2006-2008 due to an open records request. 69
ProgressNow Nevada has sought to
clarify the status of the Nevada ALEC scholarship account via public records requests, which were
rebuffed.
In other states, the ALEC state chairperson controls the ALEC scholarship account, soliciting donations
from corporations in order to finance travel to posh retreats to meet with corporate CEOs and lobbyists.
ALEC State Chairs have urged lawmakers to thank the corporations who have paid for their trips.70
Certain ALEC trips were paid for by the Nevada Legislature from 1995-2009. Between 2006 and 2008,
Nevada’s scholarship account has been small, and had a narrow focus. Nevada’s “scholarship” account
had only two donors, Bayer Healthcare and Eli Lilly, both pharmaceutical giants, and paid to only two
recipients, Senator Barbara Cegavske and the Nevada Legislature. Officials have declined to disclose
activity since 2008.
This data raises more questions than can be answered. The payments to the legislature may have been in
relation to the Legislature’s funding of travel; it is impossible to determine the nature of these transactions
since records no longer exist. 71
There is no information on who has paid for legislators’ trips to ALEC
since, and what the account has done since the Legislature stopped funding legislative trips. The nature of
the precise transfers to Sen. Cegavske is unknown and the Senator has argued through staff that disclosure
of her involvement with ALEC is outweighed by her interest in secrecy.
Below is the 2006-2008 balance sheet for the scholarship account, as reported by the Center for Media
and Democracy and Common Cause:72
Year Entity Money In Money Out
2008 Bayer HealthCare $1,500.00
Barbara Cegavske $1,613.59
Eli Lilly $1,000.00
Nevada Legislature $507.00
2007 Barbara Cegavske $730.98
Eli Lilly $1,000.00
Nevada Legislative Council Bureau $1,726.40
2006 Barbara Cegavske $1,500.00
67 PR Watch, 04/17/13 68 CMD, October, 2012 69 billmoyers.com, 04/23/13 70 CMD, October 2012 71 Phone Interview, LCB Staff, 05/01/13 72 CMD, October, 2012
15
Campaign Finance
ALEC’s corporate members have donated over $175,000 since 2008 to elect the current ten ALEC
legislators in Nevada.73
The largest ALEC donor to these individuals was unsurprisingly NV Energy,
ALEC’s corporate Chair for Nevada.74
The top ALEC corporate donors in Nevada are:
1. NV Energy, $26,200.00
2. Farmers Insurance, $21,500.00
3. AT&T, $16,500.00
4. CenturyLink, $14,500.00
5. Walgreens75
, $10,500.00
The appendices of this report contain donations for each ALEC legislator.
73 Total includes donations from corporations who have since cut ties to ALEC, but were members when they made the contributions. Details are in the
appendix. 74 ALEC “Solutions for the States”, August 2011 75 Walgreens has cut ties with ALEC
16
ALEC’s Model Bills In Nevada
Year Bill Primary Sponsor ALEC Model
Privatizing Education
2011 SB 366 Sen. Cegavske (ALEC) Parent Trigger Act
2013 SB 195 Sen. Roberson (ALEC) Parent Trigger Act
2013 SB 290 Sen. Manendo Parent Trigger Act
2013 AB 254 Asm. Hansen Parent Trigger Act
2007 SB 158 Sen. Cegavske (ALEC) The Special Needs Scholarship Program Act
2013 SB 241 Sen. Cegavske (ALEC) Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act
Healthcare
2011 SB 310 Sen. Cegavske (ALEC) Freedom of Choice In Health Care Act
Guns, Immigration, and Voting Restrictions
2013 AB 340 Asm. Hambrick Consistency In Firearms Regulation Act
2013 SB 188 Sen. Gustavson (ALEC) Omnibus Common Language Act
2011 SB 380 Sen. Gustavson (ALEC) No Sanctuary Cities For Illegal Imigrants
2013 SB 367 Sen. Gustavson (ALEC) Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act
2011 SB 373 Sen. Roberson (ALEC) Voter ID Act
Corporate Sponsored Attacks on Workers and the Environment
2009 AB 331 Asm. Settlemeyer (ALEC) Business Ombudsperson Act
2011 SB 251 Sen. Kieckhefer (ALEC) Council On Effective Government Act
2011 SJR 2 Sen. Hardy (ALEC) Starting (Minimum) Wage Repeal Act
2013 AB 227 Asm. Ellison Sagebrush Rebellion Act
17
ALEC’s Parent Trigger In Nevada
ALEC Model BILL(S) Introduced/BDR Status
Parent Trigger Act 2011 SB 366 10/08/09 Introduced
2013 SB 195 07/10/12 Introduced
2013 SB 290 11/13/12 Introduced
2013 AB 254 07/25/12 Introduced
Assembly Sponsors Senate Sponsors
Fiore Hickey Cegavske (ALEC) Manendo
Hambrick Kirner (ALEC) Gustavson (ALEC) McGinness (ALEC)
Hansen Livermore Halseth Robersen (ALEC)
Hardy (ALEC) Wheeler (ALEC) Hardy (ALEC) Settelmeyer (ALEC)
Kieckhefer (ALEC)
The bills listed above all contain language from ALEC’s template Parent Trigger Act. The ALEC
template bill provides a mechanism to turn public schools into charter schools, and enact education
vouchers. It does not include any mechanism to turn a private school into a public one. “Parent triggers”
work to gradually eliminate public education, while providing considerable revenue for private for-profit
education corporations.
The ALEC Parent Trigger template was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, and passed ALEC’s
Education Task Force in December 2010.76
Senator Cegavske and Senator Nolan were members of
ALEC’s Education Task Force at the time, and both attended the December, 2010 ALEC convention. 77 78
ALEC’s Education Task Force is home to many for-profit education corporations, including K12-Inc. and
Insight Schools.79
The privatization of public schools creates expanded markets for these private
providers, without providing verifiable evidence of increased educational standards, and with a lack of
ways for parents to “pull the trigger” on failing for-profit schools.
Below is a comparison of just one of the versions of ALEC’s Parent Trigger Act.
2013 AB 254 As Introduced ALEC’s Model “Parent Trigger Act“
Sec. 3. 1. The parent or legal guardian of a pupil
enrolled in a public school that is designated as
demonstrating need for improvement pursuant to
NRS 385.3623 may, upon a written petition signed
by not less than 51 percent of the parents and legal
guardians of pupils enrolled in the school, or 51
percent of the parents and legal guardians of pupils
enrolled in the school and the parents and legal
guardians of pupils who will matriculate into the
school, submit the petition to the board of trustees
of the school district to take one or more of the
following intervention actions for the school:
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.
76 PR Watch, 09/19/12 77 ALEC 35 Day Mailing, obtained by Common Cause, 12/03/10 78 ALEC 35 Day mailing, 03/31/11 79 Sourcewatch, accessed on 03/11/13
18
(a) Implement a restart model by closing the school
and, pursuant to the provisions of NRS 386.490 to
386.610, inclusive, entering into a contract with an
educational management organization that has a
demonstrated record of effectiveness to reopen and
operate the school as a charter school;
(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
restart model must enroll, within the grades it
serves, any former student who wishes to attend the
school.
(b) Implement school closure by closing the school
and transferring the pupils enrolled in the school to
other public schools within the school district
which are higher-achieving than the school that will
be closed, including, without limitation, a charter
school, and which are in close proximity to the
school that will be closed; or
(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) Implement school choice by:
(1) Issuing vouchers on behalf of a pupil who
would otherwise enroll in the school to attend a
private school pursuant to section 4 of this act; and
(2) Authorizing a pupil who would otherwise enroll
in the school to attend another public school within
the school district if space for the pupil is available
at the other school.
(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.
3. For each year that a pupil is enrolled in a private
school pursuant to this section, the parent or legal
guardian of the pupil is entitled to receive from the
school district a voucher in an amount equal to the
lesser of:
(a) Seventy-five percent of the average of the total
amount of public money that was expended per
year by the public school in which the pupil would
otherwise enroll for which school choice has been
implemented pursuant to section 3 of this act in the
immediately preceding 3 years, including, without
limitation, operational and facility costs;
(b) Seventy-five percent of the average of the basic
support guarantee per pupil established by law for
the school district pursuant to NRS 387.122 and
local funds available in the immediately preceding
3 years; or
(c) The total amount charged by the private school
for tuition, fees and textbooks.
(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.
19
ALEC’s School Voucher Bills In Nevada
ALEC Model BILL(S) Introduced/BDR Status
The Special Needs
Scholarship Program Act 2007 SB 158 06/27/05 Passed The Senate
The Foster Child
Scholarship Program Act 2007 SB 400 12/10/06 Enacted Into Law
The Autism Scholarship
Program Act 2007 AB 130 08/07/06 Heard in Committee
Assembly Sponsors Senate Sponsors
Weber (ALEC) Beers (ALEC) Hardy (ALEC)
Cegavske (ALEC) Washington (ALEC)
The corporate leadership of ALEC’s Education Task Force has included for-profit school companies like
K-12 Inc., Bridgepoint Education, and Connections Academy.80
Bills that deplete public school funds in
order to subsidize private schools provide direct benefit to those corporations. Recognizing that not every
state would be able to pass a universal voucher system, ALEC has endorsed an array of bills to advance
small school voucher programs. These bills use a foot-in-the-door technique, pulling the heartstrings in
order to advance an agenda to privatize education.
Nevada saw an all-out effort to expand school vouchers in the 2007 session. Three bills based on ALEC
templates were introduced, all slightly different versions, dealing with different subsets of the student
population, and seeking to provide vouchers under the guise of “scholarships.” The 2007 session saw a
bill to give “scholarships” to those with autism spectrum disorders, a bill to give “scholarships” to those
with a larger swath of special needs and yet another bill seeking to give vouchers for foster children. Two
of the bills failed, while one became law. This multi-pronged strategy worked in Nevada to advance
ALEC’s corporate education policies at the expense of public education
Below is a partial comparison of two of the three bills, and one of the ALEC models.
2007 SB 400 As Introduced 2007 SB 158 As Introduced ALEC’s Model “The Special
Needs Scholarship Program Act”
Sec. 9. 1. There is hereby
established the Scholarship
Program for Children in Foster
Care, to be administered by the
Department.
Sec. 7. 1. There is hereby
established the Special Needs
Scholarship Program, to be
administered by the Department.
Section 1. {Title} The Special
Needs Scholarship Program
Sec. 14. 1. Except as otherwise
provided in this subsection, the
legal guardian or custodian of a
child may submit to the
Department an application to
participate in the Scholarship
Program if:
(a) The child has been placed in a
Sec. 12. 1. Except as otherwise
provided in this subsection, the
parent or legal guardian of a child
may submit to the Department an
application to participate in the
Scholarship Program if:
(a) The child is a pupil with a
disability and has an
(A) Any parent of an eligible
student shall qualify for a
scholarship from the state for
their child to enroll in and attend
a participating, private school if:
(1) the student with special needs
has had an Individualized
Education Plan written in
80 Connections Academy has left ALEC
20
foster home;
(b) The child is enrolled in a
public school or is not enrolled in
a school because he has not
attained the age required for
enrollment; and
(c) An eligible school has
accepted the child for admission.
A child may enroll in an eligible
school that is a public school
only if the public school is
located outside the school district
in which the child resides.
individualized education
program;
(b) The child is enrolled in a
public school or is not enrolled in
a school because he has not
attained the age required for
enrollment;
(c) An eligible school has
accepted the child for admission;
and
(d) The parent or legal guardian
of the child notifies the
Department, in the manner
required by the Department, of
his request for a scholarship
before the pupil enters the
eligible school.
A child may enroll in an eligible
school that is a public school
only if the public school is
located outside the school district
in which the child resides.
accordance with the rules of the
Department;
(2) the student has been accepted
for admission at a participating
school; and
(3) the parent has requested a
scholarship from the state before
the deadline established by the
Department.
3. Upon receipt of an application
pursuant to subsection 1, the
Department shall notify the
school district in which the child
resides that an application to
participate in the Scholarship
Program has been submitted. The
school district in which the child
resides shall, within 3 business
days after receiving such notice,
provide to the Department a copy
of the current individualized
education program of the child, if
any.
3. Upon receipt of an application
pursuant to subsection 1, the
Department shall notify the
school district in which the child
resides that an application to
participate in the Scholarship
Program has been submitted. The
school district in which the child
resides shall, within 3 business
days after receiving such notice,
provide to the Department a copy
of the current individualized
education program of the child.
(B) The Department shall inform
the resident school district that a
student with special needs has
requested a special needs
scholarship. The resident school
district shall, within three
business days, provide the
Department with a copy of the
student's most current
Individualized Education Plan.
5. Upon approval of an
application, the Department shall
provide a written statement of
approval to the legal guardian or
custodian of the child, as
applicable, and the eligible
school in which the child will be
enrolled. Upon denial of an
application, the Department shall
provide a written statement of
denial to the legal guardian or
custodian of the child indicating
the reason for the denial.
5. Upon approval of an
application, the Department shall
provide a written statement of
approval to the parent or legal
guardian of the child and the
eligible school in which the child
will be enrolled. Upon denial of
an application, the Department
shall provide a written statement
of denial to the parent or legal
guardian of the child indicating
the reason for the denial.
(C) Upon receipt of the eligible
student's request for a
scholarship, the Department shall
review the Individualized
Education Plan drafted by the
student's public school to
determine the amount of the
scholarship. The Department
shall provide the student's parent
with a timely written explanation
of its determination for the
amount of the scholarship.
21
6. A child participating in the
Scholarship Program who is a
pupil with a disability and who is
enrolled in a private school that is
an eligible school shall be
deemed enrolled in the private
school by his legal guardian or
custodian, as applicable, pursuant
to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, 20
U.S.C. § 1412, rather than placed
or referred for placement in the
private school by the State or a
local school district.
8. The participation of a child in
the Scholarship Program does not
imply that the public school or
school district in which the child
was previously enrolled failed to
provide a free appropriate public
education for the child in
accordance with the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act,
20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq
(C) A parent's decision for their
student to participate in the
program constitutes a private
placement for purposes of the
Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.
Sec. 15. 1. A child may continue
to participate in the Scholarship
Program, even if the child is no
longer placed in a foster home, if
the child is enrolled in good
standing in an eligible school and
until the child:
(a) Attains 21 years of age; or
(b) Graduates from high school,
whichever occurs first.
Sec. 13. 1. A child may continue
to participate in the Scholarship
Program if the child is enrolled in
good standing in an eligible
school and until the child:
(a) Attains 21 years of age; or
(b) Graduates from high school,
whichever occurs first.
(G) The Special Needs
Scholarship shall remain in force
until the student returns to a
public school or graduates from
high school or reaches his or her
21st birthday, whichever comes
first.
3. The parent, legal guardian or
custodian of a child, as
applicable, who participates in
the Scholarship Program may:
(a) In the manner required by the
Department, request a transfer of
the child to another eligible
school.
(b) Withdraw his child from
participation in the Scholarship
Program at any time upon written
notice to the Department.
4. If a child withdraws from the
Scholarship Program, he must be
allowed to enroll in the public
school that he is otherwise zoned
to attend.
3. The parent or legal guardian of
a child who participates in the
Scholarship Program may:
(a) In the manner required by the
Department, request a transfer of
the child to another eligible
school.
(b) Withdraw his child from
participation in the Scholarship
Program at any time upon written
notice to the Department.
4. If a child withdraws from the
Scholarship Program, he must be
allowed to enroll in the public
school that he is otherwise zoned
to attend.
(H) At any time, the student's
parent may remove the student
from the participating school and
place the student in another
participating school or in a public
school.
Sec. 20.
1. The Department may enter into
a contract with one or more
qualified, independent
consultants to conduct an
evaluation of the Scholarship
Program established pursuant to
this chapter.
Sec. 18. 1. The Department may
contract with one or more
qualified, independent
consultants to conduct an
evaluation of the Scholarship
Program established pursuant to
this chapter.
Section 8. {Evaluation of the
Special Needs Scholarship
Program}
(A) The legislative service
agency may contract with one or
more qualified researchers who
have previous experience
evaluating school choice
22
2. If an evaluation is conducted
pursuant to subsection 1, the
evaluation must include:
(a) The level of satisfaction
reported by the children who
participate in the Scholarship
Program;
(b) The level of satisfaction
reported by the parents, legal
guardians or custodians of the
children who participate in the
Scholarship Program;
(c) The effectiveness of the
Scholarship Program, including,
without limitation, a
determination whether the
academic achievement of
children who participate in the
Scholarship Program has
improved;
(d) The number of children who
participate in the Scholarship
Program and who exhibited
behavioral problems while
attending an eligible school as
compared to the behavioral
problems those children exhibited
before enrollment in an eligible
school;
(e) The average class size of
classes in which children who
participate in the Scholarship
Program are placed while
attending an eligible school;
(f) The fiscal impact on the State
and on each school district; and
(g) Any other items deemed
necessary by the Department
3. If an evaluation is conducted
pursuant to this section, the
Department:
(a) Shall submit a copy of the
final written report of the
evaluation to the Director of the
Legislative Counsel Bureau for
transmission to the next regular
session of the Legislature.
(b) May receive and accept gifts
2. An evaluation conducted
pursuant to subsection 1 must
include:
(a) The level of satisfaction
reported by the children who
participate in the Scholarship
Program;
(b) The level of satisfaction
reported by the parents and legal
guardians of the children who
participate in the Scholarship
Program;
(c) The effectiveness of the
Scholarship Program, including,
without limitation, a
determination whether the
academic achievement of
children who participate in the
Scholarship Program has
improved;
(d) The number of children who
participate in the Scholarship
Program and who exhibited
behavioral problems while
attending an eligible school as
compared to the behavioral
problems those children exhibited
before enrollment in an eligible
school;
(e) The average class size of
classes in which children who
participate in the Scholarship
Program are placed while
attending an eligible school;
(f) The fiscal impact on the State
and on each school district; and
(g) Any other items deemed
necessary by the Department.
3. If an evaluation is conducted
pursuant to this section, the
Department:
(a) Shall submit a copy of the
final written report of the
evaluation to the Director of the
Legislative Counsel Bureau for
transmission to the next regular
session of the Legislature.
(b) May receive and accept gifts
programs to conduct a study of
the program with funds other
than state funds.
(B) The study shall assess:
(1) the level of participating
students' satisfaction with the
program;
(2) the level of parental
satisfaction with the program;
(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;
(5) the class size experienced by
participating students at their
resident school district and at
their participating school; and
(6) the fiscal impact to the state
and resident school districts of
the program.
(C) The researchers who conduct
the study shall:
(3) provide the legislature with a
final copy of the evaluation of the
program.
(E) The legislative service
23
and grants from any source to
pay the costs associated with the
evaluation.
and grants from any source to
pay the costs associated with the
evaluation.
agency may accept grants to
assist in funding this study.
24
ALEC's Private Schools Bill In Nevada
ALEC Model BILL(S) Introduced/BDR Status
Great Schools Tax Credit
Program Act 2013 SB 241 06/23/12 Introduced
Assembly Sponsors Senate Sponsors
Duncan Hardy (ALEC) Cegavske (ALEC) Brower (ALEC)
Fiore Kirner Roberson (ALEC) Goicoechea
Hickey Livermore Hutchison Hardy (ALEC)
P. Anderson Oscarson Hammond Kieckhefer (ALEC)
Ellison Stewart Gustavson (ALEC) Settelmeyer (ALEC)
Grady Wheeler (ALEC)
Hambrick Woodbury
Hansen
ALEC’s Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act combines two of ALEC’s primary objectives, cutting
public schools to give money to private schools, and giving corporations tax breaks; and it is the worst of
both worlds. The act is set up to give corporations a tax credit for any donations they make to an
organization granting “scholarships” to students. This end-around voucher system uses tax credits rather
than direct payments, but is nonetheless state support for private education; and the ALEC model
acknowledges a significant fiscal impact to the legislation, depleting resources that could go to public
schools. The ALEC model also acknowledges that the credit may have little impact on education at all,
stating: “Drafted this way, the tax credit will necessarily reward many families who are already financing
their child's education.” Not only will it reward individuals for actions already taken, the bill would
reward corporations for actions already taken, lowering their tax burden for no improvement in education
at all. The bill seeks to create incentives to advance private education at the expense of public education,
but may well simply be a tax giveaway.
In the 2013 Legislative Session, Senator Cegavske, a member of ALEC’s Education Task Force,
introduced SB 241. The bill follows the same idea as the ALEC model, accounting for state differences.
The ALEC model is set up to give a tax credit against the individual or corporate income tax. As Nevada
has neither tax, SB 241 would have granted a credit against taxes paid by banks, or license fees paid by
gaming companies. This would have eliminated the potential tax benefit to individuals, leaving only the
possible tax windfall for corporations.
2013 SB 241 As Introduced ALEC Model Great Schools Tax Credit Program
Act
2. The amount of the credit provided by this section
is equal to the amount of the donation made by the
taxpayer or licensee to a school tuition
organization. The total amount of the credit applied
against all the taxes and fees described in
subsection 1 and otherwise due from a taxpayer or
licensee must not exceed the amount of the
donation.
(A) A taxpayer who files a state income tax return
and is not a dependent of another taxpayer may
claim a credit for a contribution made to a
scholarship granting organization.
(B) The tax credit may be claimed by an individual
taxpayer or a married couple filing jointly in an
amount equal to the total contributions made to a
scholarship granting organization for educational
scholarships during the taxable year for which the
credit is claimed up to 50 percent of the taxpayer's
25
tax liability.
(C) The tax credit may be claimed by a corporate
taxpayer in an amount equal to the total
contributions made to a scholarship granting
organization for educational scholarships during the
taxable year for which the credit is claimed up to 50
percent of the taxpayer's tax liability.
3. If the amount of the tax or fee described in
subsection 1 and otherwise due from a taxpayer or
licensee is less than the credit to which the taxpayer
or licensee is entitled pursuant to this section, the
taxpayer or licensee may, after applying the credit
to the extent of the tax or fee otherwise due, carry
the balance of the credit forward for not more than
5 years after the end of the calendar year in which
the donation is made or until the balance of the
credit is applied, whichever is earlier
(D) A corporate taxpayer, an individual taxpayer,
or a married couple filing jointly may carry forward
a tax credit under this program for three years.
Sec. 4. 1. A school tuition organization must:
(a) Be exempt from taxation pursuant to section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
(b) Accept donations from taxpayers, holders of
state gaming licenses and other persons and entities
and may also solicit and accept gifts and grants in
addition to donations.
(c) Not expend more than 4 percent of the total
amount of money accepted by the school tuition
organization pursuant to paragraph (b) to pay its
administrative expenses.
(d) Provide grants to the parents or legal guardians
of children who are at risk to allow those children
to attend schools in this State chosen by the parents
or legal guardians, including, without limitation,
private schools as defined in NRS 394.103. The
total amount of a grant provided by the school
tuition organization to a parent or legal guardian
pursuant to this subsection must not exceed the
tuition charged for enrollment in the school chosen
by the parent or legal guardian. For the purposes of
this paragraph, children are “at risk” if they have
special needs or an economic or academic
disadvantage such that they require special services
and assistance to enable them to succeed in an
educational program.
(e) Not limit to a single school the schools for
which it provides grants.
(A) Administrative Accountability Standards. All
scholarship granting organizations shall:
(2) demonstrate to the Department that they have
been granted exemption from the federal income
tax as an organization described in Section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code
(5) ensure that at least 90 percent of their revenue
from donations is spent on educational
scholarships, and that all revenue from interest or
investments is spent on educational scholarships;
(3) distribute periodic scholarship payments as
checks made out to a student's parent or guardian
and mailed to the qualifying school where the
student is enrolled. The parent or guardian must
endorse the check before it can be deposited;
2. A school tuition organization shall provide each
taxpayer, holder of a state gaming license and other
person or entity who makes a donation, gift or grant
of money to the school tuition organization
(4) provide a Department-approved receipt to
taxpayers for contributions made to the
organization;
26
pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 1 with an
affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, which
includes, without limitation:
(a) A statement that the school tuition organization
satisfies the requirements set forth in subsection 1;
and
(b) The total amount of the donation, gift or grant
made to the school tuition organization.
Sec. 5. A school tuition organization which
receives a donation, gift or grant of money
described in section 4 of this act shall report to the
Department of Taxation, on or before January 31 of
each year, on a form prescribed by the Department
of Taxation:
1. The name, address and contact information of the
school tuition organization;
2 The total number of such donations, gifts and
grants received by the school tuition organization
during the immediately preceding calendar year;
3. The total dollar amount of such donations, gifts
and grants received during the immediately
preceding calendar year;
4. The total number of children for whom the
school tuition organization made grants during the
immediately preceding calendar year pursuant to
section 4 of this act;
5. The total dollar amount of such grants made
during the immediately preceding calendar year;
and
6. For each school for which such a grant was made
during the immediately preceding calendar year:
(a) The name and address of the school;
(b) The number of children enrolled in the school
for whom such a grant was made; and
(c) The total dollar amount of such grants provided
for children enrolled in the school.
(10) publicly report to the Department by June 1 of
each year the following information prepared by a
certified public accountant regarding their grants in
the previous calendar year:
(a) the name and address of the student support
organization;
(b) the total number and total dollar amount of
contributions received during the previous calendar
year; and
(c) the total number and total dollar amount of
educational scholarships awarded during the
previous calendar year, the total number and total
dollar amount of educational scholarships awarded
during the previous year to students qualifying for
the federal free and reduced-price lunch program,
and the percentage of first-time recipients of
educational scholarships who were enrolled in a
public school during the previous year.
27
ALEC’s Anti-Healthcare Reform Act
ALEC Model BILL(S) Introduced/BDR Status
“Freedom of Choice In
Health Care Act” 2011 SB 310 03/24/10 Heard in Committee
Assembly Sponsors Senate Sponsors
None. Cegavske (ALEC) Hardy (ALEC)
ALEC’s bill template “Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act” is an attack on President Obama’s
Affordable Care Act. ALEC noted that a primary purpose of the bill is to grant states legal standing in
order to sue to block the ACA.81
Since this legislation, the Supreme Court has upheld the ACA.82
In 2011 Senator Cegavske introduced SB 310, a version of the ALEC model. What is notable about SB
310 however, is Sen. Cegavske’s brazen acknowledgement of the bill’s ALEC origin. Senator Cegavske
testified in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing, stating:
“Senate Bill 31 would enact Freedom of Choice in the Health Care Act. It is model legislation
developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). It is in response to proposed
efforts of the 111th
United States Congress health-care reform and is based on an Arizona ballot
question that narrowly lost the same year.” 83
2011 SB 310 As Introduced ALEC Model “Freedom of Choice In Health Care
Act”
1. This section may be cited as the Freedom of
Choice in Health Care Act.
Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the
“Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act.”
2. A person in the State of Nevada has the right to
enter into private contracts with providers of health
care for the provision of health care services and to
purchase private health care coverage.
3. The Legislature hereby pledges that it will not
enact legislation:
(a) Requiring a person to participate in any health
care system or plan; or
(b) That imposes a penalty or fine, of any type, for
choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage
or for participating in any particular health care
system or plan.
Section 2. The people have the right to enter into
private contracts with health care providers for
health care services and to purchase private health
care coverage. The legislature may not require any
person to participate in any health care system or
plan, nor may it impose a penalty or fine, of any
type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care
coverage or for participation in any particular
health care system or plan.
81 alec.org, accessed 03/27.87 82 New York Times, 06/28/12 83 Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, 04/14/11
28
ALEC’s English Only Bill In Nevada
ALEC Model BILL(S) Introduced/BDR Status
“Omnibus Common
Language Act“ 2013 SB 188 09/04/12 Introduced
Assembly Sponsors Senate Sponsors
Wheeler (ALEC) Livermore Gustavson (ALEC) Goicoechea
Hansen Stewart Cegavske (ALEC) Settelmeyer (ALEC)
Ellison
ALEC’s Omnibus Common Language Act mandates that the only language for public documents is
English. The ALEC template does this while giving a list of exceptions, all of which go to show why the
policy is a bad idea in the first place. As the ALEC bill points out, the use of languages other than
English is necessary for the government to provide public safety, education, and economic benefits. Even
as written, the bill would make government services worse, and less efficient, as this bill would ban forms
using different languages that serve to ease governmental processes. This is not to mention that a similar
bill was ruled unconstitutional in Arizona.84
In Nevada, SB 188 differs from the ALEC model in some key ways. The ALEC template, for example,
includes a provision to permit the use of non-English languages to teach English to those that do not
speak it (e.g. ELL classes). Nevada’s bill does not include such a provision.
2013 SB 188 As Introduced ALEC Model “Omnibus Common Language Act“
1. English is hereby designated as the official
language of the State of Nevada
2. As the official language of this State, the English
language is the sole language of State Government
and its political subdivisions, except as otherwise
provided in this section.
(A) The common language is recognized to be
English; and the common language is designated as
the language of official public documents and
records and official public meetings.
3. All official documents, transactions,
proceedings, meetings and publications issued,
conducted or regulated by, on behalf of, or
representing the State or its political subdivisions
must be in English, except that a language other
than English may be used when required:
(a) By the Constitution of the United States, the
Constitution of the State of Nevada, or a federal
statute or regulation;
(b) To protect public health and safety;
(c) In judicial proceedings to ensure that justice is
carried out;
(d) To refer to a proper name, a term of art or a
phrase from a language other than English;
(e) To promote commerce, trade or tourism;
(f) To provide instruction in a foreign language;
and
(B) Exemptions. The provisions of this Act shall
not apply:
(1) to instruction in foreign language courses;
(2) to instruction designed to aid students with
limited English proficiency in a timely transition
and integration into the general education system;
(3) to the promotion of international commerce,
tourism, and sporting events;
(4) when deemed to interfere with needs of the
justice system;
(5) when the public safety, health, or emergency
services require the use of other languages,
provided, however, that any such authorization for
the use of languages other than the common
language in printing informational materials or
publications for general distribution must be
approved in an open public meeting [refer to code
84 CNN, 04/29/98
29
(g) To facilitate activities relating to conducting
any census of populations.
citations defining "open meetings" laws] by the
governing board or authority of the relevant state or
municipal entity and the decision must be recorded
in publicly available minutes [refer to code
citations defining "Freedom of Information Act"
documents or comparable laws];
30
ALEC’s Machine Gun Bill In Nevada
ALEC Model BILL(S) Introduced/BDR Status
Consistency In Firearms
Regulation Act 2013 AB 340 12/04/12 Introduced
Assembly Sponsors Senate Sponsors
Hambrick None
ALEC’s Public Safety and Elections Task force was reportedly disbanded in April 2012 after several
controversies including the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the connection with the “Stand Your Ground”
law. At the final meeting of the Task Force, the NRA proposed amendments to an older version of the
ALEC model “Consistency in Firearms Regulation Act.” The amendments passed unanimously. Nevada’s
Assembly Bill 340 is a copy of the ALEC model, as finally amended by the NRA.85
ALEC claims the task
force has ended; yet its legislation continues to haunt Nevada.
The bill itself would have repealed any and all restrictions on firearms or ammunition that were more
strict than state law, and taken power from local governments. In this way, the model bill seeks to remove
past gun safety efforts, and prevent future gun safety efforts from local governments.
2013 AB 340 As Introduced ALEC’s Model Consistency In Firearms
Regulation Act
(a) The purpose of this section is to establish state
control over the regulation of and policies
concerning firearms, firearm accessories and
ammunition to ensure that such regulation and
policies are uniform throughout this State and to
ensure the protection of the right to keep and bear
arms, which is recognized by the Constitution of
the United States and the Constitution of the State
of Nevada
The purpose of this section is to establish complete
state control over regulation and policy pertaining
to firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition in
order to ensure that such regulation and policy is
applied uniformly throughout this state to each
person subject to the state’s jurisdiction and to
ensure protection of the right to keep and bear arms
recognized by the Constitution of the United States
[and of this State, if applicable]. This section is to
be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose.
(b) The regulation of the transfer, sale, purchase,
possession, carrying, ownership, transportation,
storage, registration and licensing of firearms,
firearm accessories and ammunition in this State
and the ability to define such terms is within the
exclusive domain of the Legislature, and any other
law, regulation, rule or ordinance to the contrary is
null and void.
(A) Except as otherwise provided in this section or
as expressly authorized by a statute of this state, the
regulation of all of the following is hereby declared
to be the exclusive domain of the state:
(1) Firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.
(2) The ownership, possession, carrying,
transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of
firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.
(3) Commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm
accessories, and ammunition.
(4) Any other matter pertaining to firearms, firearm
accessories, and ammunition.
(B) An ordinance, rule, resolution, or policy
adopted by a political subdivision of this state, or
an official action -- including in any legislative,
85 PR Watch, 03/22/13
31
police power, or proprietary capacity -- taken by an
employee or agent of such political subdivision in
violation of this section is void.
(c) This section shall be liberally construed to
effectuate its purpose.
This section is to be liberally construed to
effectuate its purpose.
4. Any ordinance or regulation which is
inconsistent with this section or which is designed
to restrict or prohibit the sale, purchase, transfer,
manufacture or display of firearms, firearm
accessories or ammunition that is otherwise lawful
under the laws of this State is null and void, and
any official action taken by an employee or agent
of a county in violation of this section is void.
(B) An ordinance, rule, resolution, or policy
adopted by a political subdivision of this state, or
an official action -- including in any legislative,
police power, or proprietary capacity -- taken by an
employee or agent of such political subdivision in
violation of this section is void.
7. Any person who is adversely affected by the
enforcement of an ordinance or regulation that
violates this section on or after October 1, 2013,
may file suit in the appropriate court for declarative
and injunctive relief and damages attributable to the
violation. Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, such a person is entitled to:
(a) Reimbursement of actual damages, reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs which the person has
incurred if, within 30 days after the person
commenced the action but before a final
determination has been issued by the court, the
board of county commissioners repeals the
ordinance or regulation that violates this section.
(b) Liquidated damages in an amount equal to two
times the actual damages, reasonable attorney’s
fees and costs incurred by the person if, more than
30 days after the person commenced the action but
before a final determination has been issued by the
court, the board of county commissioners repeals
the ordinance or regulation that violates this
section.
(c) Liquidated damages in an amount equal to three
times the actual damages, reasonable attorney’s
fees and costs incurred by the person if the court
makes a final determination in favor of the person.
(D) A person adversely affected by any ordinance,
resolution, rule, or practice promulgated or
enforced in violation of Subsection (B) of this
Section may file suit in an appropriate court for
declarative and injunctive relief and for all actual
and consequential damages attributable to the
violation.
(E) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
party who brings or maintains an action at law or in
equity against a political subdivision that has
regulated the ownership, possession, storage,
carrying, transfer or transportation of firearms,
firearm accessories, ammunition or ammunition
components in violation of Subsection (B) of this
Section shall be entitled to:
(1) Reimbursement of actual damages and
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred if,
within 30 days of commencement of the action but
prior to a final determination by a court in favor of
either party, the political subdivision rescinds or
repeals the ordinance, resolution, rule or practice at
issue in the action.
(2) Prejudgment liquidated damages if, after the
expiration of the 30-day period in subparagraph (1)
but prior to a final determination by a court in favor
of either party, the political subdivision rescinds or
repeals the ordinance, resolution, rule or practice at
issue in the action.
(3) Post-judgment liquidated damages upon a final
determination by a court in favor of the party who
brings or maintains the action.
8. This section must not be construed to prevent:
(a) A law enforcement agency or correctional
(C) This section shall not be construed to prevent
any of the following:
32
institution from promulgating and enforcing its own
rules pertaining to firearms, firearm accessories or
ammunition that are issued to or used by peace
officers in the course of their official duties.
(b) A court or administrative law judge from
hearing and resolving a case or controversy or
issuing an opinion or order on a matter within its
jurisdiction.
(c) A public employer from regulating or
prohibiting the carrying or possession of firearms,
firearm accessories or ammunition during or in the
course of an employee’s official duties.
(d) The enactment or enforcement of a county
zoning or business ordinance which is generally
applicable to businesses within the county and
thereby affects a firearms business within the
county, including, without limitation, an indoor or
outdoor shooting range.
(e) A county from enacting and enforcing rules for
the operation and use of any firearm range owned
and operated by the county.
(f) A political subdivision from sponsoring or
conducting a firearm-related competition or
educational or cultural program and enacting and
enforcing rules for participation in or attendance at
any such competition or program.
(g) A political subdivision or any official thereof
with appropriate authority from enforcing any
statute of this State.
(1) A duly organized law enforcement agency of a
political subdivision from promulgating and
enforcing rules pertaining to firearms, firearm
accessories, or ammunition issued to or used by
peace officers in the course of their official duties.
(3) A court or administrative law judge from
hearing and resolving a case or controversy or
issuing an opinion or order on a matter within its
jurisdiction.
(2) An employer from regulating or prohibiting an
employee’s carrying or possession of firearms,
firearm accessories, or ammunition during and in
the course of the employee’s official duties [except
as provided in the jurisdiction’s worker
protection/parking lot law, if any].
(4) The enactment or enforcement of a generally
applicable zoning or business ordinance that
includes firearms businesses along with other
businesses, provided that an ordinance designed or
enforced to effectively restrict or prohibit the sale,
purchase, transfer, manufacture, or display of
firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is
otherwise lawful under the laws of this state is in
conflict with this section and is void.
(5) A political subdivision from enacting or
enforcing rules of operation and use for any firearm
range owned and operated by the political
subdivision.
(6) A political subdivision from enacting or
enforcing ordinances pertaining to the reckless or
negligent discharge of a firearm.
(7) A political subdivision from sponsoring or
conducting any firearm-related competition or
educational or cultural program and from enacting
and enforcing rules for participation in or
attendance at such program.
33
ALEC’s Voting Restrictions Bill In Nevada
ALEC Model BILL(S) Introduced/BDR Status
Taxpayer and Citizen
Protection Act 2013 SB 367 09/04/12 Introduced
Assembly Sponsors Senate Sponsors
Wheeler (ALEC) Ellison Gustavson (ALEC) Settelmeyer (ALEC)
Hansen
This bill would require voters to present proof of citizenship before registering to vote and to receive
public benefits. Voters are already required under penalty of perjury to assert their citizenship, and
undocumented immigrants are already barred from receiving public benefits. There is no evidence of any
undocumented immigrants casting votes in Nevada elections.86
The purpose of this bill is to increase
bureaucratic hurdles to voting and receiving public benefits to complicate the system, make government
less efficient and less effective, and in doing so, discourage valid citizens from exercising their rights.
2013 NV SB 367 As Introduced ALEC Model Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act
Sec. 4. 1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 3, a county clerk, field registrar,
employee of a voter registration agency or person
assisting a voter pursuant to subsection 13 of NRS
293.5235 shall not register a person to vote unless
the person submits proof of citizenship to the
county clerk.
2. Proof of citizenship may be established by any
one of the following:
(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 valid United States passport, or a legible
photocopy of the pertinent pages thereof,
identifying the person and showing the passport
number.
(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.
(b) A birth certificate or a legible photocopy thereof (2) A legible photocopy of the applicant's birth
certificate that verifies citizenship to the
satisfaction of the county recorder.
(c) A United States naturalization document, or a
legible photocopy thereof, or the registration
number on a Certificate of Naturalization. If a
person provides the registration number on a
Certificate of Naturalization to prove citizenship,
the person must not be registered to vote until the
county clerk verifies the registration number with
the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services of the Department of Homeland Security.
(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 number of the
certificate of naturalization is verified with the
United States immigration and naturalization
service by the county recorder.
(d) Any document or method of proof of citizenship
established by federal law.
(5) Other documents or methods of proof that are
established pursuant to the immigration reform and
control act of 1986.
86 Reno Gazette-Journal, 10/12/10
34
(e) A driver’s license bearing an indication that the
person holding the license is a citizen of the United
States.
(1) The number of the applicant's driver License or
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.
3. A person who is registered to vote on or before
October 1, 2013, is deemed to have provided proof
of citizenship and is not required to submit proof of
citizenship pursuant to this section.
(G) Notwithstanding subsection f of this section,
any person who is registered in this State on the
effective date of this amendment to this section is
deemed to have provided satisfactory evidence of
citizenship and shall not be required to resubmit
evidence of citizenship unless the person is
changing voter registration from one county to
another.
35
ALEC’s Ombudsman Bill in Nevada
ALEC Model BILL(S) Introduced/BDR Status
“Business Ombudsperson
Act” 2009 AB 331 02/09/09 Heard in Committee
Assembly Sponsors Senate Sponsors
Settelmeyer (ALEC) Grady McGinness (ALEC) Washington (ALEC)
Cobb (ALEC) Hambrick Nolan (ALEC)
Gansert Stewart
Goedhart Woodbury
Goicoechea
In 2009, then-Assemblyman Settelmeyer introduced a version of the ALEC template “Business
Ombudsperson Act.” The bill spends taxpayer dollars to have a government official cater to business.
The most astounding aspect to this bill is that Assemblyman Settelmeyer testified that not only was the
bill an ALEC model, but that he did not like the form of the bill: “This is a model bill from the American Legislative Exchange Council. It does not have the exact
language I would like to have. I would like to see a clause inserted that says we are dealing only
with small businesses, those with 50 employees or less. That language did not make it into the
text, and I do not have an amendment at this time.” 86
This demonstrates a fundamental problem with ALEC’s methods: rather than work to make a bill that fit
Nevada’s interests, Asm. Settelmeyer advanced ALEC’s policies blindly. This is not an isolated incident.
Legislators in Florida87
and Missouri88
have been caught introducing bills that are incorrectly adapted
from ALEC models.
2009 AB 331 As Introduced ALEC Model “Business Ombudsperson Act”
Sec. 5. The Ombudsman shall:
1. Work in coordination with each public agency
that has regulatory authority over a business in this
State to ensure that businesses which are subject to
enforcement-related communication by employees
of the public agency, including, without limitation,
audits or on-site inspections, are provided with a
means to comment on the enforcement activity
conducted by the employees of the public agency.
(2) The Ombudsman shall--
(A) work with each agency with regulatory
authority over businesses to ensure that business
concerns that receive or are subject to an audit, on-
site inspection, compliance assistance effort, or
other enforcement related communication or
contact by agency personnel are provided with a
means to comment on the enforcement activity
conducted by such personnel;
2. Establish a means to receive comments from a
business regarding the actions of an employee of a
public agency conducting an enforcement activity,
a means to refer comments received to the director,
administrator, chief or other person in charge of the
public agency when appropriate and a means to
keep the identity of the person or business making
(B) establish means to receive comments from
business concerns regarding actions by agency
employees conducting compliance or enforcement
activities with respect to the business concern,
means to refer comments to the head of the affected
agency in the appropriate circumstances, and
otherwise seek to maintain the identity of the
87 ThinkProgress, 02/02/12 88 ProgressMissouri, no date given
36
the comment confidential person and business concern making such
comments on a confidential basis to the same extent
as employee identities are protected under state
law;
3. Establish a rating system for public agencies
which includes, without limitation, rating an agency
on whether the public agency has notified the
businesses which it regulates about the
Ombudsman and the purpose of the Office of the
Business Ombudsman and whether the public
agency has adopted a policy against reprisal and
retaliation for the filing of complaints against a
public agency with the Ombudsman.
(D) in addition agencies will be rated on if they
notify businesses about the Ombudsman and if they
have an established non-retaliatory policy for
individuals who file complaints with the
Ombudsman; and
4. Based upon substantiated comments received
from businesses, prepare a report evaluating the
enforcement activities of the employees of public
agencies, including a rating of the responsiveness to
businesses of the regional and program offices of
each public agency, and submit it to:
(a) The Governor on or before January 30 of each
year; and
(b) The Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau
for transmittal to the Legislature on or before
January 30 of each odd-numbered year.
(C) based on substantiated comments received from
business concerns, annually report to the legislature
and affected agencies evaluating the enforcement
activities of agency personnel including a rating of
the responsiveness to business of the various
regional and program offices of each agency;
5. Provide an affected public agency with the
opportunity to comment on draft reports prepared
pursuant to subsection 4 before the final report is
submitted and include the comments of the public
agency with the final report.
(F) provide the affected agency with an opportunity
to comment on draft reports prepared under
subparagraph (C), and include a section of the final
report in which the affected agency may make such
comments as are not addressed by the Ombudsman
in revisions to the draft.
6. Compile a report of the findings and
recommendations of the Ombudsman for each
public agency and submit it to the Governor and the
director, administrator, chief or other person in
charge of each affected public agency on or before
July 31 of each year.
(E) coordinate and report annually on the activities,
findings and recommendations to the Governor and
to the heads of affected agencies; and
37
ALEC’s Federal Lands Bill In Nevada
ALEC Model BILL(S) Introduced/BDR Status
Sagebrush Rebellion Act AB 227 11/21/12 Passed the House
Assembly Sponsors Senate Sponsors
Adams Hickey Atkinson Jones
Bustamante Kirkpatrick Brower (ALEC) Kieckhefer (ALEC)
Carillo Kirner Cegavske (ALEC) Kihuen
Duncan Livermore Denis Manendo
Ellison Neal Goicoechea Parks (ALEC)
Fiore Ohrenshchall Gustavson (ALEC) Roberson (ALEC)
Flores Oscarson Hammond Settelmeyer (ALEC)
Grady P. Anderson Hardy (ALEC) Spearman
Hambrick Spiegel Hutchison Woodhouse
Hansen Stewart
Hardy (ALEC) Wheeler (ALEC)
Healey Woodbury
ALEC has been tied to the “Sagebrush Rebellion Act” since the early 1980s. 89 90
ALEC’s original model
was an effort to transfer control of federal lands to the states. 91
Recently the Sagebrush Rebellion concept
has made a comeback; in 2012 Utah lawmakers passed legislation demanding the federal government
transfer control of the lands to the state, for the expressed purpose of opening the land to logging, and
mining.92
93 94
ALEC spearheaded the bill decades ago and Utah legislators claimed their 2012 bill was
supported by ALEC. 95
While ALEC does not currently list the bill as a model, it seems they created a
web page for the ‘Sagebrush Rebellion Act’ as recently as January 2013. 96
In Nevada, lawmakers, including all ten identified current members of ALEC, introduced AB 227, a bill
to create a study of the transfer of the lands, intending to study many of the same aspects of such a land
transfer as the ALEC model and the Utah study.
89 ALEC, 1979 90 ALEC, 1980 91 ALEC, 1995 92 2012 HJR3 As Enrolled 93 2012 HB 148 As Enolled 94 AP, 03/07/12 95 AP, 03/07/12 96 google.com, accessed 04/27/13
38
ALEC’s Bill To Cut The Minimum Wage In Nevada
ALEC Model BILL(S) Introduced/BDR Status
Starting (Minimum) Wage
Repeal Act 2011 SJR2 11/02/10 Heard in Committee
Assembly Sponsors Senate Sponsors
None Hardy (ALEC)
ALEC has supported repealing the minimum wage, viewing it as a “mandate on business,” and while
noting that most minimum wage workers are retirees and students, it advocated for its repeal to allow
businesses to pay lower wages to employees.97
As of 2012, ALEC supported the repeal of the minimum
wage as a model.98
In 2012, ALEC discontinued promoting the model bill, but still opposes linking the
Minimum Wage to inflation.99
The Nevada Constitution requires workers to be paid a minimum wage, and indexed the minimum wage
to rise with inflation. This clause in the constitution has led to Nevada workers being paid more than the
federal minimum wage.100
This provision was supported in 2006 by 68 percent of Nevadans.101
In
Nevada’s 2011 session, Senator Hardy, an ALEC member, proposed repealing this provision in the
constitution with SJR2. In testimony in committee, Sen. Hardy suggested that businesses be allowed to
hire students and hospitality workers for less than $8 per hour.102
This one-sentence repeal bill would
allow businesses to cut wages for low-income employees, falling disproportionately on retirees and
students.
97 ALEC, 1996 98 ALEC 35 day mailing, as obtained by Common Cause, 10/25/12 99 ALEC.org, accessed 04/29/13 100 dol.gov, accessed 04/29/13 101 nvsos.gov, accessed 04/29/13 102 Senate Committee Minutes, 02/16/11
39
APPENDIX: Donations From Corporate Funders Of ALEC To
Select ALEC Politicians
The following data is from the Nevada Secretary of State’s campaign finance database. When
corporations are included that have left ALEC, only the contributions made before the corporation
severed ties with ALEC have been included. For a complete list of the companies that have left ALEC,
see alecexposed.org.
Senator Greg Brower
Entity Date Amount
Allergan USA Inc 5/4/12 $1,500.00
Altria Client Services 5/18/12 $2,000.00
American Insurance Association PAC 10/19/12 $1,000.00
Amerigroup Corporation 8/3/12 $500.00
Amerigroup Corporation 2/24/12 $500.00
Associated Builders & Contractors 10/19/12 $1,000.00
Associated Builders & Contractors 5/18/12 $2,500.00
Astellas Pharma US, Inc 8/10/12 $1,000.00
AT&T 5/4/12 $3,000.00
AT&T Nevada Employee PAC 12/13/12 $1,000.00
Bank of America State and Federal PAC1 5/24/12 $3,000.00
Cash America International, Inc. 9/28/12 $1,000.00
CenturyLink Inc. Employees PAC 12/31/12 $500.00
Charter 9/28/12 $500.00
Farmers Insuarnce PAC (FEAPAC) 10/12/12 $2,500.00
Farmers Insuarnce PAC (FEAPAC) 8/24/12 $2,500.00
Farmers Insurance PAC 4/20/12 $2,500.00
Farmers Insurance PAC 12/21/11 $2,500.00
K12 Management Inc 10/12/12 $1,000.00
MillerCoors2 3/8/12 $500.00
Nevada Power Company 6/7/12 $1,000.00
Nevada Power Company dba NV Energy 12/19/12 $1,000.00
Nevada Power Company dba NV Energy 10/4/12 $1,000.00
Nevada Power Company dba NV Energy 9/6/12 $1,000.00
Nevada Power Company dba NV Energy 4/20/12 $1,000.00
Nevada Power Company dba NV Energy 2/24/12 $1,000.00
Nevada Power Company dba NV Energy 12/21/11 $1,000.00
NRA Political Victory Fund 10/4/12 $1,000.00
NRA Political Victory Fund 1/18/12 $500.00
Pfizer Inc 9/14/12 $750.00
1 Bank of America cut ties with ALEC 2 MillerCoors cut ties with ALEC
40
Pfizer Inc. 2/3/12 $750.00
PhRMA 12/19/12 $1,000.00
Union Pacific Railroad Corporation 5/18/12 $1,000.00
UnitedHealth Group Inc. PAC of Nevada 10/19/12 $1,000.00
Verizon 11/1/12 $1,000.00
TOTAL, 2012 Cycle: $44,500.00
Senator Michael Roberson
Entity Date Amount
Allergan USA, Inc 7/5/12 $1,500.00
Altria 10/17/12 $1,000.00
Associated Builders & Contractors 9/30/10 $1,000.00
Astellas Pharma US, Inc 6/5/12 $750.00
Astra Zeneca 9/17/12 $1,000.00
AT&T Nevada 12/9/10 $2,000.00
Bank of America Corporation Pac3 12/22/10 $1,000.00
Bayer 11/9/11 $1,500.00
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company4 10/15/12 $1,000.00
Cash America 6/5/12 $1,500.00
Cash America 10/14/10 $1,000.00
CenturyLink Inc. Employees PAC 12/12/12 $2,000.00
Daiichi Sankyo Inc 10/4/12 $500.00
Farmers Employee Agent PAC 12/6/10 $1,000.00
Farmers Insurance PAC (FEAPAC) 12/6/12 $2,000.00
Medco Health Solutions, Inc 1/4/11 $1,000.00
Nevada Power Company 12/5/12 $1,000.00
Nevada Power Company 1/26/12 $1,000.00
NFIB Nevada Safe Trust 10/6/10 $500.00
NRA Political Victory Fund 10/6/10 $500.00
NRA Political Victory Fund 6/3/10 $250.00
NV Energy 11/16/10 $5,000.00
Pfizer Inc. 10/6/11 $1,000.00
PHRMA 10/22/12 $2,000.00
PhRMA 10/12/11 $1,500.00
UnitedHealth Group Inc. PAC of Nevada 12/13/12 $750.00
UnitedHealth Group Inc. PAC of Nevada 1/4/11 $1,000.00
Verizon Wireless 10/10/12 $1,000.00
Wells Fargo & Co. Employee PAC5 9/14/11 $1,000.00
Wells Fargo & Co. Employee PAC5 9/17/10 $500.00
Wells Fargo & Co. Employee PAC5 8/26/10 $500.00
TOTAL, 2010 and 2012 Cycle: $37,250.00
3 Bank of America cut ties with ALEC 4 Bristol-Meyers Squibb cut ties with ALEC 5 Wells Fargo cut ties with ALEC
41
Assemblyman Cresent Hardy
Entity Date Amount
Altria Client Services Inc 8/18/11 $750.00
Amerigroup Corporation 8/7/12 $500.00
Associated Builders and Contractors 9/30/10 $500.00
Associated Builders and Contractors 9/30/10 $500.00
Associated Builders and Contractors of
Nevada 5/17/12 $1,000.00
Associated Builders and Contractors of
Nevada 5/17/12 $1,000.00
Astella Pharma US, Inc. 9/22/12 $500.00
AT&T 5/1/12 $1,000.00
AT&T 12/14/10 $1,000.00
AT&T 12/14/10 $1,000.00
Bank of America6 10/15/12 $250.00
Cash America 5/30/12 $500.00
Century Link 9/11/12 $1,000.00
Century Link 10/24/11 $1,000.00
Farmers Employee Agent PAC 11/30/10 $1,000.00
Farmers Employee Agent PAC 11/30/10 $1,000.00
Farmers Insurance PAC 10/15/12 $1,000.00
Farmers Insurance PAC 11/14/11 $1,000.00
Nevada Power Co. 11/7/11 $1,000.00
NV Energy, Inc. 8/26/10 $1,000.00
NV Energy, Inc. 8/26/10 $1,000.00
NV Energy, Inc. 6/16/10 $1,000.00
NV Energy, Inc. 6/16/10 $1,000.00
Pfizer Inc 8/15/12 $500.00
Pfizer Inc 10/6/11 $500.00
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 10/25/12 $500.00
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 10/5/10 $500.00
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 10/5/10 $500.00
Walgreens7 8/2/11 $1,000.00
Walgreens7 8/2/11 $1,000.00
Walgreens7 7/14/10 $1,000.00
Walgreens7 7/14/10 $1,000.00
Walgreens7 7/14/10 $1,000.00
Walgreens7 7/14/10 $1,000.00
TOTAL, 2010 and 2012 Cycle: $28,000.00
6 Bank of America cut ties with ALEC 7 Walgreens has cut ties with ALEC
42
Senator David Parks
Entity Date Amount
American Council of Life Insurers PAC Fund 10/6/12 $500.00
Amerigroup Corporation 5/2/12 $500.00
Astellas Pharma US, Inc 7/31/12 $1,000.00
Astra Zeneca 9/21/12 $500.00
AT&T Services, Inc. 12/8/11 $2,000.00
Atria Client Services 10/14/11 $1,500.00
Bank of America State and Federal PAC8 10/2/12 $1,000.00
Cash America International, Inc. 6/1/12 $1,000.00
CenturyLink 12/17/12 $1,000.00
CenturyLink 9/15/11 $5,000.00
Farmers Insurance PAC (FEAPAC) 7/16/12 $2,000.00
Nevada Rural Electric Association 9/17/12 $700.00
NRA - Political Victory Fund 5/3/12 $500.00
NV Energy, Inc 1/23/12 $2,000.00
NV Energy, Inc 1/23/12 $2,000.00
Pfizer Inc. 9/17/12 $750.00
Pfizer Inc. 11/30/11 $750.00
Union Pacific Railroad Company 5/7/12 $750.00
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated NV PAC 4/13/12 $1,000.00
Verizon Wireless 10/29/12 $500.00
TOTAL, 2012 Cycle: $24,950.00
Senator James Settelmeyer
Entity Date Amount
Allergan USA, INC 10/26/10 $1,000.00
Astra Zeneca 9/17/12 $1,000.00
AT&T 10/18/11 $2,000.00
AT&T 5/2/08 $1,500.00
Bank of America9 8/5/08 $1,000.00
Century Link 6/20/12 $1,000.00
Farmers 8/13/09 $2,000.00
Farmers Employee Agent PAC 10/16/07 $500.00
NRA-Political Victory Fund 12/2/07 $500.00
NV Energy 1/25/12 $1,000.00
PhRMA 12/14/09 $1,000.00
Union Pacific Corporation 11/16/08 $500.00
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 11/5/10 $1,000.00
8 Bank of America cut ties with ALEC 9 Bank of America cut ties with ALEC
43
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 10/29/09 $500.00
Verizon 10/10/12 $1,000.00
Wal-Mart10
12/31/09 $1,250.00
Wal-Mart10
9/26/07 $1,000.00
Walgreens 7/29/09 $2,000.00
TOTAL, 2008-2012: $19,750.00
Senator Don Gustavson
Entity Date Amount
ABC - Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc 10/9/10 $1,000.00
ALTRIA Client Services 11/3/08 $500.00
AT&T 8/4/10 $1,000.00
Centurylink, Inc 10/9/10 $1,000.00
Farmers Employee Agent PAC 9/28/10 $1,000.00
NFIB - Nevada Safe Trust 10/9/10 $250.00
NRA-Political Victory Fund 6/11/10 $500.00
NV Energy, Inc. 12/9/10 $500.00
Union Pacific Railroad 10/5/10 $1,000.00
United Health Care Group Inc. PAC of
Nevada 8/15/10 $1,000.00
Walgreen Co. 8/17/10 $2,500.00
Wells Fargo & Co. Employee PAC11
10/22/10 $500.00
TOTAL, 2008-2012: $10,750.00
Senator Barbara Cegavske* Also see ‘scholarship’ data
Entity Date Amount
Bayer 11/9/11 $1,500.00
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company12
10/26/10 $1,500.00
Eli Lilly and Company 12/8/10 $1,000.00
Johnson & Johnson Services Inc.13
9/14/11 $1,000.00
Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc.13
10/25/10 $500.00
Pfizer Inc. 10/28/10 $1,000.00
PhRMA 10/12/11 $1,500.00
Unitedhealth Group Inc. NV PAC 12/19/12 $200.00
TOTAL, 2010 and 2012 Cycle: $8,200.00
10 Wal-Mart cut ties with ALEC 11 Wells Fargo cut ties with ALEC 12 Bristol-Meyers Squibb cut ties with ALEC 13 Johnson and Johnson cut ties with ALEC
44
Senator Joseph Hardy
Entity Date Amount
Astra Zeneca 10/11/12 $750.00
Century Link 11/17/11 $2,000.00
Farmers Employee Agent PAC 10/22/12 $1,000.00
Johnson & Johnson Services Inc. 11/15/11 $1,000.00
Pfizer Inc. 12/12/11 $1,000.00
TOTAL, 2012 Cycle: $5,750.00
Senator Ben Kieckhefer
Entity Date Amount
Amerigroup Corporation 12/8/11 $1,000.00
Astra Zeneca 9/14/12 $500.00
Pfizer Inc. 6/20/12 $750.00
Pfizer Inc. 10/6/11 $750.00
PhRMA 11/14/11 $1,500.00
Sprint14
10/22/11 $1,032.00
TOTAL, 2012 Cycle: $5,532.00
Assemblyman Jim Wheeler
Entity Date Amount
Altria 10/30/12 $500.00
AT&T 7/24/12 $1,000.00
Bank of America Corp PAC15
9/6/12 $500.00
Nevada Power 7/10/12 $1,000.00
TOTAL, 2012 Cycle: $3,000.00
14 Sprint has cut ties with ALEC 15 Bank of America cut ties with ALEC
Related Documents
