Exposed ALEC's Influence in Missouri 2015 Updated

EXPOSED: ALEC's Influence in

MissouriWho is writing our laws?

NOVEMBER 2015

Table of Contents

Report Highlights

ALEC 101 The Corporate Bill Mill Remaking Missouri Law Why is ALEC's Influence in Jefferson City Important? Additional Resources on ALEC's Extreme Agenda

Missouri Legislators with ALEC Ties ALEC Model Legislation Introduced In Missouri Missouri Corporations with ALEC Ties Missouri Taxpayer Funds Spent on ALEC Memberships & Junkets Partisan Campaign Funds Spent on ALEC Memberships & Travel Receipts From ALEC To Partisan Campaign Accounts ALEC Scholarships Untraceable ALEC-Related Lobbyist Gifts Head-to-Head Comparisons of ALEC Models and Missouri Legislation

So-Called 'Right to Work' Bills ‘Health Care Freedom Act’ Declaration Of Support Of Keystone Xl Pipeline Opposing Common Core State Standards Wireless communication towers Private Attorney Retention Act Voter Registration Obstacles Resolution Opposing Food & Beverage Taxes "Castle Doctrine" or "Shoot First" Law Re-Casting the Tenth Amendment Anti-Affordable Care Act Amendment Health Care Choice Act for States Resolution Asking Congress to Privatize Social Security "Parents Rights" Resolution Mortgage Fraud Act Private Property Protection Act Successor Asbestos-Related Liability Fairness Act Resolution Endorsing Electoral College "The Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act” "The Autism Scholarship Program Act” Health Care Compact Legislators' Ties to ALEC

Report Highlights The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate bill mill exerting extraordinary and secretive influence in the Missouri legislature. Through ALEC, corporations hand Missouri legislators wish lists in the form of "model" legislation that often directly benefit their bottom line at the expense of Missouri families. Behind closed doors, corporations craft numerous ALEC model bills. Elected officials who are members of ALEC bring ALEC legislation back to Missouri, where they claim them as their own ideas and spin them as important public policy innovations without disclosing that corporations crafted and pre-voted on the bills at closed-door meetings with legislators who are part of ALEC.

ALEC provides legislators with a means to appear highly active in the legislative process by secretly abdicating their job drafting legislation to corporate special interests. "It is funded and dominated by free-market and corporate interests," writes the Kansas City Star, "who work with like-minded legislators to shield corporations from legal action, limit the rights of workers, disenfranchise voters, radically privatize the public education system, hinder the ability of government to regulate and curb polluters, and further skew our democracy in the favor of corporations and their political allies."

Nearly 90 legislators, present and past, in Missouri have been identified as having ties to ALEC, and the number may be much higher. Identifying the list of Missouri legislators who are part of ALEC is a difficult task, because ALEC operates largely in secret. Even though they claim to be a legislative membership organization, there is no full list of members made public by the organization. Missouri legislators with ALEC ties include former Speaker John Diehl, Lt. Governor Peter Kinder, Sen. Paul Wieland, Sen. Mike Parson, Sen. Jay Wasson, Rep. Caleb Rowden, Rep. Tom Flanigan, and Rep. Kenneth Wilson.

  Progress Missouri identified more than 60 Missouri bills that directly echo ALEC models. ALEC bills in Missouri include so-called right to work laws, bans on implementation of the Common Core State Standards, resolutions supporting the Keystone XL pipeline, an act relating to wireless communication towers, voter registration hurdles, a "parent trigger act," a "parents’ rights" resolution, purely political resolutions "reaffirming 10th amendment rights," a "private attorney retention act," an Anti-Affordable Care Act ballot measure, a resolution opposing food

and beverage taxes, an "asbestos fairness act," a resolution supporting the electoral college, a "castle doctrine" law, a resolution encouraging congress to undermine Social Security, and a "private property protection act."

ALEC 101 The Corporate Bill Mill Remaking Missouri Law

As noted by the Center for Media and Democracy's ALEC Exposed project, the American Legislative Exchange Council is not simply a lobbying group or a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Corporations behind ALEC's closed doors hand state legislators the changes to the law that they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve "model" bills, and also fund almost all of ALEC's operations.

Participating legislators, who are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, bring ALEC proposals back to Missouri as their own ideas and important public policy innovations, without disclosing that corporations crafted and pre-voted on the bills alongside legislators in closed-door meetings at fancy resorts. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with at least one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a "unique," "unparalleled" and "unmatched" organization.

“ALEC and its adherents — including GOP leaders in both state capitols — have been responsible for some of the most contentious legislative battles of recent years. Many of them involve preserving and enhancing major corporate and industrial interests, especially those of its fossil-fuel funders such as Koch Industries. Or, as ALEC puts it, “Championing Policies to Enhance Prosperity.” - Kansas City Star, 07/31/2014

"ALEC is a group funded by corporations and conservative activists. It beguiles conservative state lawmakers with wining and dining at annual conferences and the chance to mingle with deep-pocketed donors. In return, lawmakers promote the group's 'model

legislation,' bills aimed at things like stripping workers of protections and requiring photo identification to vote." - Kansas City Star, 04/6/2012

Why would a legislator be interested in advancing cookie-cutter bills that are giveaways for multinational corporations located outside of Missouri? ALEC's appeal rests largely on the fact that legislators receive trips, food and lodging that provide many part-time legislators and their families with vacations, along with the opportunity to rub shoulders with prospective donors to their political campaigns. For a few hours of work on a task force and a couple of workshops by ALEC experts, part-time legislators can bring the whole family to ALEC's annual convention, vote in private meetings with corporate lobbyists, stay in swanky hotels and attend parties, all heavily subsidized by the corporate till. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported after the 2011 ALEC conference in New Orleans, "corporate benefactors made sure Missouri lawmakers attending the conference were well fed and hydrated."

As CMD and Common Cause reported, ALEC also operates several ‘scholarship’ funds for legislators willing to carry their bills in capitals around the country. These funds are used to allow corporations to give thousands of dollars in gifts to legislators while avoiding the disclosure that might expose the conflicts of interests inherent in such a scheme. Scholarships are rarely disclosed to the public, and have been banned in at least three states.

Corporations have recently come under scrutiny because of their relationship with ALEC and more than 100 have cut ties all together. However, as Barb Shelly of the Kansas City Star notes, ALEC remains a driving force for regressive proposals in the Missouri General Assembly.

“Legislatures in Kansas, Missouri and elsewhere are preoccupied with matters that have nothing to do with the welfare of communities or citizens. Think “right to work” bills, measures to privatize public education and proposals to weaken environmental protections.These and others are the priorities of the American Legislative Exchange Council and other groups that exist to advance corporate agendas.” - Kansas City Star, 6/19/2014

“There’s been no outcry from businesses begging the legislatures to clip the wings of unions. No, the pressure comes from outside groups. Republican legislators are willing to poison relationships and

demean their states’ teachers, public safety workers and others in order to please their out-of-state bosses. These include the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and National Tax Limitation Committee, both of which sent operatives to Jefferson City this session to fire up Republican lawmakers. Some of the language in the anti-union bills in Missouri and Kansas is strikingly similar to model bills drafted by ALEC.”

- Kansas City Star, 03/20/2013

Corporations and major non-profits that have dropped ALEC membership include:

Coca-Cola Company Pepsi Kraft Intuit McDonald's Wendy's Mars Reed Elsevier American Traffic Solutions Blue Cross Blue Shield YUM! Brands Procter & Gamble Kaplan Scantron Corporation Amazon.com Medtronic Wal-Mart Johnson & Johnson Dell Computers John Deere & Company CVS Caremark MillerCoors Hewlett-Packard (HP) Best Buy Express Scripts/Medco Connections Academy General Motors Walgreens Louis Dreyfus Amgen

General Electric (GE) Western Union Sprint Nextel Symantec Reckitt Benckiser Group Entergy Merck Sanofi Bank of America WellPoint Bristol-Myers Squibb Brown-Forman Company Publix Super Markets GlaxoSmithKline Unilever ConocoPhillips Sallie Mae Visa Xcel Energy Endo Pharmaceuticals 3M Darden Restaurants IBM Intel Nestlé USA Inc.  AstraZeneca Ameren Berkshire Hathaway Energy PacifiCorp NV Energy Alliant Energy The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Microsoft Google Facebook Yelp Yahoo, Inc International Paper Occidental Petroleum Corporation  News Corporation Overstock.com SAP America AOL Emerson Electric Co

Amerigroup  Wells Fargo Union Pacific Corporation EZCorp eBay Northrop Grumman BP T-Mobile Allergan Shell Canadian National Railway Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Roche Diagnostics Corporation Ryan, Inc. SICPA Product Security LLC Taser International Home Depot, Inc. AGL Resources, Inc. Academic Partnerships Macquarie Capital USA LoanMax McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP  Coventry Health Care Bridgepoint Education Cintra US Dr Pepper Snapple Group EMD Serono Lowe's Companies, Inc. Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals UnitedHealth Group Gates Foundation National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA Lumina Foundation for Education Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) American Council of Trustees & Alumni Associated Builders and Contractors James Madison Institute Commonwealth Institute Pioneer Institute Center for Competitive Politics  Citizens Against Government Waste  AARP

Bill of Rights Institute National Center for Policy Analysis  Doctor-Patient Medical Association  U.S. Chamber of Commerce Campaign for Free Enterprise John Locke Foundation 

Why is ALEC's Influence in Jefferson City Important?

ALEC provides legislators with a means to appear highly active in the legislative process while outsourcing by transferring their role in drafting legislation to corporate special interests "It is funded and dominated by free-market and corporate interests," writes the Kansas City Star, "who work with like-minded legislators to push various agendas." And what are these various corporate agendas? Here is a taste:

TAKING AWAY WORKERS' RIGHTS WHILE SHIELDING CORPORATIONS FROM

ACCOUNTABILITY

ALEC works fervently to promote laws that would shield corporations from legal accountability to Missouri citizens and limit the rights of workers in the state. The group's model legislation would roll back laws regarding corporate liability for harming state residents, workers' compensation and on-the-job protections, collective bargaining and organizing rights, prevailing wage and minimum wage laws. ALEC is a main proponent of bills that undermine organized labor by stripping public employees of collective bargaining rights and that weaken the power of workers in the private sector through so-called "right to work" laws. They also push "regulatory flexibility" laws that lead to massive deregulation of rules designed to protect the health of Missouri families.

TAKING AWAY VOTERS' FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

ALEC is directly tied to the trend among state legislatures to limit the ability of American citizens to vote through restrictive "voter ID" laws. Using demonstrably false allegations of "voter fraud," right-wing politicians are pursuing policies that disenfranchise students and other at-risk voters--including the elderly and the poor--who are unlikely to have drivers' licenses with their current residence and who previously could vote showing proof of residence and other identification. By

suppressing the vote of such groups of likely Democratic voters, ALEC's model "Voter ID Act" grants an electoral advantage to Republicans while undermining the fundamental right to vote in America. In addition, ALEC wants to make it easier for corporations to participate in the political process. The Public Safety and Elections Task Force included Sean Parnell of the Center for Competitive Politics, one of the most vociferous pro-corporate involvement in elections groups in the nation, and promoted legislation that would devastate campaign reform and increase corporate influence in elections.

PRIVATIZING PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Despite constitutional problems, negative impacts on public schools, bias against disadvantaged students, and comprehensive studies that demonstrate that private school voucher programs failed to make any substantial improvements to education, ALEC pushes vouchers as a way to privatize public education and transfer Missouri tax dollars from public institutions to private profits. Under the guise of "school choice," ALEC pushes bills with titles like "Parental Choice Scholarship Act" and the "Education Enterprise Act" that establish or expand private school voucher programs.

PROTECTING POLLUTERS

At the bidding of its major donors like Peabody Energy, Exxon Mobil and Koch Industries, ALEC is a powerful force behind state-level legislation that would hinder the ability of the people to curb polluters through governmental power. ALEC has previously said that carbon dioxide "is beneficial to plant and human life alike," and it promotes climate change denialism. The group's model legislation assails EPA emissions guidelines and greenhouse gas regulations, destabilizes regional climate initiatives, permits free-reign for energy corporations, and pushes for massive deregulation of some of the biggest polluters on the planet.

UNDERMINING PUBLIC SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES

As states face challenging budget deficits, ALEC wants to make it more difficult to generate revenue in order to close shortfalls. Such bills include the "Super Majority Act," which makes it so complicated for

legislatures to change tax policy that California voters overturned the law; the "Taxpayer Bill of Rights," which brought fiscal disaster to Colorado; and measures to eliminate capital gains and progressive income taxes. The main beneficiaries of ALEC's irresponsible fiscal policies are corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers.

Additional Resources on ALEC's Extreme Agenda For more information on the one-stop shop for corporations looking to identify friendly state legislators and work with them to get special-interest legislation, please see:

▪ ALEC Exposed, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy ALECExposed.com

▪ "ALEC: The Voice of Corporate Special Interests In State Legislatures" People for the American Way, PFAW.org.

▪ "Beyond Dinner and a Movie: ALEC Actively Courts State Lawmakers"National Institute on Money and Politics, FollowTheMoney.org

▪ "Our Step-by-Step Guide to Understanding ALEC's Influence on Your State Laws." Pro Publica, ProPublica.org.

▪ "Legislating Under the Influence; Money, Power, and the American Legislative Exchange Council." Common Cause, CommonCause.org.

Missouri Legislators with ALEC Ties

Identifying the list of Missouri legislators who are part of ALEC is a difficult task, because ALEC operates largely in secret. Even though it claims to be a legislative membership organization, there is no full list of legislators that are members of ALEC on their website. However, we do have a few sources open to us: the Missouri Ethics Commission, Sunshine Law requests with Capitol offices, and the Center for Media and Democracy. Progress Missouri has identified nearly 40 current Missouri legislators, and almost 90 total all-time as ALEC members and supporters through state Sunshine Law requests and reviews of Missouri Ethics Commission data. The community of researchers supporting the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECExposed.com website have also identified Missouri politicians as ALEC members and supporters.

STATEWIDE OFFICER ▪ Kinder, Peter

STATE SENATORS ▪ Brown, Dan ▪ Dixon, Bob ▪ Emery, Ed ▪ Munzlinger, Brian ▪ Parson, Mike ▪ Pearce, David ▪ Richard, Ron ▪ Sater, David ▪ Wallingford, Wayne ▪ Wasson, Jay ▪ Wieland, Paul

STATE REPRESENTATIVES ▪ Allen, Sue ▪ Bahr, Kurt

▪ Burlison, Eric ▪ Cierpiot, Mike ▪ Colona, Mike (former member) ▪ Crawford, Sandy ▪ Cross, Gary ▪ Curtis, Courtney ▪ Curtman, Paul ▪ Dugger, Tony ▪ Entlicher, Sue ▪ Flanigan, Tom ▪ Frederick, Keith ▪ Haefner, Marsha ▪ Hinson, Dave ▪ Jones, Caleb ▪ Keeney, Shelley ▪ Kelley, Mike ▪ Koenig, Andrew ▪ Korman, Bart ▪ Kratky, Michele ▪ Lant, Bill ▪ Lichtenegger, Donna ▪ Rowden, Caleb ▪ Rowland, Lyle ▪ Spencer, Bryan ▪ Sommer, Chrissy ▪ Wilson, Kenneth ▪ White, Bill

FORMER STATE LEGISLATORS ▪ Bearden, Carl ▪ Bivins, Walt ▪ Brandon, Ellen ▪ Cox, Stanley ▪ Crowell, Jason ▪ Cunningham, Jane ▪ Danner, Pat ▪ Davis, Cynthia ▪ Denison, Charlie

▪ Diehl, John ▪ Elmer, Kevin ▪ Ervin, Doug ▪ Funderburk, Doug ▪ Gatschenberger, Chuck ▪ Graves, Sam ▪ Grisamore, Jeff ▪ Gross, Chuck ▪ Hartzler, Vicky ▪ Hoskins, Ted ▪ Hubbard, Rodney ▪ Hunter, Steve ▪ Icet, Allen ▪ Jetton, Rod ▪ Jones, Kenny ▪ Jones, Tim ▪ Klindt, David ▪ Lamping, John ▪ Lembke, Jim ▪ Loudon, John ▪ Luetkemeyer, Blaine ▪ McCarthy, Karen ▪ McNary, Cole ▪ Nieves, Brian ▪ Nodler, Gary ▪ Pollock, Darrell ▪ Rector, Rex ▪ Ridgeway, Luann ▪ Rupp, Scott ▪ Schad, Rodney ▪ Schneider, Vicki ▪ Schoeller, Shane ▪ Smith, Jason ▪ Smith, Joe ▪ Talent, Jim ▪ Torpey, Noel ▪ Yates, Brian

Missouri Legislation Patterned After ALEC Models

Progress Missouri identified more than 60 corporation-friendly bills introduced in the Missouri General Assembly with provisions that echo ALEC model bills. The following list does not include ALEC language snuck into larger legislation, or bills inspired by ALEC models but re-written to match Missouri statutes.

Year Bill Sponsor ALEC Model Topic

2015 HJR 2  Bill Lant ALECexposed.org So-Called ‘Right to work’

2015 HB 47 Bill Lant ALECexposed.org So-Called ‘Right to work’

2015 HB 116 Eric Burlison ALECexposed.org So-Called ‘Right to work’

2015 HB 286 Bill White ALECexposed.org So-Called ‘Right to work’

2015 HB 582 Courtney Curtis ALECexposed.org So-Called ‘Right to work’

2015 SB 127 Dan Brown ALECexposed.org So-Called ‘Right to work’

2015 HB 46 Bill Lant ALEC.org Election Accountability for Municipal Employee Union Representatives Act

2015 HB 127 Rick Brattin ALEC.org Election Accountability for Municipal Employee Union Representatives Act

2015 HCR 6  Shane Roden ALEC.org Resolution of Support of Keystone XL Pipeline

2015 SB 233 Mike Kehoe ALECExposed.org “Reliability in Expert Testimony Standards Act"

2014 SB546 John Lamping ALEC.org ‘Health Care Freedom Act’

2014 HB1314 Keith Frederick ALEC.org ‘Health Care Freedom Act’

2014 HJR44 Bill Lant ALEC.org So-called 'Right to Work'

2014 HB1143 Bill White ALEC.org So-called 'Right to Work'

2014 HB1099 Eric Burlison ALEC.org So-called 'Right to Work'

2014 HB1095 Bill Lant ALEC.org So-called 'Right to Work'

2014 HB1094 Bill Lant ALEC.org So-called 'Right to Work'

2014 HB1066 Jeff Grisamore ALEC.org ‘Education Savings Account Act’

2014 HB1053 Donna Lichtenegger

ALEC.org So-called 'Right to Work'

2013 HCR 19 Caleb Rowden PRWatch.org Resolution in Support of Keystone XL Pipeline

2013 SB 76 Dan Brown ALECExposed.org So-called 'Right to Work'

2013 SB 238 Ed Emery ALECExposed.org So-called 'Right to Work'

2013 SCR 7 David Pearce PRWatch.org Resolution in Support of Keystone XL Pipeline

2013 SB 210 John Lamping CommonCause.org

Anti-Common Core State Standards

2013 SB 158 David Sater ALECExposed.org "Health Care Choice Act for States”

2013 SB 134 David Sater ALECExposed.org So-called 'Right to Work'

2013 HCR 6 Chriss Sommer ALECExposed.org "Reaffirming 10th Amendment rights"

2013 HB 95 Bill White ALECExposed.org So-called 'Right to Work'

2013 HB 928 Eric Burlison HealthCareCompact.org

Education/Healthcare Compact

2013 HB 91 Donna Lichtenegger

ALECExposed.org So-called 'Right to Work'

2013 HB 77 Eric Burlison ALECExposed.org So-called 'Right to Work'

2013 HB 616 Kurt Bahr CommonCause.org

Common Core State Standards

2013 HB 345 Mike Cierpiot ALECExposed.org Wireless Communication Towers

2012 SB 547 Chuck Purgason ALECExposed.com So-called 'Right to Work'

2012 SB 514 Jason Crowell ALECExposed.com So-called 'Right to Work'

2012 SB 438 Robert Mayer ALECExposed.com So-called 'Right to Work'

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

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

2012 HB2109 Shane Schoeller ALECExposed.com Voter registration Hurdles

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

2012 HB 1086

Bill White ALECExposed.com So-called 'Right to Work'

2011 SB 206 Chuck Purgason ALECExposed.com So-called 'Right to Work'

2011 SB 197 Luann Ridgeway ALECExposed.com So-called 'Right to Work'

2011 SB 109 Jason Crowell ALECExposed.com So-called 'Right to Work'

2011 SB 1 Luann Ridgeway ALECExposed.com So-called 'Right to Work'

2011 HCR 12 Lyle Rowland ALECExposed.com "Reaffirming 10th Amendment rights"

2011 HB393 Tim Jones ALECExposed.com "Parent Trigger Act"

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

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

2010 SB 888 Jason Crowell ALECExposed.com So-called 'Right to Work'

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

2010 HB2236 Stanley Cox ALECExposed.com "Private Attorney Retention Act"

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

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

2008 HCR 44 Bob Dixon ALECExposed.com Electoral college 

2008 HB 2137

Brian Yates Heartland.org "Asbestos Fairness Act"

2008 HB 1886

Dwight Scharnhorst

ALECExposed.com “The Autism Scholarship Program Act”

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

2006 SB 962 Luann Ridgeway ALECExposed.com “Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act”

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

2005 HB877 Steve Hunter ALECExposed.com So-called 'Right to Work'

2004 SCR 22 Peter Kinder ALECExposed.com Personal Retirement Accounts

2000 HB 1798

Marilyn Williams ALECExposed.com "Private Property Protection Act"

Missouri Corporations with ALEC Ties

PEABODY ENERGY Peabody Energy is the world’s largest private sector coal company, and is listed on ALEC”s corporate board. This massive producer of coal is a member of ALEC’s Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task force. The largest coal corporation on Earth has met with Exxon Mobile, and Dow Chemical to hold an extraordinary influence on Missouri’s environmental policies, including attacks on renewable energy.

ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV Anheuser-Busch was a member of ALEC’s Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force, and has continued to participate in ALEC even after being purchased by InBev. ALEC’s CIED Task Force has been responsible for anti-worker initiatives like the Paycheck Protection scheme, and the ALEC model ‘Right to Work” act.

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP As of April, 2013, Victor Schwartz of Shook, Hardy & Bacon is listed as the Private Chair of the Civil Justice Task Force, and documents show he, and other employees of the firm have attended ALEC meetings, testified on behalf of ALEC in favor of bills, and lobbied in North Dakota (ALEC maintains that it does not lobby). Shook Hardy & Bacon has spearheaded ALEC’s tort-reform efforts for years, often bills that seem to benefit the firm’s clients.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS Charter Communications is the fourth largest communications company in the country, selling telephone, cable television, and Internet services. Charter is a member of ALEC’s Communications and Technology task force. The Task Force has been responsible for, among other things, protecting corporate Internet profits, and phone service profits.

Missouri Taxpayer Funds Spent on ALEC Memberships & Junkets

There is a strange irony in spending taxpayer dollars to attend a group that is supposedly dedicated to ‘limited government’ to learn how to slash the public systems and structures upon which average citizens rely. Yet ALEC politicians in Missouri put the state on the hook for thousands of dollars for travel and memberships with this corporate group. In an era of cuts to education and public services, Progress Missouri found the following taxpayer-financed expenses to ALEC:

Fiscal Year

Agency/Individual Name

Category Description

Detail Description Vendor Name Payments

2009 LegislatureProfessional Development

Organization Memberships

American Legislative Exchange $5,800.00

2010 LegislatureProfessional Development

Organization Memberships

American Legislative Exchange $50.00

2010Office of Lt. Governor

Professional Development

Convention, Conference & Training Fees

American Legislative Exchange $700.00

2011 LegislatureProfessional Development

Organization Memberships

American Legislative Exchange $915.00

2012 LegislatureProfessional Development

Organization Memberships

American Legislative Exchange $100.00

2012Luanne Ridgeway

Professional Development

ALEC Membership Dues

American Legislative Exchange Council $100.00

2012 Brian Nieves Travel

Lambert airport to attend ALEC meeting n/a $100.00

Source: Missouri Accountability Portal This snapshot is for the most recent four years, although the financial connections between Missouri politicians and ALEC go back much farther.

2012 LegislatureProfessional Development

Organization Memberships

American Legislative Exchange $100.00

2014 LegislatureProfessional Development

Organization Memberships, Publications

American Legislative Exchange $120.00

2015 LegislatureProfessional Development

Organization Memberships

American Legislative Exchange $100.00

2015 LegislatureProfessional Development

Organization Memberships

American Legislative Exchange $200.00

Partisan Campaign Funds Spent on ALEC Memberships & Travel

Campaign funds are frequently used for politicians to attend ALEC’s secret meetings of lobbyists and corporate donors. ALEC claims to be non-partisan and claims to conduct zero lobbying, yet even member politicians seem to be confused on the nebulous purpose of ALEC.

Candidate Name Recipient Date Purpose Amount

Paul Wieland

American Legislative Exchange Council 6/18/2015 Education $600.00

Justin Hill

American Legislative Exchange Council 6/9/2015 Membership $150.00

Justin Hill

American Legislative Exchange Council 6/3/2015 Registration Fee $500.00

Ed Emery

American Legislative Exchange Council 5/12/2015 Education $500.00

Scott Fitzpatrick

American Legislative Exchange Council 3/24/2015 Membership Dues $100.00

Shameed Dogan

American Legislative Exchange Council 1/8/2015 Membership Dues $100.00

Doug Libla

American Legislative Exchange Council 12/30/2014 Membership Dues $100.00

Kathy Swan

American Legislative Exchange Council 10/15/2014 dues $100.00

Gary Cross ALEC 9/7/2014 Dues $100.00

Tim Jones

American Legislative Exchange Council 7/2/2014 Membership $500.00

Andrew Koenig ALEC 6/30/2014 Educational $500.00

Marsha Haefner ALEC 6/11/2014Conference Registration $500.00

Tim Jones

American Legislative Exchange Council 5/2/2014 Conference Fee $150.00

Andrew Koenig ALEC 3/31/2014 Conference $150.00

Andrew Koenig ALEC 3/28/2014 membership fee $100.00

Tom Flanigan

American Legislative Exchange Council 9/2/2013 DUES $100.00

Ed Emery

American Legislative Exchange Council 6/4/2013 Education $475.00

Ed Emery

American Legislative Exchange Council 3/31/2013 Education $150.00

Bryan Spencer

American Legislative Exchange Council 3/3/2013 Membership Dues $200.00

Sandy Crawford ALEC 11/7/2013 Conference Fee $375.00

Bart Korman ALEC 10/29/2013 Dues $100.00

Marsha Haefner

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 6/17/2013 n/a $475.00

Ed Emery

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 6/4/2013 Education $475.00

Ed Emery

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 3/31/2013 Education $150.00

Sue Allen

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 3/7/2013 Membership $100.00

Bryan Spencer

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 3/3/2013 Membership Dues $200.00

Jason Smith

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 11/20/2012 Registration $475.00

Kevin Elmer Kevin Elmer 11/16/2012Reimburse ALEC Dues $375.00

Andrew KoenigALEC, Washington, DC 11/7/2012

Educational Expense $375.00

Marsha Haefner

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 10/12/2012 Conference $375.00

John Diehl

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 7/6/2012 Tuition Fees $675.00

Jason Smith

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 5/30/2012 Registration $475.00

Andrew KoenigALEC, Washington, DC 4/5/2012

Educational Conference $400.00

Tim Jones

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 2/10/2012 Sponsorship $450.00

Gary CrossALEC, Washington, DC 11/27/2011 Conference $375.00

Andrew Koenig

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 11/20/2011 Educational $475.00

Jason Smith

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 11/9/2011 Registration $375.00

Gary Cross

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 9/13/2011 Alec Membership $100.00

Charlie DenisonALEC , Washington, DC 6/3/2011 Dues $475.00

Caleb JonesALEC , Washington, DC 4/7/2011 Registration $100.00

Tim Jones (R-Eureka)

ALEC , Washington, DC 3/31/2011

Registration Fee For Conference $599.00

Bart KormanALEC , Washington, DC 2/16/2011 Dues $100.00

Sue AllenALEC , Washington, DC 2/7/2011 Fee $100.00

Tim Jones (R-Eureka)

ALEC , Washington, DC 1/31/2011

Registration Fee For Conference $150.00

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

Tony Dugger (R-Hartville)

ALEC , Washington, DC 1/25/2011 Membership $100.00

Luann Ridgeway (R-Clay County)

ALEC , Washington, DC 12/10/2010

Scholarship Funding $1,475.00

Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia)

ALEC , Washington, DC 12/8/2010

Conference Registration $150.00

Tim Jones (R-Eureka)

ALEC , Washington, DC 12/5/2010

Spring Conference Registration Fee $200.00

Mike Colona (D-St. Louis)

ALEC , Washington, DC 11/28/2010

Legislative Convention $425.00

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

Mike Colona (D-St. Louis)

ALEC , Washington, DC 11/10/2010

Legislative Seminar & Membership Fee $425.00

Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis County)

ALEC , Washington, DC 11/10/2010 Alec Registration $525.00

Tim Jones (R-Eureka)

ALEC , Washington, DC 11/3/2010

Registration Fee For Conference $200.00

Jim Lembke (R-Lemay)

ALEC , Washington, DC 10/26/2010

Conference Registration $375.00

Tim Jones (R-Eureka)

ALEC , Washington, DC 9/23/2010

States & Nation Policy Summit Registration Fee $375.00

Darrell PollockALEC , Washington, DC 6/15/2010 Registration $510.00

Darrell PollockALEC , Washington, DC 6/15/2010 Registration $510.00

Tim Jones (R-Eureka)

ALEC , Washington, DC 5/25/2010

Registration Fee-Conference $660.00

Source: MEC.MO.GOV

Doug Funderburk (R-St. Peter's)

ALEC , Washington, DC 2/13/2010 Conference Fee $410.00

Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis County)

ALEC , Washington, DC 11/13/2009 Conference $600.00

Mike Colona (D-St. Louis)

ALEC , Washington, DC 10/20/2009 Conference $350.00

Doug ErvinALEC , Washington, DC 5/28/2009 Registration $650.00

Doug Funderburk (R-St. Peter's)

ALEC , Washington, DC 5/14/2009 Annual Dues $375.00

Enterprise Holdings PAC

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

Jim Lembke (R-Lemay)

ALEC , Washington, DC 1/20/2009 Dues $100.00

Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis County)

ALEC , Washington, DC 11/24/2008 Travel Expenses $896.07

Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis County)

ALEC , Washington, DC 11/19/2008 Membership Fee $400.00

Speaker Jetton Leadership Fund

ALEC , Washington, DC 6/26/2008

Legislative Magazine $375.00

Gary Nodler (R-Joplin)

ALEC , Washington, DC 5/16/2007 Registration $275.00

Jack GoodmanALEC , Washington, DC 2/5/2007 Membership $200.00

Grassroots For Hunter

ALEC , Washington, DC 1/25/2007 Registration $100.00

Brian Yates (R-Blue Springs)

ALEC , Washington, DC 1/11/2007

Membership Dues For Official Office $100.00

Tom Flanigan

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 09/012/2013 Dues $100.00

Receipts From ALEC To Partisan Campaign Accounts

ALEC claims to be a nonpartisan 501c3 organization, but regularly sends money to partisan candidate committee accounts in Missouri. The following chart summarizes donations from the ALEC corporate account and ALEC staff to Missouri candidates.

Politician Donor Date Amount Note

Andrew Koenig ALEC 9/9/2014 $500.00

Timothy W Jones

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 6/21/2012 $350.00

Timothy W Jones

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 8/31/2012 $1,251.58

Timothy W Jones

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 1/17/2012 $1,071.39

Gary CrossALEC, Washington, DC 1/13/2012 $1,000

Noel TorpeyALEC, Washington, DC 1/15/2012 $600.00

Andrew KoenigALEC, Washington, DC 6/8/2012 $350.00

Charlie Denison

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, DC 10/8/2011 $600.00

Andrew KoenigALEC , Washington, DC 1/16/2011 $500.00

Andrew KoenigALEC , Washington, DC 6/30/2011 $287.61

Andrew KoenigALEC , Washington, DC 4/27/2011 $50.00

Source: MEC.MO.GOV

Timothy W JonesALEC , Washington, DC 1/21/2011 $1,192.31

Timothy W JonesALEC , Washington, DC 3/10/2010 $500.00

Reimbursement for travel

Timothy W JonesALEC , Washington, DC 10/21/2010 $50.00

Refund for early registration

Darrell PollockALEC , Washington, DC 9/17/2010 $1,459.94 Reimbursement

Andrew KoenigALEC , Washington, DC 1/12/2009 $896.07

Reimbursement for travel

Jane Cunningham

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

Jane Cunningham

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

Jane Cunningham

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

Rodney SchadALEC , Washington, DC 9/2/2008 $500.00

ALEC Scholarships

The Center for Media and Democracy: "The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has raised and spent an estimated $4 million in funds from its corporate backers since 2006 to pay for state lawmakers’ trips to meet with corporate CEOs and lobbyists at ALEC sponsored events at posh retreats, according to internal ALEC documents and other investigative work…”

"The scheme works like this: ALEC state chairs (hand-picked legislators and private-sector members) solicit corporate money that goes into a “Scholarship Fund” that is then used to pay for lawmakers’ trips. Records show that ALEC legislators know who’s paying their way—some state leaders even urge lawmakers to send thank-you notes to their patrons— but everyone else is kept in the dark. ALEC claims to the IRS that it does not have to report the money spent on elected officials because it is just holding the funds 'in trust' for lawmakers. But at the same time, it promises corporate donors that they can get a tax write-off for their donations."

Below is a list of legislators between 2009 and 2015 who have reported their ALEC scholarships to the Missouri Ethics Commission on their Personal Finance Disclosures:

Year Entity AmountExpense Type Date Location

2009Andrew Koenig $900.00

Lodging and Travel

December 2008

Washington, DC

2009 Tim Jones $1,504.45Lodging and Travel

December 2009

Washington, DC

2009Jane Cunningham $845.00

Lodging and Travel

December 2008

Washington, DC

2009 Ed Emery $319.60Lodging and Travel May 2009 Memphis, TN

2009 Ed Emery $1,969.45Lodging and Travel

December 2009

Washington, DC

2009 Jason Smith $500.00Lodging and Travel August 2008 Chicago, IL

2010Andrew Koenig $446.87

Lodging and Travel

December 2008

Washington, DC

2010 Tim Jones $500.00Lodging and Travel July 2009 Atlanta, GA

2010 Tim Jones $1,250.00Lodging and Travel

December 2009

Washington, DC

2010 Tim Jones"all expenses paid by ALEC"

Lodging and Travel May 2009 Memphis, TN

2010Jane Cunningham $853.70

Lodging and Travel May 2009 Memphis, TN

2010Jane Cunningham $1,300.00

Lodging and Travel July 2009 Atlanta, GA

2010Jane Cunningham $675.20

Lodging and Travel

September 2009

San Antonio, TX

2010Jane Cunningham $788.20

Lodging and Travel

December 2009

Washington, DC

2010 Ed Emery $1,658.24Lodging and Travel August 2010 San Diego, CA

2010 Ed Emery $1,350.67Lodging and Travel

December 2010

Washington, DC

2010 Ed Emery $703.00Lodging and Travel May 2010 St. Louis, MO

2010 Jason Smith $391.92Lodging and Travel May 2009 Memphis, TN

2010 Jason Smith $500.00Lodging and Travel July 2009 Atlanta, GA

2010 Jason Smith $500.00Lodging and Travel

December 2009

Washington, DC

2011Andrew Koenig $500.00

Lodging and Travel

December 2010

Washington, DC

2011 Tim Jones $2,419.62Lodging and Travel August 2010 San Diego, CA

2011 Tim Jones $1,192.31Lodging and Travel

December 2010

Washington, DC

2011Jane Cunningham $1,063.98

Lodging and Travel August 2010 San Diego, CA

2011Jane Cunningham $423.60

Lodging and Travel

December 2010

Washington, DC

2011 Jason Smith $500.00Lodging and Travel April 2010 San Diego, CA

2012Andrew Koenig $409.61

Lodging and Travel April 2011

Cincinnati, OH

2012Andrew Koenig $500.00

Lodging and Travel

November 2011

Scottsdale, AZ

2012Donna Lichtenegger $232.83

Lodging and Travel April 2011

Cincinnati, OH

2012 Tim Jones $353.80Lodging and Travel April 2011

Cincinnati, OH

2012 Tim Jones $1,071.39Lodging and Travel

December 2011 Phoenix, AZ

2012Jane Cunningham $584.00

Lodging and Travel April 2011

Cincinnati, OH

2012 Caleb Jones $600.00Lodging and Travel August 2011

New Orleans, LA

2012 Jason Smith $296.62Lodging and Travel April 2011

Cincinnati, OH

2012 Jason Smith $600.00Lodging and Travel August 2011

New Orleans, LA

2012 Jason Smith $417.00Lodging and Travel October 2011

Los Angeles, CA

2012 Jason Smith $500.00Lodging and Travel

December 2011 Phoenix, AZ

2012 Jim Lembke $500.00Lodging and Travel

November 2010

Washington, DC

2013Andrew Koenig $500.00

Lodging and Travel May 2012 Charlotte, NC

2013Andrew Koenig $500.00

Lodging and Travel

November 2012

Washington, DC

2013 Tim Jones $1,029.14Lodging and Travel

December 2012

Washington, DC

2013 Tim Jones $1,251.58Lodging and Travel July 2012 Salt Lake, UT

2013 Tim Jones $350.00Lodging and Travel May 2012 Charlotte, NC

2013Jane Cunningham $1,045.20

Lodging and Travel August 2012 Salt Lake, UT

2013 Caleb Jones $600.00Lodging and Travel July 2012 Salt Lake, UT

2013 Jason Smith $500.00Lodging and Travel May 2012 Charlotte, NC

2013 Jason Smith $1,161.74Lodging and Travel July 2012 Salt Lake, UT

2013Martha Haefner $800.00

Lodging and Travel

November 2012

Washington, DC

2014 Sue Allen $1,000.00Lodging and Travel August 2013 Atlanta, GA

2014 Sue Allen $1,000.00Lodging and Travel

December 2013

Washington, DC

2014 Mike Kelley $1,200.00Lodging and Travel October 2011 Denver, CO

2014Andrew Koenig $500.00

Lodging and Travel July 25, 2014 Dallas, TX

2014Donna Lichtenegger $500.00

Lodging and Travel August 2013 Chicago, IL

2014Donna Lichtenegger $500.00

Lodging and Travel

December 2013

Washington, DC

2014 Holly Rehder $500.00Lodging and Travel

December 2013

Washington, DC

2015Donna Lichtenegger $500.00

Lodging and Travel August 2014 Dallas, TX

For more information, see the Center for Media and Democracy's "Buying Influence; How the American Legislative Exchange Council Uses Corporate-Funded “Scholarships” to Send Lawmakers on Trips with Corporate Lobbyists" report here. The following chart is found in said report:

2015Donna Lichtenegger $500.00

Lodging and Travel

December 2014

Washington, DC

Year Entity Money In Money Out

2008 Ed Emery   $ 296.30

2008 Eli Lilly $ 2,000.00  

2008 Brent Hemphill & Associates, Inc $ 200.00  

2008 Gamble & Schlemeier, Ltd. $ 250.00  

2008 Vicki Schneider   $ 500.00

2008 Cynthia Davis   $ 500.00

2008 Ed Emery   $ 1,435.40

2008 Marietta Rutledge   $ 1,343.67

2008 Rodney Schad   $ 500.00

2008 Doug Ervin   $ 500.00

2008 Jason Smith   $ 475.00

2008 Gamble & Schlemeier, Ltd. $ 300.00  

2008 Brent Hemphill & Associates, Inc. $ 200.00  

2008 Peabody Energy $ 2,500.00  

2008 MO Cable Pac $ 300.00  

2008 Doug Ervin   $ 500.00

2008 Ed Emery   $ 848.26

2008 Walter Bivens   $ 500.00

2008 Reynolds American $ 400.00  

2008 John Loudon   $ 500.00

2008 Tim Jones   $ 504.45

2007 Cynthia Davis   $ 499.06

2007 Jim Lembke   $ 500.00

2007 Crown Cork $ 5,000.00  

2007 Comcast $ 1,206.55  

2007 Allen Icet   $ 500.00

2007 Rodney Schad   $ 500.00

2007 Brian Yates   $ 1,049.04

2007 Ed Emery   $ 1,667.97

2007 Comcast $ 1,788.32  

2007 Comcast $ 2,058.33  

2007 Crown Cork $ 1,000.00  

2007 Bayer HealthCare $ 500.00  

2007 Doug Ervin   $ 500.00

2007 John Loudon   $ 2,185.69

2007 Walter Bivins   $ 500.00

2007 Bryan Cave Strategies $ 175.00  

2007 Gamble & Schlemeier, Ltd. $ 500.00  

2007 Becky Currie   $ 1,000.00

2007 Joe Smith   $ 1,085.60

2007 Walter Bivins   $ 500.00

2006 David G. Klindt   $ 881.55

2006 Chuck Gross   $ 879.54

2006 SBC $ 1,100.00  

2006 Missouri Insurance Coalition $ 250.00  

2006 Carl Bearden   $ 1,000.00

2006 Ed Emery   $ 144.11

2006 Rex Rector   $ 110.88

2006 Rex Rector   $ 116.00

2006 HTH Companies, Inc. $ 500.00  

2006 Missouri Railroad Association $ 500.00  

2006 Gamble & Schlemeier, LTD $ 500.00  

2006 Missouri Soft Drink Association $ 500.00  

2006 AT&T $ 4,000.00  

2006 Ed Emery   $ 2,067.30

2006 AT&T $ 1,000.00  

2006 Chuck Gross   $ 803.99

2006 Steve Hunter   $ 1,986.48

2006 Cynthia Davis   $ 500.00

2006 Milton & Rose D. Friedman Foundation $ 2,500.00  

2006 Rex Rector   $ 1,833.55

2006 Jim Lembke   $ 423.92

2006 Verizon Transfer $ 1,000.00  

2006 Carl Bearden   $ 1,000.00

Untraceable ALEC-RELATED LOBBYIST GIFTS

Some Missouri lobbyists abuse the ability to declare the recipients of their gifts as entire groups of officials, thereby limiting the public’s ability to know which legislators are wined and dined on ALEC-related trips. Even when the recipients of the gifts are clearly a small group of legislators, gifts have been reported as going to Entire General Assembly, MO House, MO Senate, All Statewide Elected Officials & All Legislators, or Caucuses. For example, EMBARQ lobbyist Charles Simino told the Missouri Ethics Commission that he gave $1,000 in Chicago Cubs tickets a 2008 ALEC event to the “Entire General Assembly.”

Name Recipient Date Description Amount Principal

Susan Henderson Moore

Entire General Assembly 8/2/2014

Dinner at Dallas Chop House, Dallas, Texas $379.11 Polsinelli Pc

Jorgen Schlemeier

Entire General Assembly 8/1/2014

Dallas Chop House, Dallas, TX/Dinner $126.37

Ameristar Casino Hotel Kansas City Inc

Jorgen Schlemeier

Entire General Assembly 8/1/2014

Dallas Chop House, Dallas, TX/Dinner $126.37

Missouri Pharmacy Association

Jorgen Schlemeier

Entire General Assembly 8/1/2014

Dallas Chop House, Dallas, TX/Dinner $126.37

Missouri Railroad Association

Greg C Swarens

Entire General Assembly 8/1/2014

ALEC Missouri Night $379.11

Hallmark Cards, Inc.

Charles "Andy" Arnold

Entire General Assembly 8/1/2014

ALEC Conference, Dallas, TX/ Dinner $513.69

Arnold And Associates

Catina "Tina" Shannon

Entire General Assembly 8/1/2014

Dallas Chop Shop-Dallas TX for Missouri State Night at legislative conference $379.11

Union Electric Co., Dba Amerenmo, Ameren Services, Ameren Corp.

Michael R Gibbons

Entire General Assembly 8/1/2014

Dallas, TX / Missouri ALEC Night $379.11

Peabody Energy

Richard W Moore

Entire General Assembly 8/1/2014 Dallas, Texas $379.11 Centurylink

Doug Galloway

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 8/8/2013

ALEC dinner, Chicago $248.33

CENTURYLINK

Richard Moore

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 8/8/2013

Chicago, IL - ALEC $248.33

CENTURYLINK

Mary Scruggs

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 8/9/2013

ALEC Conference, Chicago, IL $248.33

ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES

Carrie Sherer

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 11/30/2012

Missouri State Night - ALEC $1,135.78 CERNER

Guy William Black

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/27/2012

ALEC Missouri Night Reception & Dinner $800.00

BRYAN CAVE LLP

Doug Galloway

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/27/2012

Dinner sponsorship for ALEC meeting $1,000.00

CENTURYLINK

Tracy King

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/27/2012

ALEC Missouri Night Reception/Dinner Sponsorship, Park City, UT $800.00

MISSOURI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

Daniel R. Pfeifer

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/27/2012

Missouri Night – Alec, Salt Lake City, Utah $800.00 Catalyst Group

Carrie Sherer

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/27/2012

Missouri Night at ALEC Conference $800.00 CERNER

John R Sondag

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/26/2012

Salt Lake City - Dinner at ALEC $550.00

AT&T INC. AND AFFLIATES

Trey Davis

HOUSE MAJORITY CAUCUS 7/25/2012

Dinner at ALEC Utah $1,371.84

MISSOURI ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

William A Gamble

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 3/28/2012

G2 Gallery, Jefferson City, MO/ALEC MO Night Reception $125.00

MISSOURI COLLEGE OF EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS

William A Gamble

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 3/28/2012

G2 Gallery, Jefferson City, MO/ALEC MO Night Reception $125.00

MISSOURI RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

William A Gamble

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 3/28/2012

G2 Gallery, Jefferson City, MO/ALEC MO Night Reception $125.00

MISSOURI PHARMACY ASSOCIATION

William A Gamble

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 3/28/2012

G2 Gallery, Jefferson City, MO/ALEC MO Night Reception $500.00

AMERISTAR CASINO HOTEL KANSAS CITY INC

William A Gamble

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 3/28/2012

G2 Gallery, Jefferson City, MO/ALEC MO Night Reception $125.00

MISSOURI BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION

Mary Scruggs

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 3/28/2012

ALEC reception - G2 $1,000.00

ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES

Charles G Simino

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 3/28/2012

Dinner at ALEC in Salt Lake City, UT $1,000.00

MISSOURI CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

Richard Telthorst

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 3/28/2012

Sponsorship of ALEC Reception held at G2 Gallery, Jefferson City, MO. $600.00

MISSOURI TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

John R Sondag

HOUSE MAJORITY CAUCUS 8/5/2011

Refreshments during ALEC Conf @ Old Absinthe House, New Orleans LA $44.00

AT&T INC. AND AFFLIATES

John R Sondag

HOUSE MAJORITY CAUCUS 8/5/2011

Refreshments during ALEC Conf $44.00

AT&T INC. AND AFFLIATES

Phillip Schnieders

ALL STATEWIDE ELECTED OFFICIALS & ALL LEGISLATORS 8/5/2011

ALEC event, New Orleans, LA $836.29

MISSOURI AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Ryan C. Rowden

ALL STATEWIDE ELECTED OFFICIALS & ALL LEGISLATORS 8/5/2011

Dinner - New Orleans, LA $600.00

MISSOURI PETROLEUM COUNCIL -- A DIVISION OF THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

Tracy King

SENATE MAJORITY CAUCUS 8/4/2011

Visit New Orleans, New Orleans, LA/Cocktail Tour $182.00

MISSOURI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

William A Gamble

SENATE MAJORITY CAUCUS 8/4/2011

Antoine's Restaurant, New Orleans, LA/Dinner reception $50.00

MISSOURI RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

William A Gamble

SENATE MAJORITY CAUCUS 8/4/2011

Antoine's Restaurant, New Orleans, LA/Dinner reception $25.00

MISSOURI BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION

John R Sondag

HOUSE MAJORITY CAUCUS 8/4/2011

MO Chamber Dinner during ALEC Conf @ GW Fins, New Orleans LA $60.00

AT&T INC. AND AFFLIATES

John R Sondag

HOUSE MAJORITY CAUCUS 8/4/2011

MO Chamber Dinner at ALEC $60.00

AT&T INC. AND AFFLIATES

Caroline Hoover

HOUSE MAJORITY CAUCUS 8/4/2011

ALEC Conference, New Orleans, LA $150.00

KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT

Susan Henderson Moore

HOUSE MAJORITY CAUCUS 8/4/2011

Walking wine tour at New Orleans, LA $180.00

STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES

Tracy King

HOUSE MAJORITY CAUCUS 8/4/2011

Visit New Orleans, New Orleans, LA/Cocktail Tour $742.00

MISSOURI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

William A Gamble

HOUSE MAJORITY CAUCUS 8/4/2011

Antoine's Restaurant, New Orleans, LA/Dinner reception $25.00

MISSOURI BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION

William A Gamble

HOUSE MAJORITY CAUCUS 8/4/2011

Antoine's Restaurant, New Orleans, LA/Dinner reception $50.00

INDEPENDENT COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES OF MISSOURI

Catina "Tina" Shannon

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 8/4/2011

ALEC in New Orleans, LA $763.86 AMEREN UE

Susan Henderson Moore

ALL STATEWIDE ELECTED OFFICIALS & ALL LEGISLATORS 8/4/2011

Missouri Night at ALEC in New Orleans, LA $600.00

POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC

Mary Scruggs

ALL STATEWIDE ELECTED OFFICIALS & ALL LEGISLATORS 8/4/2011

ALEC - New Orleans, LA $843.86

ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES

Ryan C. Rowden

ALL STATEWIDE ELECTED OFFICIALS & ALL LEGISLATORS 8/4/2011

ALEC - New Orleans, LA $843.86

MISSOURI PETROLEUM COUNCIL -- A DIVISION OF THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

John R Sondag

HOUSE MAJORITY CAUCUS 8/3/2011

Dinner during ALEC Conf at GW Fins, New Orleans $1,440.00

AT&T INC. AND AFFLIATES

Charles G Simino

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 8/3/2011

Dinner at Antoine's Restaurant in New Orleans, LA $400.00

MISSOURI CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

Charles G Simino

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 8/3/2011

Tour in New Orleans, LA $846.43

MISSOURI CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

Phillip Schnieders

ALL STATEWIDE ELECTED OFFICIALS & ALL LEGISLATORS 8/3/2011

ALEC event in New Orleans, LA $843.86

MISSOURI AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Caroline Hoover

ALL STATEWIDE ELECTED OFFICIALS & ALL LEGISLATORS 8/2/2011

ALEC Missouri Night sponsorship, New Orleans, LA/catered dinner $600.00

KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT

Phillip Schnieders

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 3/28/2011

ALEC reception, Jefferson City $1,000.00

MISSOURI AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Mary Scruggs

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 8/6/2010

ALEC Conference in San Diego, CA $600.00

ASSOCIATION OF MISSOURI ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES

Charles "Andy" Arnold

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 8/6/2010

San Diego/Participation in the ALEC Missouri Night Reception $600.00

ARNOLD AND ASSOCIATES

Doug Galloway

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 8/5/2010

Dinner at ALEC, San Diego $600.00

CENTURYLINK

Tony Reinhart

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/17/2009

Missouri Night Dinner at ALEC $400.00

FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Phillip Schnieders

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 8/1/2008

ALEC reception $2,000.00

MISSOURI AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Charles G Simino

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 8/1/2008

Tickets to Cubs baseball game at ALEC $1,000.00 EMBARQ

Debra Flores

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 8/1/2008

Missouri legislative reception at the annual meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). $3,000.00

BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS

David C. Hale

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/14/2008

Sponsorship for Missouri Night @ ALEC Mtg in Chicago $400.00

MISSOURI HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION

William A Gamble

ALL STATEWIDE ELECTED OFFICIALS & ALL LEGISLATORS 11/8/2007

ALEC Scholarship Fund $500.00

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY

Phil Wright

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/27/2007

ALEC's Missouri Night Sponsorship $400.00

MISSOURI ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ACTION

Ann Louise Michael

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/27/2007

ALEC MO night $400.00

MISSSOURI ASSOCIATION OF CLUB EXECUTIVES

Thomas W Krewson

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/26/2007

ALEC Dinner in Philadelphia $954.68 COMCAST

Phil Wright

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/26/2007

Missouri Night during ALEC $983.00

MISSOURI ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ACTION

Ann Louise Michael

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/26/2007

ALEC conference dinner $950.00

MISSSOURI ASSOCIATION OF CLUB EXECUTIVES

Kathryn Ann Harness

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/26/2007

Dinner for Missouri Legislature at American Legislative Exchange Council $260.99

HARNESS & ASSOCIATES

Kathryn Ann Harness

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/26/2007

Dinner for Missouri Legislature at American Legislative Exchange Council $225.00 METRO

Kathryn Ann Harness

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/26/2007

Dinner for Missouri Legislature at American Legislative Exchange Council $225.00

NORTHPORT HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

Kathryn Ann Harness

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/26/2007

Dinner for Missouri Legislature at American Legislative Exchange Council $225.00

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS OF MISSOURI

Charles G Simino

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 7/26/2007

Dinner at the American Legislative Exchange Council Annual Meeting $983.01 EMBARQ

John R Sondag

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 4/27/2007

golf at ALEC Task Force Meeting $414.15

AT&T INC, AND ITS AFFILIATES

John R Sondag

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 4/27/2007

Meal at State Night Dinner at ALEC Task Force Meeting $534.63

AT&T INC, AND ITS AFFILIATES

David C Christian

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 4/10/2007

sponsorship of ALEC reception $600.00

KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT CO.

Richard Telthorst

ENTIRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 4/10/2007

American Legislative Exchange Council Reception $400.00

MISSOURI TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

John Kristan Jones

ALEC CAUCUS 7/21/2006 n/a $600.00 VERIZON

Charles "Andy" Arnold

ALEC CAUCUS 7/19/2006 n/a $225.00

ARNOLD AND ASSOCIATES

Head-to-Head Comparisons of ALEC Models and Missouri Legislation

So-Called 'Right to Work' Bills For decades, Republican politicians and powerful corporate interests have pushed so-called right to work bills that are all about politics -- not economics. ALEC corporate interests and their allied politicians design this legislation to harm their political opponents by eliminating public employee unions seen as supporting elected officials that look out for workers' interests.

The “Right to Work” experiment has lowered wages and made workplaces less safe, since workers no longer have a say at the bargaining table. While out of state corporate lobbyist line their pockets, hard work Americans lose access to liveable wages and good health care.

2015 Legislators Sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Bill Lant, Bill White, Eric Burlison Courtney Curtis, Dan Brown

2014 Legislators Sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Bill Lant, Bill White, Eric Burlison Donna Lichtenegger, Dan Brown, Ed Emery, Keith Frederick, Jeff Grisamore

2013 Legislators Sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Sen. Dan Brown, Rep. Bill White, Sen. David Sater, Sen. Ed Emery, Rep. Eric Burlison, Rep. Donna Lichtenegger.

2013 Legislators Co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Rick Brattin, Eric Burlison, Speaker Tim Jones, John Diehl, Donna Lichtenegger, Bill Lant, Lynn Morris, Bill Reiboldt, Kevin Elmer, Keith Frederick, Kurt Bahr, Dave Schatz, Bill White, Tony Dugger, Robert Ross, Steve Cookson, Sonya Anderson, Mike Kelley.

John Kristan Jones

ALEC CAUCUS 6/19/2006 n/a $209.50 VERIZON

Legislators previously sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Former Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer, Former Sen. Jason Crowell, Former Sen. Chuck Purgason, Former Sen. Luann Ridgeway, Rep. Bill White, Former Rep. Steve Hunter

Legislators previously co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Barney Fisher, Ed Emery, Don Phillips, Todd Smith, Mike Dethrow, Mike Cunningham, Theresa Sander, Kathy Chinn, Marilyn Ruestman, Dennis Wood, Brad Roark, Davis Day, Rex Rector, Bill Deeken, Tom Self, Otto Bean, Peter Myers, Brian Munzlinger, Steve Hobbs, Kevin Wilson, and John Quinn 

Missouri Bills: SB 514, SB 438, SB 547,SB 1, SB 109, SB 197, SB 206, SB 888, HB877, HB 1086, SB 76, SB 134, SB 238, HB 77, HB 91, HB 95, HJR 2, HB 47, HB 116, HB 286, HB 582, SB 127, HJR44, HB1143, HB1099, HB1095, HB1094, HB1053

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

MO Language in SB 514, SB 438, SB 547,SB 1, SB 109, SB 197, SB 206, SB 888, HB877, HB 1086, SB 76, SB 134, SB 238, HB 77, HB 91, HB 95, HJR 2, HB 47, HB 116, HB 286, HB 582, SB 127, HJR44, HB1143, HB1099, HB1095, HB1094, HB1053

Section 3. {Labor organization.}

The term "labor organization" means any organization of any kind, or agency or employee representation committee or union, that exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of work, other conditions of employment, or other forms of compensation

290.590. 1. As used in this section,

the term "labor organization" means any organization of any kind or agency or employee representation committee or union which exists for the purpose in whole or in part of dealing with employers concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of work, other conditions of employment, or other forms of compensation.

No person shall be required, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment: (A) to resign or refrain from voluntary membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of a labor organization; (B) to become or remain a member of a labor organization; (C) to pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount to a labor organization; (D) to pay to any charity or other third party, in lieu of such payments, any amount equivalent to or a pro-rata portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges regularly required of members of a labor organization; or (E) to be recommended, approved, referred, or cleared by or through a labor organization.

No person shall be required as a condition or continuation of employment to: (1) Become or refrain from becoming a member of a labor organization; (2) Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other similar charges however denominated of any kind or amount to a labor organization; (3) In lieu of the payments listed under subdivision of this subsection, pay to any charity or other third party any amount equivalent to, or on a pro rata basis, any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges required of members of a labor organization.

Section 6. {Agreements in violation, and actions to induce such agreements, declared illegal.}

Any agreement, understanding, or practice, written or oral, implied or expressed, between any labor organization and employer that violates the rights of employees as guaranteed by provisions of this chapter is hereby declared to be unlawful, null and void, and of no legal effect…

3.

Any agreement, understanding, or practice, written or oral, implied or expressed, between any labor organization and employer that violates the rights of employees as guaranteed under this section is declared to be unlawful, null and void, and of no legal effect.

‘Health Care Freedom Act’ Talking Points Memo summary: “Heading into the 2014 legislative session, the American Legislative Exchange Council is pushing new model legislation that aims to undermine the federal health care reform law. The only problem is: It's probably illegal. Here's what the bill says: If an insurance company accepts tax subsidies that trigger Obamacare's employer mandate -- in other words, if an employee at a company with more than 50 employees goes onto an Obamacare exchange to purchase insurance and gets financial help through the law -- then that insurer would be prohibited from continuing to do business in that state. The effect is that if an insurer is doing business with the Obamacare exchange, it's putting itself at risk of being banned from operating in a state with this law in place. That would either force insurers to pull out of the exchanges or to decline to accept subsidies, which would unravel the foundation of the exchanges -- or actually take their business out of the state.”

ALEC Model Legislation http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/health-care-freedom-act/

MO Language in HB1314

3. If a health insurance issuer operating in the state of Missouri accepts any remuneration that may result in the imposition of penalties contrary to the public policy set forth in this section or section 1.330, such issuer's license to transact business in the state of Missouri shall be suspended by the director of the department of insurance, financial institutions and professional registration immediately and until such time as the issuer represents it has returned that remuneration to its source and will decline any such future remuneration. Such suspensions shall not be construed as impairing the right of contract.

(B) If a health insurance issuer violates division (A) of this section, the issuer’s license to issue new business in the state on the federal exchange established by the Affordable Care Act shall be suspended immediately and until such time as the issuer represents it has returned that remuneration, credit, or subsidy to its source and will decline any such future remuneration, credit, or subsidy. Such suspensions shall not be construed as impairing the right of contract or the right to continue or renew existing business in the state.

5. The attorney general shall take such action as is provided in this subsection in the defense or prosecution of rights protected under section 1.330 and this section

(C) The attorney general shall take such action as is provided in {insert appropriate state law} in the defense or prosecution of rights protected under this chapter.

It is the duty of the attorney general to seek injunctive and any other appropriate relief as expeditiously as possible to preserve the rights and property of the residents of the state of Missouri, and to defend as necessary the state of Missouri, its officials, employees, and agents in the event that any law or regulation violating the public policy set forth in section 1.330 and this section, is enacted by any government, subdivision, or agency thereof.

Section 4. Other Obligations of Attorney General. The attorney general shall seek injunctive and any other appropriate relief as expeditiously as possible to preserve the rights and property of the residents of the state, and to defend as necessary the state, and its officials, employees, and agents, in the event that any law or regulation violating the public policy set forth in this chapter is enacted by any government, subdivision, or agency thereof.

ALEC Model Legislation http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/health-care-freedom-act/

MO Language in SB546, HB 1314

until such time as the issuer represents it has returned that remuneration to its source and will decline any such future remuneration. Such suspensions shall not be construed as impairing the right of contract.

5. The attorney general shall take such action as is provided in this subsection in the defense or prosecution of rights protected under section 1.330 and this section.

until such time as the issuer represents it has returned that remuneration, credit, or subsidy to its source and will decline any such future remuneration, credit, or subsidy. Such suspensions shall not be construed as impairing the right of contract

(C) The attorney general shall take such action as is provided in {insert appropriate state law} in the defense or prosecution of rights protected under this chapter.

It is the duty of the attorney general to seek injunctive and any other appropriate relief as expeditiously as possible to preserve the rights and property of the residents of the state of Missouri, and to defend as necessary the state of Missouri, its officials, employees, and agents in the event that any law or regulation violating the public policy set forth in section 1.330 and this section, is enacted by any government, subdivision, or agency thereof.

The attorney general shall seek injunctive and any other appropriate relief as expeditiously as possible to preserve the rights and property of the residents of the state, and to defend as necessary the state, and its officials, employees, and agents, in the event that any law or regulation violating the public policy set forth in this chapter is enacted by any government, subdivision, or agency thereof.

‘Education Savings Account Act’ Center for Media and Democracy summary: This "model" legislation helps create financial incentives for people to take their children out of the public school system and support "private" for-profit, religious or other primary and secondary schools. As noted in the bill's own description, as of 2008, no state had a statute like this that reduced or offset the taxes of parents who make up to $190,000 a year, for taking their minor children out of the public school system.

ALEC Model ‘Education Savings Account Act’

HB 1066 As Introduced by Representative Grisamore

(A) Any parent of an eligible student shall qualify for the state to make a grant to their child’s education savings account if the parents sign an agreement promising:

(1) To provide an education for the eligible student in at least the subjects of reading, grammar, mathematics, social studies, and science;

(2) Not to enroll their eligible student in a district or charter school.

2. To enroll a qualified student for a Missouri empowerment account, the parent of the qualified student shall sign an agreement to do the following:

(1) Provide an education for the qualified student in at least the subjects of reading, grammar, mathematics, social studies, and science;

(2) Not enroll the qualified student in a school district or charter school

Declaration Of Support Of Keystone Xl Pipeline In 2013, Representative Caleb Rowden and Senator David Pearce introduced ALEC resolutions supporting the Keystone XL pipeline project as their own. Rowden’s support for the ALEC agenda is especially notable as he introduced the resolution below just one month after taking office as a State Representative The ALEC model even seems to be copied directly from TransCanada’s talking points. This seems to be literally putting the talking points of a multi-national oil company into a bill.

ALEC Model Legislation 2015 MO Language in HCR 6 sponsored by Shane Roden

WHEREAS, the United States is still many years away from ending its dependency on nonrenewable resources despite recent focus on renewable energy. In order to fuel our economy, the United States will need more oil and natural gas, while also requiring additional alternative energy sources like ethanol and other renewables; and

WHEREAS, The United States relies – and will continue to rely for many years – on gasoline, diesel and jet fuel despite the recent focus on renewable and alternative sources of energy, and

WHEREAS, In order to fuel our economy, the United States will need more oil and natural gas while also requiring additional alternative energy sources

WHEREAS, the United States currently depends on foreign imports for more than half of our petroleum usage. As the largest consumer of petroleum in the world, our dependence on foreign oil has created difficult geopolitical relationships with damaging consequences for our national security; and

WHEREAS, The United States currently depends on foreign imports for more than half of its petroleum usage, and is the largest consumer of petroleum in the world,  U.S. dependence on overseas oil has created difficult geopolitical relationships with potentially damaging consequences for our national security; and

WHEREAS, some of the money used to buy Canadian oil will likely later be spent on imported U.S. goods and services, contrasting with the money sent to hostile oil-producing governments which may then be used to further anti-Western agendas; and WHEREAS, supporting the continued shift towards reliable and secure sources of Canadian oil is of vital interest to the United States and the State of Missouri

WHEREAS, Ninety percent of the money used to buy Canadian oil will likely later be spent directly on U.S. goods and services in contrast with increasing the trade relationship with unstable regions. Supporting the continued shift towards reliable and secure sources of North American oil is of vital interest to the United States and the state of {insert state}.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-eighth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby:

(1) Support continued and increased importation of Canadian oil sands; (2) Urge Congress to support continued and increased importation of Canadian oil sands; and

(3) Urge Congress to ask the United States Secretary of State to approve the TransCanada Keystone Coast Expansion pipeline project that has been awaiting a presidential permit since 2008 to reduce dependence on unstable governments, improve our national security, and strengthen ties with an important ally; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That we, the members of the {insert legislative body} of the state of {insert state},

support continued and increased development and delivery of oil derived from North American oil reserves to American refineries;

urge Congress to support  continued and increased development and delivery of oil from Canada to the United States;,

and urge Congress to ask the U.S. Secretary of State to approve the Keystone XL pipeline project that has been awaiting a presidential permit since 2008  to ensure America’s oil independence, improve our national security, reduce the cost of gasoline, create new jobs, and strengthen ties between the United States and Canada ; and

ALEC Model Legislation PRWatch.org

2013 MO Language in HCR 19, sponsored by Caleb Rowden

2013 MO Language in SCR 7 Sponsored by David Pearce

WHEREAS, The United States relies – and will continue to rely for many years – on gasoline, diesel and jet fuel despite the recent focus on renewable and alternative sources of energy, and

WHEREAS, the United States relies - and will continue to rely for many years - on gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, as well as renewable and alternative sources of energy; and

WHEREAS, the United States relies - and will continue to rely for many years - on gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, as well as renewable and alternative sources of energy; and

WHEREAS, In order to fuel our economy, the United States will need more oil and 8 natural gas while also requiring additional alternative energy sources.

[…]

WHEREAS, in order to fuel our economy, the United States will need more oil and natural gas while also requiring additional alternative energy sources; and […]

WHEREAS, the United States accounts for 20 percent of world energy consumption and is the world’s largest petroleum consumer.

[…]

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That we, the members of the {insert legislative body} of the state of {insert state},

support continued and increased development and delivery of oil derived from North American oil reserves to American refineries;

urge Congress to support continued and increased development and delivery of oil from Canada to the United States;, and

urge Congress to ask the U.S. Secretary of State to approve the Keystone XL pipeline project that has been awaiting a

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-seventh General Assembly, First Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby strongly:

(1) Support continued and increased development and delivery of oil derived from North American oil reserves to United States refineries;

(2) Urge the United States Congress to support continued and increased development and delivery of oil from Canada to the United States;

(3) Urge the President of the United States to support the continued and increased importation of oil derived from the Bakken formation in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, as well as Canadian oil sands;

(4) Urge the United States Secretary of State to approve the newly routed pipeline application from

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the Missouri Senate, Ninety-seventh General Assembly, First Regular Session, the House of Representatives concurring therein, hereby

support continued and increased development and delivery of oil derived from North American oil reserves to American refineries and hereby

urge the United States Congress to: support continued and increased development and delivery of oil from Canada to the United States; and urge the President to support the continued and increased importation of oil derived from the Bakken formation in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota as well as Canadian oil sands; and

ask the U.S. Secretary of State to approve the newly-routed pipeline application from

Opposing Common Core State Standards Common Core Standards have been adopted in more than 40 states, including Missouri. Despite being approved by administrations and legislatures of both parties throughout the country, ALEC supported a resolution opposing the standards. In ALEC, the far right Arizona think tank funded by the Koch Brothers, the Goldwater Institute sponsored this resolution. The Common Core standards seek to raise state academic standards, subject to state approval, without imposing a national curriculum.

Missouri Bills: HB616, SB 210 2013 Sponsors & Cosponsors: Kurt Bahr, Tim Jones, Andrew Koenig, Doug Funderburk, Bryan Spencer, Bill Lant, Dwight Scharnhorst, Paul Curtman, Rick Brattin, Mark Parkinson, Lyndall Fraker, Nick Marshall, Sandy Crawford, Paul Fitzwater, Caleb Jones, John Diehl

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Clerk of the {insert legislative body} transmit 60 duly authenticated copies of this resolution to the Speaker and Clerk of the United States 61 House of Representatives, to the President Pro Tempore and Secretary of the United 62 States Senate, to the members of the {insert state) Congressional delegation, and to the 63 news media of {insert state}.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare properly inscribed copies of this resolution for the President of the United States, the President Pro Tem of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and each member of the Missouri Congressional delegation.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Missouri Senate be instructed to prepare properly inscribed copies of this resolution for the President of the United States, the President Pro Tem of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and each member of the Missouri Congressional delegation

ALEC Model Legislation CommonCause.org

2013 MO Language in HB616

Wireless Communication Towers The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Model Wireless Communications Tower Siting Act sets guidelines and limits for municipalities on the regulation of new and existing wireless towers and antennas. Generally, the act allows cities and towns to enforce the same local zoning and construction laws on cell tower siting that apply to other development, but attempts to legislate against discriminatory treatment of wireless service providers.

HB345 Sponsors & Cosponsors: Mike Cierpiot, Doug Funderburk, Dave Schatz, Charlie Davis, Ron Hicks, Don Gosen

Section A. Chapter 161, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 161.855, to read as follows:

The State Board of Education may not adopt, and the State Department of Education may not implement, the Common Core State Standards developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Any actions taken to adopt or implement the Common Core State Standards as of the effective date of this section are void ab initio. Neither this nor any other statewide education standards may be adopted or implemented without the approval of the Legislature.

161.855. Notwithstanding any other law, the state board of education shall not adopt, and the department of elementary and secondary education shall not implement, the Common Core State Standards developed by the Common Core Standards Initiative. Any actions taken to adopt or implement the Common Core State Standards as of the effective date of this section are void. Common Core State Standards or any other statewide education standards shall not be adopted or implemented without the approval of the general assembly.

ALEC Model Legislation ALECExposed.org

2013 MO Language in HB345

Antenna: Communications equipment t h a t t r a n s m i t s a n d r e c e i v e s electromagnetic radio signals used in the provision of all types of wireless communications services. Collocation: The placement or installation of wireless facilities, on existing structures, including towers, buildings, utility poles, and water tanks in a manner that negates the need to construct a new free standing support structure such as a tower

Utility pole: A structure owned and/or operated by a public utility, municipality, electric membership corporation or rural electric cooperative that is designed (3) Charge an application fee, consulting fee or other fee associated with the submission, review, processing and approval of a permit that is not required for other types of commercial development within the authority’s jurisdiction. Fees imposed by a local authority or by a third-party entity providing review or technical consultation to the local authority, cannot exceed what is usual and customary. In no case should total charges and fees exceed ____ for a collocation or ______ for the placement and construction of a new wireless facility and/or support structures.

(2) "Antenna", communications equipment that transmits or receives electromagnetic radio signals used in the provision of any type of wireless communications services;

(8) "Collocation", the placement or installation of a new wireless facility on existing structure, including electrical transmission towers, water towers, buildings, and other structures capable of structurally supporting the attachment of wireless facilities in compliance with applicable codes;

(15) "Utility pole", a structure owned or operated by a utility that is designed specifically for and used to carry lines, cables, or wires for telephony, cable television, or electricity, or to provide lighting;

(10) Charge an application fee, consulting fee, or other fee associated with the submission, review, processing, and approval of an application that is not required for similar types of commercial development within the authority's jurisdiction. Fees imposed by an authority for or directly by a third-party entity providing review or technical consultation to the authority must be based on actual, direct, and reasonable administrative costs incurred for the review, processing, and approval of an application. In no case should total charges and fees exceed five hundred dollars for a collocation application or one thousand five hundred dollars for an application for a new wireless …

"Parent Trigger" Act According to the Associated Press, the bill "would enable parents, if a majority agreed, to convert a public school to a charter or get vouchers to send their children elsewhere if they're unhappy with their current school… Dave Wright, president of the Missouri School Boards' Association, called the bill's three options 'simple and unproven' and inadequate for solving schools' complex problems. He also said parents of a single school shouldn't be given direct power over it because their decisions affect local property owners who pay taxes to the school district."

This legislation would allow a single vote to undermine the opportunity for a generation or more of children to attend public schools, while redirecting tax dollars from public schools to private institutions including for-profit school companies, even potentially "online" school companies that would receive a huge portion of per pupil fees without the expense of providing buildings, desks, sports, and the other social education of schools. ALEC's education task force includes numerous for-profit education corporations like K12 Inc., Insight Schools, and Bridgepoint Education. Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Tim Jones, ALEC State Co-Chair Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Scott Dieckhaus, Cole McNary, Jay Barnes, Todd Richardson, Andrew Koenig, Shane Schoeller and Gary Cross (HB 393). Gary Fuhr, Bill Lant, Stanley Cox, Galen Higdon, and Doug Funderburk (HB 1539) Missouri Bills: HB393, HB1539 ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_trigger

ALEC Model Legislation HB393

 Section 1: {Short Title} This act may be cited as the "Parent Empowerment and Choice Act" or the "Parent Trigger Act."   Section 2. {Definitions} For purposes of this article, the following definitions apply:   (A) "Parent" means the natural or adoptive parent or guardian of a dependent child.   (B) "School district of enrollment" means a school district other than the school district in which the parent of a pupil resides, but in which the parent of the pupil nevertheless intends to enroll the pupil pursuant to this article.   (C) "School district of residence" means a school district in which the parent of a pupil resides and in which the pupil would otherwise be required to enroll pursuant to state code.   Section 3. {Parent Empowerment} For all public schools where more than one-half of the parents or legal guardians of pupils attending the school, or a combination of more than one-half of the parents or legal guardians of pupils attending the school and the elementary or middle schools that normally matriculate into a middle or high school, as applicable, sign a petition requesting the local educational agency to implement one or more of the three interventions identified pursuant to

160.1200. 1. The provisions of sections 160.1200 to 160.1206 shall be known as the "Parent Empowerment and Choice Act" or the "Parent Trigger Act".

 2. As used in sections 160.1200 to 160.1206, the following terms mean:

(1) "Parent", the natural parent or adoptive parent or guardian of a dependent child;

(2) "School district of enrollment", a school district other than the school district in which the parent of a pupil resides, but in which the parent of the pupil nevertheless intends to enroll the pupil under sections 160.1200 to 160.1206;

(3) "School district of residence", a school district in which the parent of a pupil resides and in which the pupil would otherwise be required to enroll under state law.

160.1202. 1. For all public schools where more than fifty percent of the parents of pupils attending school, or a combination of more than fifty percent of the parents of pupils attending the school and the elementary or middle schools that normally matriculate into a middle or high school, as applicable, sign a petition requesting the local educational agency to implement one or more of the three

Private Attorney Retention Act Rep. Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia) has publicly acknowledged that 'his' legislation was modeled on an ALEC proposal, spurred by concern about fees paid to private lawyers as part of the national settlement with tobacco companies. (Missouri Lawyers Media, 03/20/11, and Summary of HB 255, 2011)

For decades, ALEC has been funded in part by tobacco companies and their lawyers. Reynolds sits on ALEC's board and also sponsors cigar parties at ALEC resort meetings.

Legislators previously sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Stanley Cox Legislators previously co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Bob Nance and Chuck Gatschenberger (HB 255), Chuck Gatschenberger, Bryan Stevenson, and Walt Bivins (HB 2236). Missouri Bills: HB255, HB2236 ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_attorney

ALEC Model HB255

Section 1. {Title} This act may be known as the Private Attorney Retention Sunshine Act

Section 2. {Definitions} A. For the purposes of this Act, a contract in excess of $1,000,000 is one in which the fee paid to an attorney or group of attorneys, either in the form of a flat, hourly, or contingent fee, and their expenses, exceeds or can be reasonably expected to exceed $1,000,000.

B. For the purposes of this Act, "fees" shall include any compensation for legal services however measured, including but not limited to flat, hourly, and contingent fees.

Section 3. {Procurement} Any state agency or state agent that wishes to retain a lawyer or law firm to perform legal services on behalf of this state, where the fees and expenses for such services will exceed or can be reasonably expected to exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), shall not do so until an open and competitive bidding process has been undertaken. [Refer to existing state thresholds and requirements for procuring outside services by bid]

484.500. 1. This act shall be known as the "Private Attorney Retention Act".

2. (1) For the purposes of this section, a contract in excess of one million dollars is one which the fee paid to an attorney or group of attorneys, either in the form of a flat, hourly, or contingent fee, and their expenses, exceeds or can be reasonably expected to exceed one million dollars.

(2) For purposes of this section "fees" shall include any compensation for legal services however measured, including but not limited to flat, hourly, and contingent fees.

3. Any state agency or state agent that wishes to retain a lawyer or law firm to perform legal services on behalf of this state, where the fees and expenses for such services will exceed or can be reasonably expected to exceed one hundred thousand dollars, shall not do so until an open and competitive bidding process has been undertaken.

 4. No state agency or state agent shall enter into a contract for legal services exceeding one million dollars without the opportunity for legislative review of the terms of the contract in accordance with

Voter Registration Obstacles "House Bill 2109 is horrendous for a variety of reasons," wrote the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on April 11, 2012. "Examining its origins, its sloppy construction and its potentially devastating results sheds light on how far modern conservative ideals have drifted from what Mr. Reagan had espoused for the Republican Party." This bill makes it more difficult for American citizens residing in Missouri to register to vote using IDs and proof of residency that have traditionally been accepted for decades in the state.

The bill was a product of ALEC’s notorious Public Safety and Elections Task Force, which also promoted the controversial Voter ID legislation, which swept into states in 2010 and 2011. After increasing public pressure, ALEC claimed to have disbanded this task force in April 2012, yet its bills and laws live on.

Legislators previously sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Shane Schoeller Missouri Bills: HB2109 ALEC 'Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act' Model: http://j.mp/alec_voterreg

HB2109 house.mo.gov

Alabama HB56 legislature.state.al.ushttp://latindispatch.com

ALEC's Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act alecexposed.org

2. (1) A person applying to register with an election authority or a deputy registration official shall identify himself or herself by presenting a form of personal identification that provides evidence of United States citizenship. All such forms presented under this subsection shall be kept confidential by the election authority, and shall include one of the following:

(k) Evidence of United States citizenship shall be demonstrated by one of the following documents, or a legible photocopy of one of the following documents:

(F) The county recorder shall reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship. Satisfactory evidence of citizenship shall include any of the following:

(a) A copy of a birth certificate[, a Native American tribal document, other proof of United States citizenship,] that verifies United States citizenship to the satisfaction of the election authority;

 (2) The applicant's birth certificate that verifies United States citizenship to the satisfaction of the county election officer or Secretary of State.

(2) A legible photocopy of the applicant's birth certificate that verifies citizenship to the satisfaction of the county recorder.

(b) A valid Missouri drivers license or [other form of personal identification at the time of registration] nondriver license, or a drivers license or nondriver identification card issued by the equivalent governmental agency of another state if such license or card indicates that the person has presented proof of United States citizenship upon application for such license or card;

(1) The applicant's driver's license or nondriver's identification card issued by the division of motor vehicles or the equivalent governmental agency of another state within the United States if the agency indicates on the applicant's driver's license or nondriver's identification card that the person has provided satisfactory proof of United States citizenship.

(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.

(c) Pertinent pages of the applicant's United States valid or expired passport identifying the applicant and the applicant's passport number, or presentation to the election authority of the applicant's United States passport;

(3) Pertinent pages of the applicant's United States valid or expired passport identifying the applicant and the applicant's passport number, or presentation to the county election officer of the applicant's United States passport.

(3) A legible photocopy of pertinent pages of the applicant's United States passport identifying the applicant and the applicant's passport number or presentation to the county recorder of the applicant's united states passport.

(d) The applicant's United States naturalization documents or the number of the certificate of naturalization. If only the number of the certificate of naturalization is provided, the applicant shall not be included in the registration rolls until the number of the certificate of naturalization is verified with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, or its successor agency, by the election authority or the secretary of state, under 8 U.S.C. Section 1373(c), as amended;

(4) The applicant's United States naturalization documents or the 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 Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services by the county election officer or the Secretary of State, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c).

(4) A presentation to the county recorder of the applicant's United States naturalization documents or the number of the certificate of naturalization. If only the number of the certificate of naturalization is provided, the applicant shall not be included in the registration rolls until the number of the certificate of naturalization is verified with the United States immigration and naturalization service by the county recorder.

Resolution Opposing Food & Beverage Taxes Makers of high-fructose corn syrup beverages and other fast foods have underwritten ALEC's operations over the years while also supporting bills to limit taxes being proposed to address the increase in health care costs attributable to diseases related to the consumption of these products. ALEC legislators have helped advance the agenda of such corporations.

Legislators sponsoring or co-sponsoring this ALEC bill in Missouri: Joe Smith, Larry Wilson Missouri Bills: HCR 44, ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_food

ALEC Model Food and Beverage Resolution

HCR 44 in 2010

WHEREAS this global recession has spread economic stress across all income levels, with lower and middle-income Americans especially hard hit;

Whereas, this global recession has spread economic stress across all income levels, with lower- and middle income Americans especially hit hard; and

WHEREAS a frugal lifestyle and stretching the daily living expenses is a necessity for hardworking lower and middle income Americans;

Whereas, a frugal lifestyle and stretching the daily living expenses is a necessity for hardworking lower- and middle-income Americans; and

WHEREAS governments faced with their own economic shortfalls reflexively pursue indiscriminate taxes rather than reigning in expenditures;

Whereas, governments faced with their own economic shortfalls reflexively pursue indiscriminate taxes rather than reigning in expenditures; and

WHEREAS it is vital that public policy makers help hardworking Americans retain their tenuous hold on financial security by shielding them from even more burdensome discriminatory taxes; and

Whereas, it is vital that public policymakers help hardworking Americans retain their tenuous hold on financial security by shielding them from even more burdensome discriminatory taxes:

NOW THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT: __________________________fully supports hardworking Americans, and opposes all efforts – federally and on the state level – to impose discriminatory taxes on food and/or beverages.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-fifth General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, fully support the hardworking Americans and oppose all efforts, federally and on the state level, to impose discriminatory taxes on food or beverages.

"Castle Doctrine" or "Shoot First" Law This bill is based on an NRA-conceived bill that first passed in Florida in 2005 and then was adopted as an ALEC model at a closed-door meeting later that year with ALEC Criminal Justice Task Force co-chair Wal-Mart (the largest seller of long guns and ammunition) at the helm. Key provisions of this bill have been supported by ALEC legislators in 34 states, by the NRA's count, and have resulted in an increase in people shot, including unarmed citizens killed, by people asserting that they are immune from prosecution as a result of these changes made by this law. The "Castle Doctrine" is a deceptive misnomer because Missourians and Americans from every other state already had a long-standing right of self-defense in their homes (their "castles") but this law expands the circumstances in which a person can shoot to kill another person and get immunity from prosecution and civil damages for the death of another.

The bill was a product of ALEC’s notorious Public Safety and Elections Task Force, which also promoted the controversial Voter ID legislation, which swept into states in 2010 and 2011. After increasing public pressure, ALEC claimed to have disbanded this task force in April 2012, yet its bills and laws live on.

NOTE: ALEC claims that the organization no longer promotes or supports these laws.

Legislators previously sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Kenny Jones Legislators previously co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Rodney Schad, Charles Portwood, Barney Fisher, Gary Dusenberg, James Whorton, Doug Ervin, Belinda Harris, Brian Baker, Timothy Flook, Therese Sander, Raymond Weter, Brian Munzlinger, Walt Bivins, Cynthia Davis, Jason Smith, Marilyn Ruestman, Mike McGhee, David Sater, Edward Robb, Danielle Moore, and Michael Frame (HB 189). Peter Myers, Timothy Meadows, James Whorton, Doug Ervin, Brian Munzlinger, Jason Smith, Mike Dethrow, Bill Deeken, Tom Loehner, Michael Parson, and Rodney Schad (HB 1103) Missouri Bills: HB 189, HB1103 ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_food http://j.mp/alec_castle

ALEC Castle Doctrine Act 2007: HB 189

Section 1. {Home Protection, Use of Deadly Force, Presumption of Fear of Death or Harm}

1. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

563.043.

1. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

b. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

2. The presumption set forth in Subsection (1) does not apply if:

 2. The presumption set forth in subsection 1 of this section does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

b. The person or persons sought to be removed is a child, grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(2) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or

(3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in [insert appropriate reference to state/commonwealth code, which defines the term "law enforcement officer" or similar], who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to

(4) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer

Re-Casting the Tenth Amendment This resolution represents an attempt to re-interpret the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution in order to thwart federal regulations. Although it is not mentioned in this resolution, one of the objectives of such efforts is to make it more difficult to regulate polluters whose products may endanger the health and safety of Missouri families. 2013 Legislators sponsoring this legislation: Chrissy Sommer 2013 Legislators Co-sponsoring this legislation: Mike Kelley

Legislators previously sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Lyle Rowland (HCR 7 & HCR 12), Jim Guest (HCR13) Legislators previously co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Don Phillips, Rodney Schad, Paul Curtman, Thomas Long, Bill Lant, Paul Fitzwater, Melissa Leach, Craig Redmon, Cloria Brown, Charlie Denison, Marsha Haefner, Wanda Brown, Sue Allen, Kathie Conway, Tony Dugger, Andrew Koenig, Mike Thompson, Lyndall Fraker, and Kent Hampton. Doug Ervin (HCR13). Missouri Bills: HCR 7, HCR 12, HCR 13, HCR 6 ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_tenther

ALEC Model "Reaffirming 10th Amendment Rights

2013: HCR 6

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment was part of the original Bill of Rights, which was proposed on September 25, 1789, ratified by three-fourths of the states, and went into effect on December 15, 1791; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment limits the scope of federal power and prescribes that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states,

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

rather than the states being agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2012, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, when taking the oath of office, all members of the General Assembly of [Insert State] solemnly swear that they will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of {Insert State} ; and

WHEREAS, many federal mandates are in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and infringe upon both the reserved powers of { Insert State} and the people's reserved powers; and

WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states by commanding them to enact and enforce regulatory programs; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in Printz v. United States/Mack v. United States, 521 u.s. 898 (1997), reaffirmed that the Constitution of the United States established a system of "dual sovereignty" that retains "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty" by the states;

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that { Insert State} hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the Missouri House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby claims sovereignty for the State of Missouri under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and

Anti-Affordable Care Act Amendment ALEC claims on its website that "Missouri...passed the ALEC model as a statute." From ALEC.org: "In December 2008, ALEC adopted as model legislation the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which helps states block a government requirement to purchase health insurance. Now 42 states have either introduced or announced that they will introduce ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act. Six states (Virginia, Idaho, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, and Missouri) passed the ALEC model as a statute, and two states (Arizona and Oklahoma) passed the model as a constitutional amendment. An active citizen initiative is also underway in Mississippi." Missouri has long had a requirement that drivers purchase automotive insurance, and the federal bill was based on efforts to ensure that all Americans were included in the pool of people with health insurance and access to health care.

The United States Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate.

Legislators previously sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Jane Cunningham Legislators previously co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Jim Lembke, Kevin Engler, Gary Nodler, Delbert Scott, Brad Lager, Rob Mayer, John Griesheimer, Matt Bartle, Tom Dempsey, Norma Champion, Jason Crowell, Luann Ridgeway, Jack Goodman, Bill Stouffer, Eric Schmitt, Chuck Purgason, Scott Rupp, Kurt Schaefer, Dan Clemens, and Carl VogelMissouri Bills: SJR 25 ALEC Claim: http://www.alec.org

Health Care Choice Act for States ALEC’s Health Care Choice For States Act is a bill to allow health insurance to be sold across state lines. This idea would abdicate Missouri’s control over its health care to other states, like Mississippi and Alabama. A policy like this would create a race to the bottom, allowing health insurance corporations to circumvent Missouri’s policies by setting up policies in other states, and selling insurance to Missourians below Missouri’s standards.

ALEC Model Legislation ALECExposed.org

2013 MO Language in SB 158

A. The {insert state legislative body} recognizes the need for individuals, employers, and other purchasers of health insurance coverage in this state to have the opportunity to choose health insurance plans that are more affordable and flexible than existing market policies offering accident and sickness insurance coverage. Therefore, the {insert state legislative body} seeks to increase the availability of health insurance coverage by allowing insurers authorized to engage in the business of insurance in selected states to issue accident and sickness policies in {insert state}.

B. The selected out-of-state insurers shall not be required to offer or provide state- mandated health benefits required by {insert state} law or regulations in health insurance policies sold to {insert state} residents.

C. Each written application for participation in an out-of-state health benefit plan shall contain the following language in boldface type at the beginning of the document:

1. “This policy is primarily governed by the laws of {insert state where the master policy is filed}; therefore, all of the rating laws applicable to policies filed in this state

376.684. 1. The Missouri general assembly recognizes the need for individuals, employers, and other purchasers of health insurance coverage in this state to have the opportunity to choose health insurance plans that are more affordable and flexible than existing market policies offering accident and sickness insurance coverage. Therefore, the Missouri general assembly seeks to increase the availability of health insurance coverage by allowing insurers authorized to engage in the business of insurance in selected states to issue accident and sickness policies in Missouri.

2. The selected out-of-state insurers shall not be required to offer or provide state mandated health benefits required by Missouri law or regulations in health insurance policies sold to Missouri residents.

3. Each written application for participation in an out-of-state health benefit plan shall contain the following language in boldface type at the beginning of the document:

"This policy is primarily governed by the laws of (insert state where the master policy is filed); therefore, all of the rating laws applicable to policies filed in this state do not apply to this policy,

Resolution Asking Congress to Privatize Social Security

This legislation by then-Senator Peter Kinder "urges Congress to amend the Social Security Act and other statutes to allow Missouri citizens to voluntarily opt-out of the federal Social Security System and invest their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts."

The effort to privatize social security has been funded since the mid-1970s by the Koch family and other billionaires. Workers have a variety of options for personal retirement accounts that risk being gambled and lost on Wall Street, in addition to the guaranteed income provided by Social Security to older and disabled Americans. Most Americans do not realize that the future solvency of the Social Security fund could be secured by taxing all income earned rather than the current loophole for people who earn more than $105,000 a year or who earn all their income from capital gains. Taking more funds out of the social security pool for private investment in Wall Street would weaken the fund and increase the risk to workers of having no pension income or social safety net as they age or if they become disabled.

Legislators previously sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Peter Kinder Missouri Bills: SCR 22 ALEC Claim: http://j.mp/alec_privatizess

ALEC Model on Personal Retirement Accounts

2004: SCR 22

WHEREAS, Social Security is a federal program that does not recognize the retirement needs of many Americans; and

WHEREAS, Social Security is a federal program that does not recognize the retirement needs of many Missourians; and

WHEREAS, Social Security tax revenues alone will be insufficient to pay current benefits as early as the year 2015; and

WHEREAS, Social Security tax revenues alone will be insufficient to pay current benefits as early as the year 2015; and

WHEREAS, the Social Security Trust Funds may be completely exhausted by the year 2037; and

WHEREAS, the Social Security Trust Funds may be completely exhausted by the year 2037; and

WHEREAS, the investment return on Social Security contributions made by workers today is significantly below that available from other sources; and

WHEREAS, the investment return on Social Security contributions made by workers today is significantly below that available from other sources; and

WHEREAS, workers deserve the opportunity to invest more productively for their own retirements; and

WHEREAS, workers deserve the opportunity to invest more productively for their own retirements; and

WHEREAS, more retirement investment opportunities might dramatically increase workers' savings rate and retain more young adults who otherwise would leave the state for jobs elsewhere; and

WHEREAS, more retirement investment opportunities might dramatically increase workers' savings rate and retain more young adults who otherwise would leave the state for jobs elsewhere; and

WHEREAS, the unfunded liability of the Social Security system exceeds $9 trillion, according to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System; and

WHEREAS, the unfunded liability of the Social Security system exceeds $9 trillion, according to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System; and

WHEREAS, many workers are already facing very low or even negative rates of return on their lifetimes of Social Security contributions; and

WHEREAS, many workers are already facing very low or even negative rates of return on their lifetimes of Social Security contributions; and

WHEREAS, the aging of the U.S. population means that fewer and fewer active workers will be supporting more and more retirees under today's pay-as-you-go financing for Social Security; and

WHEREAS, the aging of the United States population means that fewer and fewer active workers will be supporting more and more retirees under today's pay-as-you-go financing for Social Security; and

WHEREAS, this ratio of retirees to workers has shrunk from 15 to 1 in 1950 to less than 3 to 1 today and soon will fall to less than 2 to 1; and

WHEREAS, this ration of retirees to workers has shrunk from 42 to 1 in 1935 when the program was first started, to less than 3 to 1 today and soon fall to less than 2 to 1; and

WHEREAS, raising payroll or income taxes to compensate for this demographic shrinkage will mean that today's workers get an even worse return on their federal retirement contributions than they do now; and

WHEREAS, raising payroll or income taxes to compensate for this demographic shrinkage will mean that today's workers get an even worse return on their federal retirement contributions than they do now; and

WHEREAS, broadly cutting Social Security benefits also would worsen rates of return; and

WHEREAS, broadly cutting Social Security benefits also would worsen rates of return; and

WHEREAS, states and localities that allow their own employees to invest a portion of their taxes for retirement have shown that workers can do better for themselves with such accounts than under Social Security; and

WHEREAS, states and localities that allow their own employees to invest a portion of their taxes for retirement have shown that workers can do better for themselves with such accounts than under Social Security; and

"Parents Rights" Resolution From the Center for Media and Democracy: "This 'model'... attempts to dress up the effort to privatize the American tradition of public education as a parental right, creating a political wedge issue while also elevating these privatization efforts to "constitutional" status, which can then be used as a weapon to strike down any statute that is purported to infringe on the rights granted by this vague amendment."

Legislators previously sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Kurt Bahr Legislators previously co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Mellissa Leach, Paul Fitzwater, Rick Brattin, Sandy Crawford, Diane Franklin, Chrissy Sommer, Ronald Schieber, Sue Allen, Lindell Shumake, Tim Jones, John McCaherty, Thomas Long, Wayne Wallingford, Steven Tilley, Brent Lasater, Eric Burlison, Andrew Koenig, Mark Parkinson, Nick Marshall, and Mike KelleyMissouri Bills: HCR 50 ALEC Claim: http://j.mp/alec_parental

ALEC Model Legislation MO Language in 2012: HCR 50

Be it resolved that the state constitution be amended to read as follows:

The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children shall not be infringed. The legislature shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this section.

WHEREAS,

the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Missouri; and

Mortgage Fraud Act This bill focuses on home-owners rather than on the mortgage industry and its fraudulent and deceptive lending practices that left numerous Missouri families with escalating interest and balloon payments nearly impossible to repay in exchange for short-term lower payments by the homeowner and major income and profits to banks through re-financing schemes.

Legislators previously sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Charlie Shields Legislators previously co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Michael Gibbons Missouri Bills: SB 727 ALEC Claim: http://j.mp/alec_mortgagefraud

ALEC Model Legislation Mortgage Fraud Act

MO Language in 2008: SB 727

As used in this Act: 4. For the purposes of this section the following terms shall have the following meanings:

(A) "Mortgage lending process" means the process through which a person seeks or obtains a mortgage loan, including solicitation, application, or origination, negotiation of terms, third-party provider services, underwriting, signing and closing, and funding of the loan.

(1) "Mortgage lending process", the process through which a person seeks or obtains a residential mortgage loan including solicitation, application, origination, negotiation of terms, third-party provider services, underwriting, signing, closing, and funding of the loan;

(A) A person commits the offense of mortgage fraud if the person does any of the following with the intent to defraud:

(1) knowingly makes any material misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission during the mortgage lending process, intending that it be relied upon by a mortgage lender, borrower, or any other party to the mortgage lending process;

(2) knowingly uses or facilitates the use of any material misstatement misrepresentation, or omission, during the mortgage lending process, intending that it be relied upon by a mortgage lender, borrower, or any other party to the mortgage lending process;

A person commits residential mortgage fraud if, with the intent to defraud, the person engages in any of the following practices:

(1) Knowingly makes any deliberate misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission during the mortgage lending process that is relied on by a mortgage lender, borrower, or other party to the mortgage lending process;

(2) Knowingly uses or facilitates the use of any deliberate misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission during the mortgage lending process that is relied on by a mortgage lender, borrower, or other party to the mortgage lending process;

(3) files or causes to be filed with any county recorder in {insert state} any document that the person knows contains a material misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission; or

(4) Files or causes to be filed with the office of the county recorder of any county of this state any document relating to a residential mortgage loan that the person knows to contain a deliberated misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission.

(4) receives any proceeds or any compensation in connection with a mortgage loan that the person knows resulted from a violation of this section.

(3) Receives any proceeds or other moneys in connection with a residential mortgage loan that the person knows resulted from a violation of subdivisions (1) or (2) of this subsection;

Private Property Protection Act This bill would make it more difficult for states and cities to regulate polluting industries, factory farms, or other activities by embracing a re-interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to allow a property owner to claim a "regulatory" taking of property if a regulation affects property values. Such an interpretation makes it more difficult for the people's representatives to protect the health and safety of Missouri families from businesses that attempt to use their property in ways that expose others to harm or nuisances.

Legislators previously sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Marilyn A. Williams Legislators previously co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Gary Wiggins, Sam Leake, Kenneth Legan, Bill Ransdall, Phillip Britt, Peter Myers, James Graham, Daniel Hegeman, Dan Ward, Jerry McBride, Denny Merideth, Bill Foster, Todd Richardson, Mark Elliot, Martin (Bubs) Hohulin, Jim Kreider, and Lanie Black Missouri Bills: HB 1798 ALEC Model: ALECExposed.com

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

Section 3. {Inverse condemnation.} (A) Regulatory takings.

Whenever implementation by the State or any of its political subdivisions of any regulatory program operates to reduce the fair market value of real property for the uses permitted at the time the owner acquired the title, or {insert date}, whichever is later, the property shall be deemed to have been taken for the use of the public. Such regulatory programs include, but are not limited to, land use planning or zoning programs.

523.254. 1.

Whenever implementation by the state or any of its political subdivisions of any regulatory program operates to reduce by at least twenty percent the fair market value of real property for the uses permitted at the time the owner acquired the title, or on the effective date of sections 523.250 to 523.262, whichever is later, the property shall be deemed to have been taken for the use of the public.

(B) Compensation Required. The owner or user shall have the right to require condemnation by and just compensation from the governmental unit, or units, when more than one governmental unit is involved, imposing the regulation resulting in decreased value, or to receive compensation for the reduction in value caused by government action, and in either case to have such compensation determined by a jury. When more than one governmental unit is involved, the court shall determine the proportion each unit shall be required to contribute to the compensation.

2. The owner of the property which suffered the regulatory taking shall have the right to require condemnation by and just compensation from the governmental unit, or units if more than one governmental unit is involved, imposing the regulation resulting in decreased value, or to receive compensation for the reduction in value caused by government action, and in either case to have such compensation determined by a jury. If more than one governmental unit is involved, the court shall determine the proportion each unit shall be required to contribute to the compensation.

(C) Fair Market value. The compensation shall be for the full value of the interest taken or for the full amount of the decrease in fair market value.

Compensation is required pursuant to this section only in instances where the fair market value of the property is reduced by at least twenty percent.

(D) Conditional waivers prohibited. Governmental units subject to the provisions of this Act shall not make waiver of the provisions of this Act a condition for approval of the use of real property or the issuance of any permit or other entitlement. Plaintiffs may accept an approval of use, permit, or other entitlement granted by the governmental unit without compromising their rights under this Act if:

3. Governmental units subject to sections 523.250 to 523.262 shall not make waiver of the provisions of sections 523.250 to 523.262 a condition for approval of the use of real property or the issuance of any permit or other entitlement. Plaintiffs may accept an approval of use, permit or other entitlement granted by the governmental unit without compromising their rights pursuant to sections 523.250 to 523.262 if:

(1) A written reservation of rights is made at the time of acceptance of said authorization, permit, or other entitlement; or

(1) A written reservation of rights is made at the time of acceptance of such authorization, permit or other entitlement;

(2) By oral statement made before the governmental unit granting the authorization, permit, or other entitlement at a public meeting at which the governmental unit renders its decision.

(2) By oral statement made before the governmental unit granting the authorization, permit or other entitlement at a public meeting at which the governmental unit renders its decision;

(3) The owner or user may make his/her reservation in either or both forms.

(3) The owner or user may make his or her reservation in either or both forms.

Section 4. {Exceptions.} No compensation shall be required by virtue of this Act if the regulatory program is an exercise of the police power to prevent uses noxious in fact or demonstrable harm to the health and safety of the public. A use shall be deemed a noxious use if, and only if, it amounts to a public

4. When any regulatory program resulting from a zoning ordinance operates to change a permitted use and the fair market value of the affected real property is the same or greater than before the effective date of the implementation of the regulatory program, no compensation shall be paid pursuant to sections 523.250 to 523.262.

Successor Asbestos-Related Liability Fairness Act

This bill exists to benefit one corporation, and one corporation only: Crown Cork Holdings, f.k.a. Crown Cork and Seal. Traditionally, assets and liabilities must be transferred together in a sale of a company. This bill would alter that traditional rule to the detriment of Americans harmed by the sale of products that contributed to the assets being transferred, thus thwarting responsibilities for injuries and harm. This bill benefits Crown by reducing its liability to asbestos damage related lawsuits, by making it harder for cancer victims to sue Crown.

The bill has been advanced in ALEC by representatives of Missouri based Shook, Hardy, and Bacon LLP. The law firm is the current head of ALEC’s Civil Justice Task Force, and has advised Crown Cork and lobbied for the bill. Thanks to ALEC, this bill has passed in at least 15 states.

It should also be noted that Crown Cork was a large donor to the ALEC scholarship fund around the time this bill passed, and Rep. Yates, the bill’s primary sponsor received funds from the ALEC scholarship fund.

Legislators previously sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Brian Yates Legislators previously co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Bryan Pratt Missouri Bills: HB 2137 ALEC Model: Asbestos Fairness Act

ALEC Model Successor Asbestos-Related Liability Fairness Act

MO Language in 2008's HB 2137

"Asbestos claim" means any claim, wherever or whenever made, for damages, losses, indemnification, contribution, or other relief arising out of, based on, or in any way related to asbestos, including: the health effects of exposure to asbestos, including any claim for: personal injury or death; mental or emotional injury risk of disease or other injury; or the costs of medical monitoring or surveillance, to the extent such claims are recognized under state law;

"Asbestos claim", any claim, wherever or whenever made, for damages, losses, indemnification, contribution, or other relief arising out of, based on, or in any way related to asbestos, including: The health effects of exposure to asbestos, including a claim for: Personal injury or death; Mental or emotional injury; Risk of disease or other injury; or The costs of medical monitoring or surveillance;

Any claim made by or on behalf of any person exposed to asbestos, or a representative, spouse, parent, child, or other relative of the person; and Any claim for damage or loss caused by the installation, presence, or removal of asbestos;

any claim made by or on behalf of any person exposed to asbestos, or a representative, spouse, parent, child, or other relative of the person; and any claim for damage or loss caused by the installation, presence, or removal of asbestos.

(2) "Corporation", a corporation for profit, including a domestic corporation organized under the laws of this state or a foreign corporation organized under laws other than the laws of this state;

(2) "Corporation", a corporation for profit, including a domestic corporation organized under the laws of this state or a foreign corporation organized under laws other than the laws of this state;

"Successor" means a corporation that assumes or incurs, or has assumed or incurred, successor asbestos-related liabilities.

(3) "Innocent successor", a corporation that assumes or incurs or has assumed or incurred successor asbestos-related liabilities that is a successor and became a successor before January 1, 1972, or is any of that successor corporation's successors; and that after a merger or consolidation did not continue in the business of mining asbestos, in the business of selling or distributing asbestos fibers, or in the business of manufacturing, distributing, removing, or installing asbestos-containing products that were the same or substantially the same as those products previously manufactured, distributed, removed, or installed by the transferor;

(d) "Successor asbestos-related liabilities" means any liabilities, whether known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, absolute or contingent, accrued or unaccrued, liquidated or unliquidated, or due or to become due, that are related in any way to asbestos claims (as defined by this Act, as well as any claims for damage or loss caused by the installation, presence, or removal of asbestos) and that were assumed or incurred by a corporation as a result of or in connection with a merger or consolidation, or the plan of merger or consolidation related to the merger or consolidation, with or into another corporation or that are related in any way to asbestos claims

(4)"Successor asbestos-related liabilities", any liability, whether known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, absolute or contingent, accrued or unaccrued, liquidated or unliquidated, or due or to become due, which are related in any way to asbestos claims and were assumed or incurred by a corporation as a result of or in connection with a merger or consolidation or the plan of merger or consolidation related to the merger or consolidation with or into another corporation or which are related in any way to asbestos claims based on the exercise of control or the ownership of stock of the corporation before the merger or consolidation.

Resolution Endorsing Electoral College Resolutions like this seek to defend a procedural rule in the Constitution that thwarts direct democracy by American citizens and has resulted in people being elected to the presidency who did not win a majority of the actual votes by American citizens.

The bill was a product of ALEC’s notorious Public Safety and Elections Task Force, which also promoted the controversial Voter ID legislation, which swept into states in 2010 and 2011. After increasing public pressure, ALEC claimed to have disbanded this task force in April 2012, yet its bills and laws live on.

Legislators previously sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Bob Dixon Legislators previously co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Mark ParkinsonMissouri Bills: HCR 44 ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_attorney

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

HCR44 http://ow.ly/5Ncd3

WHEREAS, the Founding Fathers rejected having the President of the United States elected by a national popular vote and instead chose the Electoral College system; and

WHEREAS, the current Electoral College system encourages presidential candidates to campaign in large metropolitan areas and also in rural areas and small states; and

WHEREAS, the current Electoral College system ensures that the winning Presidential candidate has support from multiple regions of the country; and

WHEREAS, the current Electoral College system respects the Founders' strong belief that individual states should have a vital role in electing the President of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact diminishes the importance of individual states in presidential elections; and

WHEREAS, the current Electoral College system respects the separation of and balance of power and authority between the States and the Federal government; and

WHEREAS, the current Electoral College system ensures that (insert state)'s electoral votes are awarded based on how the majority of the State's citizens vote;

 Whereas, the Founding Fathers rejected having the President of the United States elected by a popular vote and instead chose the electoral college system; and  

Whereas, the current electoral college system encourages presidential candidates to campaign in large metropolitan areas and also in rural areas and small states; and   Whereas, the current electoral college system ensures that the winning presidential candidate has support from multiple regions of the country; and

Whereas, the current electoral college respects the Founding Fathers' strong belief that individual states should have a vital role in electing the President of the United States; and   Whereas, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact diminishes the importance of individual states in presidential elections; and   Whereas, the current electoral college system respects the separation of and balance of power and authority between the States and the Federal government; and   Whereas, the current electoral college system ensures that Missouri's electoral votes are awarded based on how the majority of the State's citizens vote; and  

"The Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act” ALEC’s Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act combines two of ALEC’s primary objectives, cutting public schools to give 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.

Legislators previously sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Luann Ridgeway Missouri Bills: SB 962 ALEC Model:ALECExposed.com

The Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act

MO Language in 2006: SB 962

Section 2. {Definitions}

(B) "Eligible student" means a student who: (1) is a member of a household whose total annual income the year before he or she receives an educational scholarship under this program does not exceed an amount equal to 2.5 times the income standard used to qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch under the national free or reduced-price lunch program established under 42 USC Section 1751 et seq. Once a student receives a scholarship under this program, the student will remain eligible regardless of household income until the student graduates high school or reaches 21 years of age;1

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

(a) Is a member of a household whose total annual income during the year before he or she receives an educational scholarship under this program does not exceed an amount equal to one hundred eight-five percent of the income standard used to qualify for a free or reduced price lunch under the national Free or Reduced Price Lunch Program established under 42 U.S.C. Section 1751, et seq. Once a student receives a scholarship under this program, the student will remain eligible regardless of household income until the student graduates high school or reaches twenty-one years of age;

(2) was eligible to attend a public school in the preceding semester or is starting school in [state] for the firsttime;2

(b) Was eligible to attend a public school in the preceding semester or is starting school in Missouri for the first time; and

(3) Resides in [state] while receiving an educational scholarship.

(c) Resides in any city not within a county, any home rule city with more than four hundred thousand inhabitants and located in more than one county, or in any school district supervised by a special administrative board appointed by the state board of education under the provisions of subsection 3 of section 162.081, RSMo, within the state of Missouri while receiving an educational scholarship;

(C) "Low-income eligible student" means a student who qualifies for a free or reduced-price lunch under the national free or reduced-price lunch program established under 42 USC Section 1751 et seq.3

(D) "Parent" includes a guardian, custodian, or other person with authority to act on behalf of the child.

(4) "Parent", includes a guardian, custodian, or other person with authority to act on behalf of the child;

(E) "Department" means the state Department of Revenue.

(F) “Qualifying school” means either a public school outside of the resident school district, or any private school that provides education to elementary and/or secondary students and has notified the Department of its intention to participate in the program and comply with program requirements.

(6) "Qualified school", either a public elementary or secondary school outside of the district in which a student resides or a nonpublic elementary or secondary school in our state that complies with all of the requirements of the program;

(G) Educational scholarships” means grants to students to cover all or part of the tuition and fees at either a qualifying private school or a qualifying public school, including transportation to a public school outside of a student’s resident school district.

(H) “Scholarship Granting Organization” means an organization that complies with the requirements of the state’ school scholarship tax credit program and provides or is approved to provide educational scholarships to students attending qualifying school of their parent’s choice.

(7) "Scholarship granting organization", an organization that complies with the requirements of this program and provides education scholarships to students attending qualified schools of their parents' choice.

"The Autism Scholarship Program Act” The corporate leadership of ALEC’s Education Task Force has included for-profit school companies like K-12 Inc., Bridgepoint Education, and Connections Academy. Bills that deplete public school funds in order to subsidize private schools provide direct benefit to those corporations. Recognizing that not ever state would be able to pass a large voucher system, ALEC has presented an array of bills to advance small school voucher programs. Some of these bills use a foot-in-the-door technique, appealing to the heartstrings in order to advance an agenda to privatize education.

Legislators previously sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Dwight Scharnhorst Legislators previously co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Tom Self Missouri Bills: HB 1886 ALEC Model: ALECExposed.com

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

(A) The legislative service agency may contract with one or more qualified researchers who have previous experience evaluating school choice programs to conduct a study of the program with funds other than state funds.

163.411. 1. The department shall conduct a study of the program with funds other than state funds. The department may contract with one or more qualified researchers who have previous experience evaluating similar programs. The department may accept grants to assist in funding this study.

(B) The study shall assess:

(1) the level of participating students' satisfaction with the program;

2. The study shall assess:

  (1)The level of participating students' satisfaction with the program;

(2) the level of parental satisfaction with the program;

  (2) The level of parental satisfaction with the program;

(3) the percentage of participating students who were victimized18 because of their special needs status at their resident school district compared with the percentage so victimized at their participating school;

(3) The percentage of participating students who were bullied or harassed because of their special needs status at their resident school district compared to the percentage so bullied or harassed at their qualified school;

(4) the percentage of participating students who exhibited behavioral problems at their resident school district compared with the percentage exhibiting behavioral problems at their participating school;

(4) The percentage of participating students who exhibited behavioral problems at their resident school district compared to the percentage exhibiting behavioral problems at their qualified school;

(5) the class size experienced by participating students at their resident school district and at their participating school; and

(5) The class size experienced by participating students at their resident school district and at their qualified school; and

(6) the fiscal impact to the state and resident school districts of the program.

(6) The fiscal impact to the state and resident school districts of the program.

(C) The researchers who conduct the study shall:

(1) apply appropriate analytical and behavioral science methodologies to ensure public confidence in the study;

3. The study shall be completed using appropriate analytical and behavioral sciences methodologies to ensure public confidence in the study.

(3) provide the legislature with a final copy of the evaluation of the program.

  4. The department shall provide the general assembly with a final copy of the evaluation of the program by December 31, 2009.

Health Care Compact ALEC recently adopted the Health Care Compact as a model bill, and Missouri passed a bill to join the Health Care Compact in 2011. Governor Nixon let the bill go into law without his signature. The bill seeks to abolish federal healthcare programs, not only the Affordable Care Act, but Medicaid and Medicare as well. The bill’s objective is to abolish federal control, yet continue to have the federal government tax the same, and provide the funding in a block grant to the states; as unlikely a prospect as that would be.

In 2013, Missouri saw two bills introduced, almost identical to the Health Care Compact dealing with Education and Energy. The education compact would likely abolish federal education programs like Head Start, and school nutrition programs, and in theory give states a blank check. The energy compact seeks to restrict federal enforcement of the Clean Air Act, and might end federal energy assistance and federal energy efficiency programs. Because of the cookie-cutter nature of these education and energy bills, it is extremely difficult to assess what their impact might be. For a bill seeking to end federal involvement with entire sectors of government, the nature of essentially cutting “health care” and inserting “education” creates such badly drafted legislation with incredibly far reaching yet entirely nebulous effects.

Missouri Bills: HB 423 HB 928 HB 1038 ALEC Model: healthcarecompact.org 2013 Sponsors: Eric Burlison 2013 Co-sponsors: Tim Jones, Doug Funderburk, Steve Cookson, Bryan Spencer, Dwight Scarnhorst, Lyle Rowland, Mike Cierpiot, John Diehl, Mike Lair

The Health Care Compact MO Language in 2013: HB928

Sec. 2. Pledge. The Member States shall take joint and separate action to secure the consent of the United States Congress to this Compact in order to return the authority to regulate Health Care to the Member States consistent with the goals and principles articulated in this Compact. The Member States shall improve Health Care policy within their respective jurisdictions and according to the judgment and discretion of each Member 33 States.

Section 2. Pledge. The Member States shall take joint and separate action to secure the consent of the United States Congress to this Compact in order to return the authority to regulate Education to the Member States consistent with the goals and principles articulated in this Compact. The Member States shall improve education policy within their respective jurisdictions and according to the judgment and discretion of each Member State.

Sec. 3. Legislative Power. The legislatures of the Member States have the primary responsibility to regulate Health Care in their respective States.

Section 3. Legislative Power. The Legislatures of the Member States have the primary responsibility to regulate Education in their respective States.

Sec. 4. State Control. Each Member State, within its State, may suspend by legislation the operation of all federal laws, rules, regulations, and orders regarding Health Care that are inconsistent with the laws and regulations adopted by the Member State pursuant to this Compact. Federal and State laws, rules, regulations, and orders regarding Health Care will remain in effect unless a Member State expressly suspends them pursuant to its authority under this Compact. For any federal law, rule, regulation, or order that remains in effect in a Member State after the Effective Date, that Member State shall be responsible for the associated funding obligations in its State.

Section 4. State Control. Each Member State, within its State may suspend by legislation the operation of all Federal laws, rules, regulations, and orders regarding Education that are inconsistent with the laws and regulations adopted by the Member State pursuant to this Compact. Federal and State laws, rules, regulations, and orders regarding education will remain in effect unless a Member State expressly suspends them pursuant to its authority under this Compact. For any Federal law, rule, regulation, or order that remains in effect in a Member State after the Effective Date, that Member State shall be responsible for the associated funding obligations in its State.

Legislators' Ties to ALEC The following chart documents just some of financial connections between state legislators and ALEC. Additional financial information is being examined.

Legislator Party &

HometownDocumentation of Membership Dues Paid?

Received Campaign Contribution from ALEC ?

Gifts Received & ALEC Events Attended

Connections to known ALEC Bills and other associations

Allen, Sue R- Town & Country

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

In 2011 and 2015, used campaign funds to pay ALEC membership fee.

Health & Human Services and International Relations Task Force member.

Bahr, Kurt R-St. Charles Sponsored HB 616.

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

Brandon, Ellen

R- Cape Girardeau

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

Brown, Dan R-Rolla Sponsored SB 76.

Burlison, Eric

R-Springfield Health & Human Services Task Force Member.

Sponsored HB 77.

In 2011, used campaign funds to pay for hotel rooms at ALEC meeting.

Cierpiot, Mike

R-Jackson Sponsored HB 345

Colona, Mike D-St. Louis YES In 2010, used

campaign funds to pay ALEC $425 in membership fees.

Also, see St. Louis Post Dispatch story describing ties here

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

Signed ALEC letter defending polluters. (See letter here)

In 2010, used campaign funds to pay for ALEC conference registration.

Sponsored HB 255

Civil Justice Task Force Member.

Crawford, Sandy

R-Buffalo Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force Member.

Cross, Gary R- Lee's Summit 

YES $1,000 Attended conference 11/27/11

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

Crowell, Jason

R-Cape Girardeau

SB 888

Cunningham, Jane

R-Chesterfield

$150.00 From 2001-2010, ALEC provided Jane Cunningham with more than $33,000 in lodging and travel expenses related to ALEC board meetings and conferences. She attended over 30 such meetings and conferences.

Locations included: Chicago, IL, Las Vegas, NV, San Francisco, CA, San Diego, CA, New Orleans, LA, Phoenix, AZ, Hilton Head, SC (2), Washington, DC (7), Jackson Hole, WY…

Member of ALEC board from 2005 to 2010, according to forms filed with IRS by ALEC and an ALEC press release.

In 2007 she was the Secretary of the ALEC Board of Directors, and in 2008 she was the Treasurer.

Sponsor of SJR25/Proposition C

Curtman, Paul

R-Pacific Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force Member.

Denison, Charlie

R-Springfield YES $1,200.00 Used campaign funds to pay ALEC dues.

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

Diehl, John R-Town & Country

Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force member.

Dixon, Bob R-Greene YES HCR 44

Paid ALEC dues with taxpayer dollars.

Dugger, Tony R-Hartville YES In 2011, used

campaign funds to pay ALEC membership fee.

Public Safety and Elections Task Force Member.

Elmer, Kevin R- Nixa YES Reimbursed $375 from his campaign account for ALEC dues 11/16/2012.

Emery, Ed R-Lamar YES Signed ALEC letter defending polluters. (See letter here)

Former State Chairman; Legislator of Year, 2006

Sponsored SB 238.

Entlicher, Sue

R-Bolivar Public Safety and Elections Task Force Member

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

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

Flanigan, Tom

R- Carthage YES Used government money to pay for membership dues in 2015

Frederick, Keith

R-Rolla Health & Human Services Task Force Member.

Funderburk, Doug

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

Hinson, Dave R-St. Clair Public Safety and Elections Task Force Member.

Hoskins, Ted D-Berkeley Legislator of Year, 2009

Hubbard, Rodney

D-St. Louis Legislator of Year, 2007

Hunter, Steve

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

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

Sponsored HB 877

Jetton, Rod R- Marble Hill

Spent campaign funds on ALEC legislative magazine in 2008.

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

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

Jones, Kenny

R-Clarksburg Sponsored HB 189

Jones, Tim R-Eureka YES $5,157.59 Used campaign

funds to register; received multiple golf gifts at 2010 ALEC conference from lobbyists Travis Brown and John Sondag.

In 2008-2010, ALEC provided Jones with more than $10,900 for travel and lodging expenses related to ALEC conferences, including three conferences in Washington, DC, one conference in Atlanta, GA, Memphis, TN, San Diego, CA, Cincinnati, OH, Charlotte, NC, Phoenix, AZ, and Salt Lake City, UT.

Signed ALEC letter on defending polluters.

Spent over $2000 in campaign funds on ALEC conference registration fees and ALEC membership fees.

Sponsored HB393 and HB 1539

State Chairman (See here)

Keeney, Shelley

R-Marble Hill International Relations Task Force Member.

Kelley, Mike R-Lamar Education Task Force Member.

Kinder, Peter R-Statewide Attended 2010

ALEC Conference w/ taxpayer funds

Also attended numerous ALEC conference as Senator

San Diego, 1995 New Orleans, 1997 Chicago, IL, 1998 Nashville, TN, 1999 New Orleans, 1999 Los Angeles, 2001 Washington, DC, 2002

Sponsored SCR 22

Spoke at 2010 Conference.

Koenig, Andrew

R-Winchester YES $3,083.68 In 2008-2010, ALEC provided Koenig with more than $1,800 for travel and lodging expenses related to three ALEC conferences in Washington, DC.

Used $896 in campaign funds to travel to ALEC events.

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

Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force Member.

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

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

Kratky, Michele

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

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

Lamping, John

R-St. Louis County

Sponsored SB 210

Lant, Bill R-Joplin Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Member.

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

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

Lichtenegger, Donna

R-Jackson Health & Human Services Task Force Member.

Sponsored HB 91

McNary, Cole Former State Rep R-Chesterfield and Failed State Treasurer Candidate

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

Munzlinger, Brian

R-La Belle YES Paid ALEC dues with taxpayer dollars.

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

Civil Justice Task Force Member.

Paid ALEC dues with taxpayer dollars.

Nodler, Gary R-Joplin Used campaign funds

In 2006 and 2007, used $500 in campaign contributions for ALEC registration fees.

Parson, Mike R-Bolivar YES Public Safety and

Elections Task Force Member.

Paid ALEC dues with taxpayer dollars.

Pearce, David

R-Warrensburg

Sponsored SCR 7

Pollock, Darrell

R-146 $1459.94

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

Ridgeway, Luann

R-Clay County

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

Paid ALEC dues with taxpayer dollars.

Rowland, Lyle

R-Cedarcreek Sponsored HCR 7

Sater, David R-Cassville Sponsored SB 134 & SB 158

Schad, Rodney

R-Versailles $1,000.00 Signed ALEC letter defending polluters. (See letter here)

Schoeller, Shane

Former State Rep R-Willard, Failed 2012 Secretary of State candidate, and MO GOP Executive DIrector

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

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

Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force member.

Smith, Jason R-Salem In 2008-2009,

ALEC provided Smith with almost $2,000 in travel expenses related to ALEC conferences, including one conference in Washington, DC, one conference in Atlanta, GA, one conference in Memphis, TN, and one conference in Chicago, IL

In 2011, used $375 on in campaign funds on ALEC registration fees.

State Chairman (See here).

Tax & Fiscal Policy Task Force Member.

Smith, Joe R-St. Charles Sponsored HCR 44

Sommer, Chrissy

R-St. Charles Sponsored HCR 6

Spencer, Bryan

R-Wentzville YES

Tilley, Steven

R – St. Charles

$500.00

Torpey, Noel R-Independence

$600.00 Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force Member.

Wallingford, Wayne

R- Cape Girardeau

Lobbyist reported $49.00 in gifts to Suzy Wallingford, a spouse or child, for the August 2013 ALEC meetings in Chicago.

Wasson, Jay R-Nixa YES Paid ALEC dues with taxpayer dollars.

White, Bill R-Joplin Sponsored HB 1086, HB 91, HB 95

Health and Human Services Task Force Member.

Sources: ▪ Missouri Ethics Commission ▪ ALEC.org ALEC.org ▪ Task Force Membership referenced from ALECExposed.com http://alecexposed.org/w/images/

7/72/ALEC_State_Chairmen_Exposed.pdf ▪ ALEC.org http://www.alec.org/AM/PDF/NRTF/EPALetterforSenate.pdf ▪ SourceWatch.org http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Politicians ▪ Turner Report research shows that all of the following attended the 2010 ALEC conference:

Darrell Pollock, R-Lebanon, John Diehl, R-Town and Country; Doug Funderburk, R-St. Peter's; Chuck Gatschenberger, R-Lake St. Louis; Sue Allen, R-St. Louis; Ellen Brandom, R-Sikeston; Cole McNary, R-Chesterfield; Jason Smith, R-Salem; Ed Emery, R-Lamar; and Timothy Jones, R-Eureka, Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield; John Griesheimer, R-Washington; and Luann Ridgeway, R-Smithville. http://rturner229.blogspot.com/2010/10/taxpayers-lobbyists-foot-bill-for.html

Wieland, Paul

R-Imperial YES Used government money to pay for membership dues in 2014

Wilson, Kenneth

R-Smithville YES Used government money to pay for membership dues in 2014

Yates, Brian R-Lee's Summit

YES Used campaign funds to pay for membership dues.

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