ALEC, Bills and Ecigs

[aikanae1]

I thought this show was an excellent exploration into a group called ALEC. The show is about one hour long and can be watched online.

Usually when multiple bills are introduced into multiple state legislations, such as the recent bills against ecigs, there's been a direct link to ALEC's sponsorship. This documentry doesn't directly discuss ecigs, however RJR, Lorillard, Pfizer, Glaxo-Smith and other BT-BP players are pointed out along with their roles and influence throughout the show. ALEC has developed numerous critics over the years.

​

 

[BuGlen]

Thanks for posting this. I remember reading an article or two about ALEC a while back, but that video really connected the dots for me. Interesting to see that Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are not only members, but also sit on the board. Probably the most interesting point is that this organization is able to operate as a 501(c) (tax exempt w/ tax credits for members) and directly affect legislation at the state level.

Here's a Wikipedia article on ALEC for anyone who is interested in seeing both their corporate and legislative membership lists.

List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Placebo Effect]

ALEC has wisely endorsed lowering taxes on low-risk, smoke-free products to promote harm reduction, but as we pointed out in response to RJR's tax bills in Oklahoma and South Carolina, ALEC did not endorse enacting taxes on products not currently taxed like e-cigarettes.

To their credit, Americans for Tax Reform, a separate organization which has received a significant amount of money from RJR, came out strongly against those bills.

 

[Luisa]

ALEC has wisely endorsed lowering taxes on low-risk, smoke-free products to promote harm reduction, but as we pointed out in response to RJR's tax bills in Oklahoma and South Carolina, ALEC did not endorse enacting taxes on products not currently taxed like e-cigarettes.

To their credit, Americans for Tax Reform, a separate organization which has received a significant amount of money from RJR, came out strongly against those bills.

This does not sound like a bad group to me----I,too, am for lowering taxes-Federal,State,and local. Sounds like a positive lobbying group--most of us would like lower taxes. People need to read more about the policies of this Action Group before making a judgement.

 

[aikanae1]

This does not sound like a bad group to me----I,too, am for lowering taxes-Federal,State,and local. Sounds like a positive lobbying group--most of us would like lower taxes. People need to read more about the policies of this Action Group before making a judgement.

This is where government and corporations get together behind closed doors. Some have called it "corruption".

 

[BuGlen]

ALEC has wisely endorsed lowering taxes on low-risk, smoke-free products to promote harm reduction, but as we pointed out in response to RJR's tax bills in Oklahoma and South Carolina, ALEC did not endorse enacting taxes on products not currently taxed like e-cigarettes.

To their credit, Americans for Tax Reform, a separate organization which has received a significant amount of money from RJR, came out strongly against those bills.

Perhaps, but they also appear to be directly linked to other legislation which is modeled to privatize public services, disenfranchise voters, and weaken clean air and water regulations. If you are suggesting that we should view them as a friend of the cause because of their anti-tax stand on smokeless tobacco products, regardless of the evidence of their other agenda, I'm afraid that I cannot in good conscience agree.

This does not sound like a bad group to me----I,too, am for lowering taxes-Federal,State,and local. Sounds like a positive lobbying group--most of us would like lower taxes. People need to read more about the policies of this Action Group before making a judgement.

You are correct that most people would like lower taxes, that is until those lower taxes reduce a public service that they depend on personally. I am for smarter spending of tax revenue and a more fair tax system, but even that means different things to different people. For me, it means a higher effective rate on those that can afford it by eliminating the exemptions which are most abused by the accountants of the wealthy, among other reforms. And by the way, as I said before, this organization is operating under a 501(c) tax exemption while it is clearly affecting legislation in this country. I find it somewhat troubling that an organization of corporate and legislative members (and no real public presence) can operate with tax exemption, but I guess that's just me.

As for the policies of the organization, that is not my concern, as much as it is not my concern of the policies of any political organization. The fact that they appear to be effectively (if not directly) writing state legislation and organizing it's enactment at the state level (across many states) is my concern. Regardless of how much we dislike federal government and the corruption therein, we always had at least some comfort that our local and state governments must answer to the local people, and in our interest. It appears to me that ALEC is now chipping away at that place where the people had the most influence, the local elections and government.

[Rant warning] It's ironic that when it comes to e-cigs and legislation, most agree that the BP and BT influence is a big problem, but when something like this comes along, some people are willing to look the other way. Are we really so afraid of the word "socialism" that we would choose to live in a plutocracy instead? [end of Rant warning]

 

[Placebo Effect]

Perhaps, but they also appear to be directly linked to other legislation which is modeled to privatize public services, disenfranchise voters, and weaken clean air and water regulations. If you are suggesting that we should view them as a friend of the cause because of their anti-tax stand on smokeless tobacco products, regardless of the evidence of their other agenda, I'm afraid that I cannot in good conscience agree.

All I'm saying is that they are good on THR issues. That's it. When you're doing grassroots work on a less than mainstream issue, and often up against well-funded opposition sources, any help you can get is appreciated.

 

[aikanae1]

Perhaps, but they also appear to be directly linked to other legislation which is modeled to privatize public services, disenfranchise voters, and weaken clean air and water regulations. If you are suggesting that we should view them as a friend of the cause because of their anti-tax stand on smokeless tobacco products, regardless of the evidence of their other agenda, I'm afraid that I cannot in good conscience agree.

Just because those services are not covered by government does not mean we pay less. It can result in paying more due to the additional profit motive government doesn't have and the public always looses control, or any say in how those services are run when they are run by corporations.

When corporation's write legislation to privatize schools, they created a market that didn't exist to that level yet. Then it's those same corporation's writing those same bills that will profit from operating the newly created private schools. I'd call that corruption.

These bills are not introduced because voters or the public in those areas wanted them, or the politician had campaigned for them. The bills are a surprise to voters and aren't something the public thinks is very important. Sorta like most the anti-vapiing laws being introduced - why? Was there a problem? Did anyone have a complaint? What's the point?

No one knows unless they can see all the bills in their entirety. What may sound like a common short term goal may not be in the end.

ALEC is also an end run around democracy in that they give corporations a more powerful voice than the public has. This is what we are fighting with the FDA. Public health and safety are secondary and the primary focus seems to be on marketplace controls; licensing, distribution, taxes. Who is "allowed" to profit from vaping.

A comment that stuck out for me was that it didn't matter who was president or was voted into congress since ALEC operated outside of that sphere and has done so for a long time. They have no reporting on gifts or donations, introduce canidates to campaign donors, and are not subject to FOIA requests.

I do know that pointing out ALEC associations with a bill can turn the tide particularly in some democrat leading areas such as in California.

Anyway, I felt it was important to understand where bills come from when they aren't something that voters in the area felt were important and politicians didn't include them in their campaigns. They don't just fall out of the sky when multiple states are pushing through nearly identical bills.

No one has died from vaping. No one has been harmed by vaping. So why is vaping even on the agenda?

 

[BuGlen]

All I'm saying is that they are good on THR issues. That's it. When you're doing grassroots work on a less than mainstream issue, and often up against well-funded opposition sources, any help you can get is appreciated.

Point taken, and I respect your view on this, and all the work you do for this community. My view is that supporting this organization at all is akin to arming rebel factions in the middle east who then turn those arms against our troops. As for grassroots activism, there have been groups in recent history who started out with the right idea, only to have their message perverted by the corporate money interests, some of which are actually expose in the video of the OP. I absolutely do understand the need for funding, but I would also suggest caution and careful scrutiny of the longer term agenda of those sources.

I realize I may be coming across as someone who hates big business, but that is not my intent. I'm just critical of this organization that appears to be altering the protocol of legislation for improved quarterly earnings.

 

[BuGlen]

(snip)...Politics makes for strange bedfellows at times.

Ain't that the God's honest truth!

 

[aikanae1]

ALEC has wisely endorsed lowering taxes on low-risk, smoke-free products to promote harm reduction, but as we pointed out in response to RJR's tax bills in Oklahoma and South Carolina, ALEC did not endorse enacting taxes on products not currently taxed like e-cigarettes.

To their credit, Americans for Tax Reform, a separate organization which has received a significant amount of money from RJR, came out strongly against those bills.

I think I am more concerned with why those bills were introduced in the first place and by whom. It would not be the first time I've witnessed support withdrawn when there was opposition. I find it odd there are so many bills that are so similar being introduced in multiple states when vaping wasn't a concern for the bulk of the population. At this stage, the reduced taxes for states is also minor in comparision to other reduced income they are dealing with - internet sales taxes for example.

Your right in that vaping is not a popular grassroots issue - so why is it even in the legislatures to begin with when most of them have never heard of it and don't know what it is - yet they are passing regulations on it? They were paid off - and if it's not by your buddies, then by who?

 

[Luisa]

I think I am more concerned with why those bills were introduced in the first place and by whom. It would not be the first time I've witnessed support withdrawn when there was opposition. I find it odd there are so many bills that are so similar being introduced in multiple states when vaping wasn't a concern for the bulk of the population. At this stage, the reduced taxes for states is also minor in comparision to other reduced income they are dealing with - internet sales taxes for example.

Your right in that vaping is not a popular grassroots issue - so why is it even in the legislatures to begin with when most of them have never heard of it and don't know what it is - yet they are passing regulations on it? They were paid off - and if it's not by your buddies, then by who?

Try ALA,AHA,Tobacco Free Kids,ACS,USSF,Public Health Groups and on and on and on---

 

[BuGlen]

Try ALA,AHA,Tobacco Free Kids,ACS,USSF,Public Health Groups and on and on and on---

Yes, the true agenda of those groups are of concern as well. However, that does not diminish the purpose of the OP or the concern of the long term agenda of ALEC. And no, I'm not saying that is what you suggested, but I'm rather just stating the obvious.

 

[Bill Godshall]

I exposed and strongly opposed two measures lobbied for by ALEC two decades ago (before the mainstream media ever heard of ALEC), but I also support some/much of the pro business legislation ALEC advocates.

In the 1990's ALEC sponsored tort reform and product liability legislation (to protect cigarette, drug and other manufacturers from lawsuits filed by injured consumers). Although I support many measures to reduce frivolous and unwarranted lawsuits, the legislation ALEC was lobbying for basically immunized the deadliest product manufacturers from being held accountable in state courts. At the same time, drug and tobacco industry funded Americans for Tort Reform Association (ATRA) was lobbying for similar federal legislation in Congress.

Also in the 1990's, ALEC campaigned for tobacco industry sponsored "youth access" legislation in many/most states to protect retailers from being caught, cited and prosecuted for illegally selling cigarettes to minors (that also scapegoated children by criminalizing and punishing them for possessing, using or purchasing tobacco).

Basically, ALEC promotes pro business legislation, and is largely Republican. That's why leftist Bill Moyers (who I know and respect on several issues) and left wing socialist Democrats disdain ALEC.

 

[aikanae1]

I exposed and strongly opposed two measures lobbied for by ALEC two decades ago (before the mainstream media ever heard of ALEC), but I also support some/much of the pro business legislation ALEC advocates.


In the 1990's ALEC sponsored tort reform and product liability legislation (to protect cigarette, drug and other manufacturers from lawsuits filed by injured consumers). Although I support many measures to reduce frivolous and unwarranted lawsuits, the legislation ALEC was lobbying for basically immunized the deadliest product manufacturers from being held accountable in state courts. At the same time, drug and tobacco industry funded Americans for Tort Reform Association (ATRA) was lobbying for similar federal legislation in Congress.

Also in the 1990's, ALEC campaigned for tobacco industry sponsored "youth access" legislation in many/most states to protect retailers from being caught, cited and prosecuted for illegally selling cigarettes to minors (that also scapegoated children by criminalizing and punishing them for possessing, using or purchasing tobacco).


Basically, ALEC promotes pro business legislation, and is largely Republican. That's why leftist Bill Moyers (who I know and respect on several issues) and left wing socialist Democrats disdain ALEC.

I guess my concern is that there is no reason for vaping to be in state legslatures at all without being introduced from an outside organization such as ALEC and that is one of the problems with gaining grassroots traction. It's not a natural issue, brought about by the swelling of concerns from the voters or legislators. None of this legislation should be on the agenda; most of the public doesn't know what vaping is, hasn't harmed anyone and isn't really even a noticable revenue loss (yet). Instead, organizations such as ALEC are hyjacking local agendas and issues that are of concern get overshadowed or put on the back burner. That's not representative democracy.


I also don't see a huge red vs. blue divide on this. If anything I do see a divide among those willing to break their backs for special interest money and that's about it. Also not much of a divide along the political aisle.


What I do expect from a grassroots organization is facts and not more political rhetoric. Terms such as "leftist, socialist" and putting the words "pro-business" in the same sentence as Republican is either a joke, or an attempt to spin and mislead. One thing for sure is that it's not objective or factual and an immediate turn off.


I respect Moyer's reporting. He offers crediable sources, good investigating, context and objective that's missing in most news reports. He doesn't resort to name-calling or opinion tactics like pundits use. I can go back and review his reporting for decades and his story's still hold up as factual. I think he chooses topics that are under reported and things that people want to know or should know about - which is either a compliment or comical that's considered "leftist" by some.


However, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that name calling and political labeling is a big turn off and self-limiting for an organization such as CASAA when there is a need for more people to get involved in local legislation. I expect facts and objectivity that I don't think I can get when an organization has a political axe to grind - which may not be in my interest. My experience is that a number of political organizations would like to be considered "grassroots" when they aren't and they do have other motives.

​

 

[Luisa]

I guess my concern is that there is no reason for vaping to be in state legslatures at all without being introduced from an outside organization such as ALEC and that is one of the problems with gaining grassroots traction. It's not a natural issue, brought about by the swelling of concerns from the voters or legislators. None of this legislation should be on the agenda; most of the public doesn't know what vaping is, hasn't harmed anyone and isn't really even a noticable revenue loss (yet). Instead, organizations such as ALEC are hyjacking local agendas and issues that are of concern get overshadowed or put on the back burner. That's not representative democracy.


I also don't see a huge red vs. blue divide on this. If anything I do see a divide among those willing to break their backs for special interest money and that's about it. Also not much of a divide along the political aisle.


What I do expect from a grassroots organization is facts and not more political rhetoric. Terms such as "leftist, socialist" and putting the words "pro-business" in the same sentence as Republican is either a joke, or an attempt to spin and mislead. One thing for sure is that it's not objective or factual and an immediate turn off.


I respect Moyer's reporting. He offers crediable sources, good investigating, context and objective that's missing in most news reports. He doesn't resort to name-calling or opinion tactics like pundits use. I can go back and review his reporting for decades and his story's still hold up as factual. I think he chooses topics that are under reported and things that people want to know or should know about - which is either a compliment or comical that's considered "leftist" by some.


However, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that name calling and political labeling is a big turn off and self-limiting for an organization such as CASAA when there is a need for more people to get involved in local legislation. I expect facts and objectivity that I don't think I can get when an organization has a political axe to grind - which may not be in my interest. My experience is that a number of political organizations would like to be considered "grassroots" when they aren't and they do have other motives.

​

I respect your opinions,but on the issue of ecigs our opponents seem to come from the Democrat Party with some exceptions. The most vocal congressional opponents have been Lautenburg,Durbin, Sherrid Brown, and other Democratric Senators. This administrations FDA appointees have certainly given us many a headache. Utah seems to be the biggest exception since it is a Republican State. Even its" alchohol laws are strange.

 

[aikanae1]

I respect your opinions,but on the issue of ecigs our opponents seem to come from the Democrat Party with some exceptions. The most vocal congressional opponents have been Lautenburg,Durbin, Sherrid Brown, and other Democratric Senators. This administrations FDA appointees have certainly given us many a headache. Utah seems to be the biggest exception since it is a Republican State. Even its" alchohol laws are strange.

It's political rhetoric like that which turns people off from getting involved and it's unnecessary.

 

[BuGlen]

However, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that name calling and political labeling is a big turn off and self-limiting for an organization such as CASAA when there is a need for more people to get involved in local legislation. I expect facts and objectivity that I don't think I can get when an organization has a political axe to grind - which may not be in my interest. My experience is that a number of political organizations would like to be considered "grassroots" when they aren't and they do have other motives.

​

I couldn't make out if you were saying that CASAA is aligned with one political party, or if you were just using it as an example. In the event that you believe CASAA is politically aligned, I can assure you that's not the case. You will hear political talking points from CASAA members (like myself) and board members, but those are personal opinions and don't reflect the organization as a whole. Myself, I am NPA (not party affiliated) and I'm left-leaning on many social issues, but I understand that the issue of e-cigs is a much harder fight on the left side of the isle than the right. Why is that? I'm not sure, but I think it's because the GOP was already in major support of the tobacco industry long before e-cigs even hit the scene.

With that said, I tend to agree with the concern over ALEC and the way they do things. Especially since the major drug companies sit on their board and we already know that they have been the most vocal opponent to e-cigs. I just find it difficult to believe that at some point the drug companies in ALEC won't step in on this fight (if they haven't already), and while the proposed legislation may be tempered by the other members, it likely still won't be in the interest of the e-cig consumers.

 

[Bill Godshall]

aikanae1 wrote:

What I do expect from a grassroots organization is facts and not more political rhetoric. Terms such as "leftist, socialist" and putting the words "pro-business" in the same sentence as Republican is either a joke, or an attempt to spin and mislead. One thing for sure is that it's not objective or factual and an immediate turn off.

Everything in my posting was objective and factual.

Smokefree Pennsylvania and I have spent about ten thousand hours and thousands of dollars since 2008 working to keep e-cigarettes legal to sell, buy and use (by opposing more than a hundred different proposals to ban e-cig sales and/or use).

Perhaps aikanae1 can inform us how many bills (to ban e-cig sales or use) he/she actively opposed and defeated.

The FDA appointees (Josh Sharfstein and Margaret Hamburg) who illegally banned and lied about e-cigs in 2009 were appointed by Obama (Sharfstein now works for MD Gov O'Malley and previously worked for Henry Waxman), and more than 95% of proposed state and local legislation to ban e-cig sales and use have been sponsored by liberal Democrats).

The postings by aikanae1 are defending public officials who have been campaigning to ban e-cig sales and use.

 

[retired1]

It's political rhetoric like that which turns people off from getting involved and it's unnecessary.

Unfortunately, in the case of laws that are submitted against e-cigs, it's not rhetoric. In the vast majority of cases, Democratic politicians are the driving force to get e-cigs banned.