Report Highlights................................................................................................................... 3 ALEC 101 ...............................................................................................................................

4
The Corporate Bill Mill Remaking Missouri Law ............................................................................... 4 Why is ALEC's Influence in Jefferson City Important? ...................................................................... 5 Additional Resources on ALEC's Extreme Agenda ............................................................................ 6

Missouri Legislators with ALEC Ties ........................................................................................ 7 ALEC "Model" Legislation Introduced In Missouri................................................................. 10 Legislators' Financial Ties to ALEC ........................................................................................ 12
Missouri Taxpayer Funds Spent on ALEC Memberships & Junkets .................................................... 19 Candidate Campaign Expenditures to ALEC........................................................................................ 20 ALEC & ALEC Staff Donations to Missouri Candidate Committees ..................................................... 22

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

So-Called 'Right to Work' Bills ............................................................................................................. 25 Private Attorney Retention Act ........................................................................................................... 34 Voter Registration Obstacles .............................................................................................................. 41 Resolution Opposing Food and Beverage Taxes ................................................................................. 44 Re-Casting the Tenth Amendment ..................................................................................................... 49 Anti-Affordable Care Act Amendment ................................................................................................ 52 Resolution Asking Congress to Privatize Social Security ..................................................................... 53 "Parents Rights" Resolution ................................................................................................................ 57 Mortgage Fraud Act ............................................................................................................................ 58 Private Property Protection Act .......................................................................................................... 60 Asbestos Legislation ............................................................................................................................ 64 Resolution Endorsing Electoral College .............................................................................................. 70 "The Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act ...................................................................................... 73 "The Autism Scholarship Program Act .............................................................................................. 75

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate bill mill that is exerting extraordinary and secretive influence in the Missouri legislature and in other states. Through ALEC, corporations hand Missouri legislators wish lists in the form of "model" legislation that often directly benefit their bottom line at the expense of Missouri families. Numerous ALEC model bills are crafted behind closed doors by corporations, for corporations. Elected officials who are members of ALEC bring ALEC legislation back to Missouri as their own ideas and important public policy innovations, without disclosing that corporations crafted and pre-voted on the bills at closed-door meetings with legislators who are part of ALEC. ALEC provides legislators with a means to appear highly active in the legislative process by secretly outsourcing their role in drafting legislation to corporate special interests. "It is funded and dominated by free-market and corporate interests," writes the Kansas City Star, "who work with likeminded legislators to shield corporations from legal action, limit the rights of workers, disenfranchise voters, radically privatize the public education system, hinder the ability of government to regulate and curb polluters, and further skew our democracy in the favor of corporations and their political allies." Almost 50 legislators in Missouri have been identified as having ties to ALEC, and the number may be much higher. Identifying the list of Missouri legislators who are part of ALEC is a difficult task, because ALEC operates largely in secret. Even though they claim to be a legislative membership organization, there is no full list of members made public by the organization. Missouri legislators with ALEC ties include Majority Leader Tim Jones, Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer, Lt. Governor Peter Kinder, Speaker Steve Tilley, Rep. Shane Schoeller, Rep. Cole McNary, Sen. Jane Cunningham and Senator and Former Speaker Ron Richard. Progress Missouri has identified more than two dozen corporation-friendly bills introduced in the Missouri General Assembly that echo ALEC model bills. ALEC bills in Missouri include so-called right to work laws, voter registration hurdles, a "parent trigger act," a "parents rights" resolution, purely political resolutions "reaffirming 10th amendment rights," a "private attorney retention act," an AntiAffordable 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."

As noted by the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed project, the American Legislative Exchange Council is not simply a lobbying group or a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Corporations behind ALEC's closed doors hand state legislators the changes to the law that they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve "model" bills, and also fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, who are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, bring ALEC proposals back to Missouri and other statehouses as their own ideas and important public policy innovations, without disclosing that corporations crafted and pre-voted on the bills alongside legislators in closed-door meetings at fancy resorts. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills are introduced by legislative members every year, with at least one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a "unique," "unparalleled" and "unmatched" organization. "ALEC is a group funded by corporations and conservative activists. It beguiles conservative state lawmakers with wining and dining at annual conferences and the chance to mingle with deep-pocketed donors. In return, lawmakers promote the group's 'model legislation,' bills aimed at things like stripping workers of protections and requiring photo identification to vote." - Kansas City Star, 04/6/2012 Why would a legislator be interested in advancing cookie-cutter bills that are giveaways for multinational corporations located outside of Missouri? ALEC's appeal rests largely on the fact that legislators receive trips, food and lodging that provide many part-time legislators and their families with vacations, along with the opportunity to rub shoulders with prospective donors to their political campaigns. For a few hours of work on a task force and a couple of workshops by ALEC experts, part-time legislators can bring the whole family to ALEC's annual convention, vote in private meetings with corporate lobbyists , stay in swank hotels and attend parties, all heavily subsidized by the corporate till. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported after the 2011 ALEC conference in New Orleans, "corporate benefactors made sure Missouri lawmakers attending the conference were well fed and hydrated."

ALEC provides legislators with a means to appear highly active in the legislative process while outsourcing by transferring their role in drafting legislation to corporate special interests "It is funded and dominated by free-market and corporate interests," writes the Kansas City Star, "who work with like-minded legislators to push various agendas." And what are these various corporate agendas? Here is a taste: ALEC works fervently to promote laws that would shield corporations from legal accountability to Missouri citizens and limit the rights of workers in the state. The group's model legislation would roll back laws regarding corporate liability for harming state residents, workers' compensation and on the job protections, collective bargaining and organizing rights, and prevailing wage and minimum wage laws. ALEC is a main proponent of bills that undermine organized labor by stripping public employees of collective bargaining rights and that weaken the power of workers in the private sector through so-called "right to work" laws. They also push "regulatory flexibility" laws that lead to massive deregulation of rules designed to protect the health of Missouri families. It is no surprise that the director of ALEC's Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force previously worked as a Koch Associate at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, which is funded by billionaire Charles Koch of Koch Industries. ALEC is directly tied to the emerging trend among state legislatures to limit the ability of American citizens to vote through restrictive "voter ID" laws. Using demonstrably false allegations of "voter fraud," right-wing politicians are pursuing policies that disenfranchise students and other at-risk voters--including the elderly and the poor--who are unlikely to have drivers' licenses with their current residence and who previously could vote showing proof of residence and other identification. By suppressing the vote of such groups of likely Democratic voters, ALEC's model "Voter ID Act" grants an electoral advantage to Republicans while undermining the fundamental right to vote in America. In addition, ALEC wants to make it easier for corporations to participate in the political process. Their Public Safety and Elections Task Force includes Sean Parnell of the Center for Competitive Politics, one of the most vociferous procorporate involvement in elections groups in the nation, and promotes legislation that would devastate campaign reform and increase corporate influence in elections. Despite constitutional problems, negative impacts on public schools, bias against disadvantaged students, and comprehensive studies that demonstrate that private school voucher programs failed to make any substantial improvements to education, ALEC pushes vouchers as a way to privatize public education and transfer Missouri tax dollars from public institutions to private profits. Under the guise of "school choice,"
5

ALEC pushes bills with titles like "Parental Choice Scholarship Act" and the "Education Enterprise Act" that establish or expand private school voucher programs. At the bidding of its major donors like Exxon Mobil and Koch Industries, ALEC is a powerful force behind state-level legislation that would hinder the ability of the people to regulate and curb polluters through governmental power. ALEC has previously said that carbon dioxide "is beneficial to plant and human life alike," and it promotes climate change denialism. The group's model legislation assails EPA emissions guidelines and greenhouse gas regulations, destabilizes regional climate initiatives, permits free-reign for energy corporations, and pushes for massive deregulation of some of the biggest polluters on the planet. As states face challenging budget deficits, ALEC wants to make it more difficult to generate revenue in order to close shortfalls. Such bills include the "Super Majority Act," which makes it so complicated for legislatures to change tax policy that California voters overturned the law; the "Taxpayer Bill of Rights," which brought fiscal disaster to Colorado; and measures to eliminate capital gains and progressive income taxes. The main beneficiaries of ALEC's irresponsible fiscal policies are corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers.

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

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

ALECExposed.com

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

People for the American Way, PFAW.org.

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

National Institute on Money and Politics, FollowTheMoney.org

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

Pro Publica, ProPublica.org.

"Legislating Under the Influence; Money, Power, and the American Legislative Exchange Council."
Common Cause, CommonCause.org. 6

Identifying the list of Missouri legislators who are part of ALEC is a difficult task, because ALEC operates largely in secret. Even though it claims to be a legislative membership organization, there is no full list of legislators that are members of ALEC anywhere on their website. However, we do have a few sources open to us: the Missouri Ethics Commission, Sunshine Law requests with Capitol offices, and the Center for Media and Democracy. Progress Missouri has identified almost 40 Missouri legislators and politicians as ALEC members and supporters through state Sunshine Law requests and reviews of Missouri Ethics Commission data. The community of researchers supporting the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECExposed.com website have also identified additional Missouri politicians as ALEC members and supporters, all of whom are also listed below, bringing the total to nearly 50 elected officials.

Sue Allen, R- Town & Country Walt Bivins, R-St. Louis Ellen Brandon, R- Cape Girardeau Mike Colona, D-St. Louis Stanley Cox, R-Sedalia Gary Cross, R- Lee's Summit Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield Charlie Denison, R-Springfield Bob Dixon, R-Greene Tony Dugger, R-Hartville Ed Emery, R-Lamar Doug Ervin, R- Kearney Doug Funderburk, R-St. Peter's Ted Hoskins, D-Berkeley Rodney Hubbard, D-St. Louis Steve Hunter, R-Joplin Rod Jetton, R- Marble Hill Caleb Jones, R-California Kenny Jones, R-Clarksburg

Tim Jones, R-Eureka Peter Kinder, R-Statewide Andrew Koenig, R-Winchester Bart Korman, R- High Hill Michele Kratky, D-St. Louis Jim Lembke, R-Lemay Cole McNary, R-Chesterfield Brian Nieves, R-Washington Gary Nodler, R-Joplin Darrell Pollock, R-Lebanon Ron Richard, R-Joplin Luann Ridgeway, R-Clay County Lyle Rowland, R-Cedarcreek Rodney Schad, R-Versailles Shane Schoeller, R-Willard Jason Smith, R-Salem Joe Smith, R-St. Charles Bill White, R-Joplin Marilyn Williams, D-Dudley Brian Yates, R-Lee's Summit

House Majority Leader Timothy Jones, ALEC State Chairman, Education Task Force Rep. Jason Smith , ALEC State Chairman and Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force Speaker Steven Tilley; Public Safety and Elections Task Force Rep. Shane Schoeller, Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force Rep. Andrew Koenig; Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force Rep. John J. Diehl; Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force Rep. Cole McNary; Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force Rep. Walt Bivins, Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Rep. Stanley Cox; Civil Justice Task Force

Senate President Pro Tem Robert Mayer; Civil Justice Task Force Sen. Jane Cunningham; Education Task Force Sen. Ron Richard; Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Sen. Mike Parson; Public Safety and Elections Task Force Sen. Brian Nieves; Civil Justice Task Force Sen. Jim Lembke; International Relations Task Force Former Sen. John Griesheimer; Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Rep. Ellen Brandom; Health and Human Services Task Force Rep. Eric Burlison; Health and Human Services Task Force Rep. Mike Kelley; Education Task Force

Former Rep. Ed Emery, former State Chairman Rep. Barney Fisher; Energy, Environment and Rep. Rodney Schad; Telecommunications and Agriculture Task Force Information Technology Task Force Rep. Dave Hinson; Public Safety and Elections Rep. Vicki Schneider; Civil Justice Task Force Rep. Darrell L. Pollock; Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force Rep. Shelley Keeney; International Relations Task Force Rep. Donna Lichtenegger; Health and Human Services Task Force Rep. Keith Frederick; Health and Human Task Force Rep. Sue Entlicher; Public Safety and Elections Task Force Rep. Tony Dugger; Public Safety and Elections Task Force Rep. Noel Torpey; Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force Rep. Paul R. Curtman; Tax and Fiscal Policy

Services Task Force Rep. Sue Allen, ALEC Health and Human Services Task Force and International Relations Task Force member Rep. William White; Health and Human Services Task Force Rep. Jerry Nolte; International Relations Task Force Rep. Scott D. Dieckhaus; Education Task Force Rep. Bill Lant; Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Rep. Sandy Crawford; Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force

Task Force Rep. Zachary Wyatt; Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force Former Rep. Cynthia Davis Rep. Therese Sander Rep. Doug Ervin Former Rep. Ted Hoskins, ALEC "State Legislator of the Year" in 2009 Former Rep. Rodney Hubbard, ALEC "State Legislator of the Year" in 2007 Rep. Mike Colona Rep. Michele Kratky Sen. Jack Goodman, spoke on "Saving Dollars and Protecting Communities: State Successes in Corrections Policy" at 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting

Progress Missouri has more than two dozen corporation-friendly bills introduced in the Missouri General Assembly with provisions that echo ALEC model bills. The following list does not include ALEC language snuck into larger legislation, or bills inspired by ALEC models but re-written to match Missouri statutes. Year 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2008 2008 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2000 Bill HB 1086 HB1539 HB2109 HCR 50 HCR 7 SB 438 SB 514 SB 547 HB255 HB393 HCR 12 SB 1 SB 109 SB 197 SB 206 HB2236 HCR 44 SB 888 SJR 25 HCR 13 HB 2137 HCR 44 SB 727 HB 189 HB1103 HB877 SCR 22 HB 1798 SB 962 Sponsor Bill White Tim Jones Shane Schoeller Kurt Bahr Lyle Rowland Robert Mayer Jason Crowell Chuck Purgason Stanley Cox Tim Jones Lyle Rowland Luann Ridgeway Jason Crowell Luann Ridgeway Chuck Purgason Stanley Cox Joe Smith Jason Crowell Jane Cunningham Jim Guest Brian Yates Bob Dixon Charlie Shields Kenny Jones Kenny Jones Steve Hunter Peter Kinder Marilyn Williams ALEC Model ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALEC.org ALECExposed.com Heartland.org ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com Topic Right to Work for Less "Parent Trigger Act" Voter registration Hurdles "Parents Rights" Resolution "Reaffirming 10th Amendment rights" Right to Work for Less Right to Work for Less Right to Work for Less "Private Attorney Retention Act" "Parent Trigger Act" "Reaffirming 10th Amendment rights" Right to Work for Less Right to Work for Less Right to Work for Less Right to Work for Less "Private Attorney Retention Act" Food and Beverage Resolution Right to Work for Less "Freedom of Choice in Healthcare Act" "Reaffirming 10th Amendment rights" "Asbestos Fairness Act" Electoral college "Mortgage Fraud Act" "Castle Doctrine" Law "Castle Doctrine" Law Right to Work for Less Personal Retirement Accounts "Private Property Protection Act"

2006

Luann Ridgeway

ALECExposed.com

Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act

10

Year

Bill HB 1886

Sponsor

ALEC Model ALECExposed.com

Topic

2008

Dwight Scharnhorst

The Autism Scholarship Program Act

11

The following chart documents just some of financial connections between state legislators and ALEC. This does not include donations by employees of ALEC corporate members to Missouri legislators' election campaigns. Additional financial information is being examined.
Legislator Party & Hometown R- Town & Country Documentation of Membership Dues Paid? YES Received Campaign Contribution from ALEC ? Gifts Received & ALEC Events Attended Attended ALEC conference in San Diego in 2010. The trip was paid for by the American Physical Therapy Association. Connections to known ALEC Bills and other associations In 2011, used campaign funds to pay ALEC membership fee.

Allen, Sue

Bivins, Walt

R-St. Louis

Signed ALEC letter defending polluters. (See letter here) From 2009-2010, ALEC provided Brandon with $1000 for travel and lodging expenses related to ALEC conferences in Atlanta, GA and San Diego, CA YES In 2010, used campaign funds to pay ALEC $425 in membership fees. Also, see St. Louis Post Dispatch story describing ties here

Brandon, Ellen

R- Cape Girardeau

Colona, Mike

D-St. Louis

12

Legislator

Party & Hometown R-Sedalia

Documentation of Membership Dues Paid?

Received Campaign Contribution from ALEC ?

Gifts Received & ALEC Events Attended Used campaign funds on ALEC conference registration.

Connections to known ALEC Bills and other associations Signed ALEC letter defending polluters. (See letter here) In 2010, used campaign funds to pay for ALEC conference registration.

Cox, Stanley

Sponsored HB 255
Cross, Gary R- Lee's Summit R-Cape Girardeau R-Chesterfield $75 From 2001-2010, ALEC provided Jane Cunningham with more than $33,000 in lodging and travel expenses related to ALEC board meetings and conferences. She attended over 30 such meetings and conferences. Locations included: Chicago, IL, Las Vegas, NV, San Francisco, CA, San Diego, CA, New Orleans, LA, Phoenix, AZ, Hilton Head, SC (2), Washington, DC (7), Jackson Hole, WY Denison, Charlie R-Springfield YES $600 Used campaign funds to pay ALEC dues. YES Attended conference 11/27/11 In 2011, used campaign funds to pay ALEC membership fee.

Crowell, Jason Cunningham, Jane

SB 888
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

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

13

Legislator

Party & Hometown R-Greene R-Hartville

Documentation of Membership Dues Paid? YES

Received Campaign Contribution from ALEC ?

Gifts Received & ALEC Events Attended

Connections to known ALEC Bills and other associations

Dixon, Bob Dugger, Tony

HCR 44
In 2011, used campaign funds to pay ALEC membership fee. Signed ALEC letter defending polluters. (See letter here) Former State Chairman; Legislator of Year, 2006

Emery, Ed

R-Lamar

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. YES

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

Funderburk, Doug

R-St. Peter's

In 2009 and 2010, spent $785 in campaign funds on ALEC membership and conference fees. Legislator of Year, 2009 Legislator of Year, 2007

Hoskins, Ted Hubbard, Rodney Hunter, Steve

D-Berkeley D-St. Louis 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.

14

Legislator

Party & Hometown R-California

Documentation of Membership Dues Paid? YES

Received Campaign Contribution from ALEC ?

Gifts Received & ALEC Events Attended Used campaign funds to register for ALEC event.

Connections to known ALEC Bills and other associations In 2011, campaign used funds to pay for ALEC registration fees. Sponsored HB 189 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)

Jones, Caleb

Jones, Kenny Jones, Tim

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

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.

15

Legislator

Party & Hometown R-Winchester

Documentation of Membership Dues Paid? YES

Received Campaign Contribution from ALEC ? $2,233.68

Gifts Received & ALEC Events Attended 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.

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

Koenig, Andrew

Korman, Bart

R- High Hill

YES

Used campaign funds to pay ALEC membership dues. Used campaign funds to travel to ALEC events.

In 2011, used campaign funds to pay ALEC membership dues. In 2010, used $1000 in campaign funds on aircraft travel and lodging for ALEC event. In 2009 and 2010, used $475 in campaign funds to pay ALEC registration and membership fees.

Kratky, Michele

D-St. Louis

Lembke, Jim

R-Lemay

YES

Used campaign funds to pay for ALEC membership dues and registration fees.

McNary, Cole

R-Chesterfield

$300

In 2010, ALEC provided McNary with $600 for travel and lodging expenses related to ALEC conferences in Washington, DC and San Diego, CA. Used campaign funds In 2009, used $350 in campaign contributions for the purpose of an ALEC conference. In 2006 and 2007, used $500 in campaign contributions for ALEC registration fees.

Nieves, Brian

R-Washington

Nodler, Gary

R-Joplin

Used campaign funds

16

Legislator

Party & Hometown R-Lebanon

Documentation of Membership Dues Paid?

Received Campaign Contribution from ALEC ? $1459.94

Gifts Received & ALEC Events Attended In 2010, ALEC provided Pollock with over $1400 for travel and lodging expenses related to an ALEC conference in San Diego, California. Used campaign funds to pay for ALEC registration fees.

Connections to known ALEC Bills and other associations In 2010, used campaign $510 in campaign funds on ALEC registration fees.

Pollock, Darrell

Richard, Ron

R-Joplin

Member, Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force In 2001, ALEC provided Pollock with around $ 1800 for travel and lodging expenses related to an ALEC conference in Washington, DC. $500 Donated $1,475 in campaign funds for ALEC scholarships in 2010. Sponsored HCR 7 Signed ALEC letter defending polluters. (See letter here) 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.

Ridgeway, Luann

R-Clay County

Rowland, Lyle Schad, Rodney

R-Cedarcreek R-Versailles

Schoeller, Shane

R-Willard

YES

17

Legislator

Party & Hometown R-Salem

Documentation of Membership Dues Paid?

Received Campaign Contribution from ALEC ?

Gifts Received & ALEC Events Attended 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

Connections to known ALEC Bills and other associations In 2011, used $375 on in campaign funds on ALEC registration fees. State Chairman (See here)

Smith, Jason

Smith, Joe White, Bill Williams, Marilyn Yates, Brian

R-St. Charles R-Joplin D-159 R-Lee's Summit YES Used campaign funds to pay for membership dues.

Sponsored HCR 44 Sponsored HB 1086 Sponsored HB 1798 In 2007, used campaign funds to pay for ALEC membership dues.

Sources: Missouri Ethics Commission ALEC.org ALEC.org ALECExposed.com http://alecexposed.org/w/images/7/72/ALEC_State_Chairmen_Exposed.pdf ALEC.org http://www.alec.org/AM/PDF/NRTF/EPALetterforSenate.pdf SourceWatch.org http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Politicians Turner Report research shows that all of the following attended the 2010 ALEC conference: Darrell Pollock, R-Lebanon, John Diehl, R-Town and Country; Doug Funderburk, R-St. Peter's; Chuck Gatschenberger, R-Lake St. Louis; Sue Allen, R-St. Louis; Ellen Brandom, R-Sikeston; Cole McNary, RChesterfield; Jason Smith, R-Salem; Ed Emery, R-Lamar; and Timothy Jones, R-Eureka, Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield; John Griesheimer, RWashington; and Luann Ridgeway, R-Smithville. http://rturner229.blogspot.com/2010/10/taxpayers-lobbyists-foot-bill-for.html

18

Fiscal Year 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012

Agency Name Legislature Legislature Office of Lt. Governor Legislature Legislature

Category Description Professional Development Professional Development Professional Development Professional Development Professional Development

Detail Description Organization Memberships Organization Memberships Convention, Conference & Training Fees Organization Memberships Organization Memberships

Vendor Name American Legislative Exchange American Legislative Exchange American Legislative Exchange American Legislative Exchange American Legislative Exchange

Payments $5,800.00 $50.00 $700.00 $915.00 $100.00

Source: Missouri Accountability Portal 78jj This snapshot is for the most recent three years, although the financial connections between Missouri politicians and ALEC go back much farther.

19

Candidate Name Charlie Denison Caleb Jones Tim Jones (R-Eureka) Bart Korman Sue Allen Tim Jones (R-Eureka) Shane Schoeller Tony Dugger (R-Hartville) Luann Ridgeway (R-Clay County) Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia) Tim Jones (R-Eureka) Mike Colona (D-St. Louis) Michele Kratky Mike Colona (D-St. Louis) Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis County) Tim Jones (R-Eureka) Jim Lembke (R-Lemay) Tim Jones (R-Eureka) Darrell Pollock Darrell Pollock Tim Jones (R-Eureka) Doug Funderburk (R-St. Peter's) Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis County)

Recipient ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC

Date 6/3/2011 4/7/2011 3/31/2011 2/16/2011 2/7/2011 1/31/2011 1/31/2011 1/25/2011 12/10/2010 12/8/2010 12/5/2010 11/28/2010 11/14/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/3/2010 10/26/2010 9/23/2010 6/15/2010 6/15/2010 5/25/2010 2/13/2010 11/13/2009

Purpose Dues Registration Registration Fee For Conference Dues Fee Registration Fee For Conference Membership Dues Membership Scholarship Funding Conference Registration Spring Conference Registration Fee Legislative Convention Airfare And Hotel Legislative Seminar & Membership Fee Alec Registration Registration Fee For Conference Conference Registration States & Nation Policy Summit Registration Fee Registration Registration Registration Fee-Conference Conference Fee Conference

Amount $475.00 $100.00 $599.00 $100.00 $100.00 $150.00 $100.00 $100.00 $1,475.00 $150.00 $200.00 $425.00 $1,002.85 $425.00 $525.00 $200.00 $375.00 $375.00 $510.00 $510.00 $660.00 $410.00 $600.00

20

Candidate Name Mike Colona (D-St. Louis) Doug Ervin Doug Funderburk (R-St. Peter's) Enterprise Holdings PAC Jim Lembke (R-Lemay) Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis County) Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis County) Speaker Jetton Leadership Fund Gary Nodler (R-Joplin) Jack Goodman Grassroots For Hunter Brian Yates (R-Blue Springs) Gary Nodler (R-Joplin)

Recipient ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC

Date 10/20/2009 5/28/2009 5/14/2009 3/11/2009 1/20/2009 11/24/2008 11/19/2008 6/26/2008 5/16/2007 2/5/2007 1/25/2007 1/11/2007

Purpose Conference Registration Annual Dues Contribution Dues Travel Expenses Membership Fee Legislative Magazine Registration Membership Registration Membership Dues For Official Office Registration

Amount $350.00 $650.00 $375.00 $2,500.00 $100.00 $896.07 $400.00 $375.00 $275.00 $200.00 $100.00 $100.00 $275.00

21

Politician Andrew Koenig Andrew Koenig Andrew Koenig Timothy W Jones Timothy W Jones Timothy W Jones Darrell Pollock Andrew Koenig Jane Cunningham Jane Cunningham Jane Cunningham Rodney Schad

Donor ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC ALEC , Washington, DC Lori Roman, Annapolis, MD 21401, ALEC Executive Director Todd Kruse, Apple Valley, MN 55124, ALEC Field Representative Todd Kruse, Apple Valley, MN 55124, ALEC Field Representative ALEC , Washington, DC

Date 1/16/2011 6/30/2011 4/27/2011 1/21/2011 3/10/2010 10/21/2010 9/17/2010 1/12/2009 4/17/2008 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 9/2/2008

Amount $500.00 $287.61 $50.00 $1192.31 $500.00 $50.00 $1459.94 $896.07 $50.00 $75.00 $75.00 $500.00

Note

Reimbursement for travel Refund for early registration Reimbursement Reimbursement for travel

22

Year 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2008 2008 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2000 2006

Bill
HB 1086 HB1539 HB2109 HCR 50 HCR 7 SB 438 SB 514 SB 547 HB255 HB393 HCR 12 SB 1 SB 109 SB 197 SB 206 HB2236 HCR 44 SB 888 SJR 25 HCR 13 HB 2137 HCR 44 SB 727 HB 189 HB1103 HB877 SCR 22 HB 1798 SB 962

Sponsor Bill White Tim Jones Shane Schoeller Kurt Bahr Lyle Rowland Robert Mayer Jason Crowell Chuck Purgason Stanley Cox Tim Jones Lyle Rowland Luann Ridgeway Jason Crowell Luann Ridgeway Chuck Purgason Stanley Cox Joe Smith Jason Crowell Jane Cunningham Jim Guest Brian Yates Bob Dixon Charlie Shields Kenny Jones Kenny Jones Steve Hunter Peter Kinder Marilyn Williams Luann Ridgeway

Link to ALEC Model

ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALEC.org ALECExposed.com Heartland.org ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com ALECExposed.com

Topic Right to Work for Less "Parent Trigger Act" Voter registration Hurdles "Parents Rights" Resolution "Reaffirming 10th Amendment rights" Right to Work for Less Right to Work for Less Right to Work for Less "Private Attorney Retention Act" "Parent Trigger Act" "Reaffirming 10th Amendment rights" Right to Work for Less Right to Work for Less Right to Work for Less Right to Work for Less "Private Attorney Retention Act" Food and Beverage Resolution Right to Work for Less "Freedom of Choice in Healthcare Act" "Reaffirming 10th Amendment rights" "Asbestos Fairness Act" Electoral college "Mortgage Fraud Act" "Castle Doctrine" Law "Castle Doctrine" Law Right to Work for Less Personal Retirement Accounts "Private Property Protection Act" Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act

ALECExposed.co m

23

Year

Bill

Sponsor

Link to ALEC Model

ALECExposed.com

Topic

2008 HB 1886

Dwight Scharnhorst

The Autism Scholarship Program Act

24

For decades, Republican politicians and powerful corporate interests have pushed so-called right to work bills that are all about politics -- not economics. This legislation is designed by ALEC corporate interests and their allied politicians to harm their political opponents by eliminating public employee unions seen as supporting elected officials that look out for workers' interests. Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer, Sen. Jason Crowell, Sen. Chuck Purgason, Sen. Luann Ridgeway, Rep. Bill White, Former Rep. Steve Hunter Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Barney Fisher, Ed Emery, Don Phillips, Todd Smith, Mike Dethrow, Mike Cunningham, Theresa Sander, Kathy Chinn, Marilyn Ruestman, Dennis Wood, Brad Roark, Davis Day, Rex Rector, Bill Deeken, Tom Self, Otto Bean, Peter Myers, Brian Munzlinger, Steve Hobbs, Kevin Wilson, And John Quinn (CoSponsors of HB 877) Missouri Bills: SB 514, SB 438, SB 547,SB 1, SB 109, SB 197, SB 206, SB 888, HB877, HB 1086 ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_rtw

ALEC Model Legislation http://j.mp/alec_rtw 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 No person shall be required, as a condition of

MO Language in SB 514, SB 438, SB 547,SB 1, SB 109, SB 197, SB 206, SB 888, HB877, HB 1086 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 or

25

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. 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 Section 9. {Civil remedies.} Any employee harmed as a result of any violation or threatened violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be entitled to

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.

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.

5. (2) Any person injured as a result of any violation or threatened violation of this section may recover any and all damages of
26

injunctive relief against any and all violators or persons threatening violations and may in addition thereto recover any and all damages, including costs and reasonable attorney fees, of any character resulting from such violation or threatened violation. Such remedies shall be independent of and in addition to the penalties and remedies prescribed in other provisions of this chapter. Section 10. {Duty to investigate.} It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorneys of each county (or the attorney general of this state) to investigate complaints of violation or threatened violations of this chapter and to prosecute all persons violating any of its provisions, and to take all means at their command to ensure its effective enforcement.

any character resulting from such violation or threatened violation including costs and reasonable attorney fees.

Such remedies shall be independent of and in addition to the other penalties and remedies proscribed under this section. 6. It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney of each county and of the attorney general of this state to investigate complaints of violation or threatened violation of this section and to prosecute any person violating this section and to use all means at their command to ensure the effective enforcement of this section.

27

According to the Associated Press, the bill "would enable parents, if a majority agreed, to convert a public school to a charter or get vouchers to send their children elsewhere if they're unhappy with their current school Dave Wright, president of the Missouri School Boards' Association, called the bill's three options 'simple and unproven' and inadequate for solving schools' complex problems. He also said parents of a single school shouldn't be given direct power over it because their decisions affect local property owners who pay taxes to the school district." This legislation would allow a single vote to undermine the opportunity for a generation or more of children to attend public schools, while redirecting tax dollars from public schools to private institutions including for-profit school companies, even potentially "online" school companies that would receive a huge portion of per pupil fees without the expense of providing buildings, desks, sports, and the other social education of schools. ALEC's education task force is co-chaired by a for-profit online school corporation. Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Tim Jones, ALEC State Co-Chair Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Scott Dieckhaus, Cole McNary, Jay Barnes, Todd Richardson, Andrew Koenig, Shane Schoeller and Gary Cross (HB 393). Gary Fuhr, Bill Lant, Stanley Cox, Galen Higdon, and Doug Funderburk (HB1539) Missouri Bills: HB393, HB1539 ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_trigger

ALEC Model Legislation

HB393

Section 1: {Short Title} 160.1200. 1. The provisions of sections This act may be cited 160.1200 to 160.1206 shall be known as the "Parent Empowerment and Choice Act" as the "Parent Empowerment and Choice or the "Parent Trigger Act." 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. 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;
28

(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 onehalf of the parents or legal guardians of pupils attending the school, or a combination of more than one-half of the parents or legal guardians of pupils attending the school and the elementary or middle schools that normally matriculate into a middle or high school, as applicable, sign a petition requesting the local educational agency to implement one or more of the three interventions identified pursuant to Section (5), the local educational agency shall implement the option requested by the parents. Section 4. {Intervention Implementation} The local educational agency shall notify the Superintendent and the state board upon receipt of a petition and upon its final disposition of that petition. The local education agency is given 180 days to implement the chosen model of reform.

(2) "School district of enrollment", a school district other than the school district in which the parent of a pupil resides, but in which the parent of the pupil nevertheless intends to enroll the pupil under sections 160.1200 to 160.1206; (3) "School district of residence", a school district in which the parent of a pupil resides and in which the pupil would otherwise be required to enroll under state law.

160.1202. 1. For all public schools where more than fifty percent of the parents of pupils attending school, or a combination of more than fifty percent of the parents of pupils attending the school and the elementary or middle schools that normally matriculate into a middle or high school, as applicable, sign a petition requesting the local educational agency to implement one or more of the three interventions identified under subsection 3 of this section, the local educational agency shall implement the option requested by the parents.

2. The local educational agency shall notify the superintendent and the state board upon receipt of a petition and upon its final disposition of that petition. The local educational agency shall have one hundred eighty days to implement the chosen model of reform.

29

Section 5. {School Intervention Models} There are three school intervention models: restart model, school closure, or educational choice model. Each is described below. (A) Restart model. A restart model is one in which an LEA converts a school or closes and reopens a school under a charter school operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an education management organization (EMO) that has been selected through a rigorous review process. (A CMO is a non-profit organization that operates or manages charter schools by centralizing or sharing certain functions and resources among schools. An EMO is a for-profit or nonprofit organization that provides ''wholeschool operation'' services to an LEA.) A restart model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend the school.

3. There are three school intervention models: restart model, school closure, and educational choice.

(1) A restart model is one in which a local educational agency converts a school or closes and reopens a school under a charter school operator, a charter management organization, or an education management organization that has been selected through a rigorous review process. A charter management organization is a nonprofit organization that operates or manages charter schools by centralizing or sharing certain functions and resources among schools. An education management organization is a for-profit or nonprofit organization that provides whole school operation services to a local educational agency. A restart model shall enroll, within the grades it services, any former student who wishes to attend the school. (2) School closure occurs when a local educational agency closes a school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other schools within the local educational agency that are higher achieving. These other schools should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for which achievement data are not yet available. In the event no such school exists, the district shall implement the educational choice model. (3) Educational choice occurs when a local
30

(B) School closure. School closure occurs when an LEA closes a school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. These other schools should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for which achievement data are not yet available. In the event that no such school exists, the district will implement the educational choice model.

(C) Educational choice. Educational choice

occurs when an LEA implements a school voucher program pursuant to Section 6.

educational agency implements a school voucher program under section 160.1204.

Section 6. {Universal Educational Vouchers} (A) Any student of, or student who would naturally matriculate into, a school triggered for the educational choice reform option will have the option to receive a monetary voucher to cover the cost of attendance at any private or other public school. (B) Any student of a triggered school wishing to attend a private school will qualify for an annual scholarship in an amount equal to the lesser of: (1) 75 percent the triggered school's annual cost per pupil, including both operational and capital facility costs; or (2) 75 percent the dollar amount the resident school district would have received to serve and educate the eligible student from state and local sources had the student enrolled there. (C) Any student of a triggered school wishing to attend a different public school will qualify for any public school with no additional fee.

160.1204. 1. Any student of, or student who would naturally matriculate into, a school triggered for the educational choice reform option shall have the option to receive a monetary voucher to cover the cost of attendance at any private or other public school. 2. Any student of a triggered school wishing to attend a private school shall qualify for an annual scholarship in an amount equal to the lessor of: (1) Seventy-five percent of the triggered school's annual cost per pupil, including both operational and capital facility costs; or (2) Seventy-five percent of the dollar amount the resident school district would have received to serve and educate the eligible student from state and local sources had the student enrolled there. 3. Any student of a triggered school wishing to attend a different public school shall qualify for any public school with no additional fee. 4. Funds available to a student are calculated using an average of the last three budget years and recalculated each year.

(D) Funds available to a student are calculated using an average of the last three (3) budget years and recalculated each year.

31

(E) Funds are made available to each student 5. Funds are made available to each student until the earlier of (1) completion of their high until the earlier of completion of his or her school degree or (2) their 21st birthday. high school degree or his or her twenty-first birthday. (F) Students receiving voucher monies are to be counted in the enrollment figures of their LEAs for the purposes of calculating future voucher monies. 6. Students receiving voucher moneys are to be counted in the enrollment figures of their local educational agencies for the purposes of calculating future voucher moneys.

(G) Students receiving voucher monies more than the cost of tuition in a private school are given the opportunity to store that money in an Educational Savings Account (ESA) to be used for any additionally encumbered educational expenses. Qualifying expenses include but are not limited to tutoring, lessons, educational camps, school materials, textbooks, educational software. (H) There are no additional regulatory powers granted to the state in this legislation:

7. Students receiving voucher moneys more than the cost of tuition in a private school are given the opportunity to store that money in an educational savings account to be used for any additionally encumbered educational expenses. Qualifying expenses include but are not limited to tutoring, lessons, educational camps, school materials, textbooks, and educational software. 160.1206. There are no additional regulatory powers granted to the state in sections 160.1200 to 160.1206. The educational voucher reform option of section 160.1204 does not expand the regulatory authority of the state, its officers, or any school district in any way.

(1) The education voucher reform option does not expand the regulatory authority of the state, its officers, or any school district in any way.

(2) Any regulatory board in existence must be represented in at least half by members not a part of the public school system. Adopted by the Education Task Force at the 2010 States & Nation Policy Summit, December 3, 2010. Approved by the ALEC

Any regulatory board in existence shall be represented in at least half by members not a part of the public school system.

32

Board of Directors, January 7, 2011.

33

Rep. Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia) has publicly acknowledged that 'his' legislation was modeled on an ALEC proposal, spurred by concern about fees paid to private lawyers as part of the national settlement with tobacco companies. (Missouri Lawyers Media, 03/20/11, and Summary of HB 255, 2011) For decades, ALEC has been funded in part by tobacco companies and their lawyers. Reynolds sits on ALEC's board and also sponsors cigar parties at ALEC resort meetings. Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Stanley Cox Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Bob Nance and Chuck Gatschenberger (HB 255). Bob Nance, Chuck Gatschenberger, Bryan Stevenson, and Walt Bivins (HB 2236). Missouri Bills: HB255, HB2236 ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_attorney%20

ALEC Model 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.

HB255 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.
34

Section 3. {Procurement} Any state agency or state agent that wishes to retain a lawyer or law firm to perform legal services on behalf of this state, where the fees and expenses for such services will exceed or can be reasonably expected to exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), shall not do so until an open and competitive bidding process has been undertaken. [Refer to existing state thresholds and requirements for procuring outside services by bid] Section 4. {Oversight} No state agency or state agent shall enter into a contract for legal services exceeding one million dollars ($1,000,000) without the opportunity for legislative review of the terms of the contract in accordance with Section 5. Section 5. {Implementation} A. Except as provided in Section 5(E), any state agency or state agent proposing to enter into a contract for legal services exceeding $1,000,000 shall file a copy of the proposed contract with the clerk of the House of Representatives and shall also accompany such proposed contract with a written statement that identifies:

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

4. No state agency or state agent shall enter into a contract for legal services exceeding one million dollars without the opportunity for legislative review of the terms of the contract in accordance with the provisions of subsection 5 of this section. 5. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (5) of this subsection, any state agency or state agent proposing to enter into a contract for legal services exceeding one million dollars shall file a copy of the proposed contract with the clerk of the house of representatives and shall also accompany such proposed contract with a written statement that identifies:

(1) the reasons the state should retain private counsel and the consideration of alternatives;

(a) The reasons the state should retain private counsel and the consideration of alternatives;
35

(2) the open and competitive bidding process that has been undertaken with respect to the proposed legal services; (3) the reasons for the selection of the lawyer or law firm that is the proposed contracting party;

(b) The open and competitive bidding process that has been undertaken with respect to the proposed legal services; (c) The reasons for the selection of the lawyer or law firm that is the proposed contracting party;

(d) The past or present relationship, if any, (4) the past or present relationship, if any, between such lawyer, law firm, or any between such lawyer, law firm, or any partner or other principal in such law firm and partner or other principal in such law firm and the state agency or state agent proposing to the state agency or state agent proposing to enter into the contract; and enter into the contract; and (e) If the contract contemplates that all or (5) if the contract contemplates that all or part of the fee is contingent on the outcome part of the fee is contingent on the outcome of the legal proceeding, the reasons the of the legal proceeding, the reasons the contingent fee arrangement is believed to be contingent fee arrangement is believed to be in the state's interest and any efforts in the state's interest and any efforts undertaken to obtain private counsel on a undertaken to obtain private counsel on a noncontingent fee basis. non-contingent fee basis. (2) Except as provided in subdivision (6) of B. Except as provided in Section 5(F), the clerk this subsection, the clerk of the house of of the House of Representatives, with the representatives, with the approval of the approval of the President of the Senate and president of the senate and speaker of the the Speaker of the House of Representatives, house of representatives, shall promptly refer shall promptly refer such proposed contract such proposed contract and written and written statement to the appropriate statement to the appropriate committee for committee for review. review. (3) Within forty-five days after the filing of the proposed contract and statement with the clerk, the reviewing committee may hold a public hearing on the proposed contract and, whether or not a public hearing is held,
36

C. Within 45 days after the filing of said proposed contract and statement with the clerk, the reviewing committee may hold a public hearing on said proposed contract and,

whether or not a public hearing is held, shall issue a report to the referring state agency or state agent. Said report shall include any recommended changes to the proposed contract approved by the committee. If the reviewing committee recommends no changes to the proposed contract within 45 days of the initial filing of the proposed contract with the clerk of the House of Representatives, the referring state agency or state agent may enter into the proposed contract. If the report of the reviewing committee recommends changes to the proposed contract in accordance with this paragraph, the state agency or state agent shall review said report and prepare a revised contract as deemed appropriate in view of said report and shall file with the clerk of the House of Representatives a copy of the revised contract. D. If the revised contract does not contain all changes recommended by the reviewing committee, the referring state agency or state agent shall include with the revised contract filed with said clerk a letter stating the reasons why the recommended changes were not adopted. Said clerk shall promptly refer such letter and revised contract to the reviewing committee, which may hold additional hearings and issue additional reports in its discretion. Not earlier than 45 days after the filing of such letter and revised contract its discretion. Not earlier than 45 days after the filing of such letter and revised contract with the clerk, the referring state agency or state agent may enter into the revised contract. Notwithstanding anything in

shall issue a report to the referring state agency or state agent. The report shall include any recommended changes to the proposed contract approved by the committee. If the reviewing committee recommends no changes to the proposed contract within forty-five days of the initial filing of the proposed contract with the clerk of the house of representatives, the referring state agency or state agent may enter into the proposed contract. If the report of the reviewing committee recommends changes to the proposed contract in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision, the state agency or state agent shall review the report and prepare a revised contract as deemed appropriate in view of the report and shall file with the clerk of the house of representatives a copy of the revised contract. (4) If the revised contract does not contain all changes recommended by the reviewing committee, the referring state agency or state agent shall include with the revised contract filed with the clerk a letter stating the reasons why the recommended changes were not adopted. The clerk shall promptly refer such letter and revised contract to the reviewing committee, which may hold additional hearings and issue additional reports in its discretion. Not earlier than forty-five days after the filing of such letter and revised contract with the clerk, the referring state agency or state agent may enter into the revised contract. Notwithstanding any provision of this subsection, any revised contract containing terms not previously reviewed or
37

this Section, any revised contract containing terms not previously reviewed or recommended by said reviewing committee that can reasonably be expected to increase the fees and expenses to be paid shall be treated as a new proposed contract and shall be filed and reviewed in accordance with Paragraphs AD.

recommended by the reviewing committee that can reasonably be expected to increase the fees and expenses to be paid shall be treated as a new proposed contract and shall be filed and reviewed in accordance with subdivisions (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection.

E. In the event that the legislature is not in session and the state agency or state agent wishes to enter into a contract for legal services exceeding $1,000,000, the proposed contract and written statement described in Sec. 5(A)(1) and (2) shall be filed with the Governor in addition to the clerk of the House of Representatives. Except as provided in Sec. 5(F), the Governor shall establish a fivemember interim committee consisting of five state legislators, one each to be appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and the minority leader in each house of the legislature, to execute the legislative oversight duties set forth in paragraphs B-C of this section. All deadlines and responsibilities set forth in those paragraphs shall apply as though the interim committee were a committee of the legislature.

(5) In the event that the legislature is not in session and the state agency or state agent wishes to enter into a contract for legal services exceeding one million dollars, the proposed contract and written statement described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subdivision (1) of this subsection shall be filed with the governor in addition to the clerk of the house of representatives. Except as provided in subdivision (6) of this subsection the governor shall establish a five-member interim committee consisting of five state legislators, one each to be appointed by the governor, the speaker of the house of representatives, the president pro tem of the senate, and the minority leader in each house of the legislature, to execute the legislative oversight duties set forth in subdivisions (2) and (3) of this subsection. All deadlines and responsibilities set forth in those subdivisions shall apply as though the interim committee were a committee of the legislature. (6) In the event the state agency or state agent in a writing filed with the governor and the clerk of the house of representatives states that time exigencies require that the state retain counsel before the periods
38

F. In the event the state agency or state agent in a writing filed with the Governor and the clerk of the House of Representatives states that time exigencies require that the state retain counsel before the periods

provided in Section 5(A) (D) have elapsed, and provides the reasons therefor, the Governor shall establish a five-member committee, with members appointed as provided in Section 5(E), to which the proposed contract and written statement described in Section 5(A)(1) and (2) shall be referred. Said committee shall consult with the state agency or state agent to establish an expedited schedule for review and recommendations on the proposed contract.

provided in subdivisions (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection have elapsed, and provides the reasons therefor, the governor shall establish a five-member committee, with members appointed as provided in subdivision (5) of this subsection to which the proposed contract and written statement described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subdivision (1) of this subsection shall be referred. The committee shall consult with the state agency or state agent to establish an expedited schedule for review and recommendations on the proposed contract.

Section 6. {Contingent Fees} Maximum Hourly Charges} A. At the conclusion of any legal proceeding for which a state agency or agent retained outside counsel on a contingent fee basis, the state shall receive from counsel a statement of the hours worked on the case, expenses incurred, the aggregate fee amount, and a breakdown as to the hourly rate, based on hours worked divided into fee recovered, less expenses. B. In no case shall the state incur fees and expenses in excess of $1,000 per hour for legal services. In cases where a disclosure submitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section indicates an hourly rate in excess of $1,000 per hour, the fee amount shall be reduced to an amount equivalent to $1,000 per hour.

6. (1) At the conclusion of any legal proceeding for which a state agency or state agent retained outside counsel on a contingent fee basis, the state shall receive from counsel a statement of the hours worked on the case, expenses incurred, the aggregate fee amount, and a breakdown as to the hourly rate, based on hours worked divided into fee recovered, less expenses. (2) In no case shall the state incur fees and expenses in excess of two hundred fifty dollars per hour for legal services. In cases where a disclosure submitted in accordance with subdivision (1) of this subsection indicates an hourly rate in excess of two hundred fifty dollars per hour, the fee amount shall be reduced to an amount equivalent to two hundred fifty dollars per hour. 7. Nothing in this section shall be construed
39

Section 7. {No Expansion of Authority}

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to expand the authority of any state agency or state agent to enter into contracts where no such authority previously existed.

to expand the authority of any state agency or state agent to enter into contracts where no such authority previously existed.

40

"House Bill 2109 is horrendous for a variety of reasons," wrote the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on April 11, 2012. "Examining its origins, its sloppy construction and its potentially devastating results sheds light on how far modern conservative ideals have drifted from what Mr. Reagan had espoused for the Republican Party." This bill makes it more difficult for American citizens residing in Missouri to register to vote using IDs and proof of residency that have traditionally been accepted for decades in the state. Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Shane Schoeller Missouri Bills: HB2109 ALEC 'Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act' Model: http://j.mp/alec_voterreg

HB2109 house.mo.gov 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: (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; (b) A valid Missouri drivers license or [other form of

Alabama HB56 legislature.state.al.us http://latindispatch.com (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:

ALEC's Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act alecexposed.org (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:

(2) The applicant's birth certificate that verifies United States citizenship to the satisfaction of the county election officer or Secretary of State. (1) The applicant's driver's license or nondriver's

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

(1) The number of the applicant's driver License or 41

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

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

(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; (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;

(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. (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).

nonoperating identification license issued after October 1, 1996 by the Department of Transportation or the equivalent Governmental agency of another state within the United States if the agency indicates on the applicant's driver license or nonoperating identification license that the person has provided satisfactory proof of United States citizenship. (3) A 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. (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.

42

(e) Other documents or methods of proof of United States citizenship issued by the federal government under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended; (f) The applicant's Bureau of Indian Affairs card number, tribal treaty card number or tribal enrollment number;

(5) Other documents or methods of proof of United States citizenship issued by the federal government pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and amendments thereto (6) The applicant's Bureau of Indian Affairs card number, tribal treaty card number, or tribal enrollment number.

(5) Other documents or methods of proof that are established pursuant to the immigration reform and control act of 1986.

(6) The applicant's bureau of Indian affairs card number, tribal treaty card number or tribal enrollment number.

43

Makers of high-fructose corn syrup beverages and other fast foods have underwritten ALEC's operations over the years while also supporting bills to limit taxes being proposed to address the increase in health care costs attributable to diseases related to the consumption of these products. ALEC legislators have helped advance the agenda of such corporations. Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Joe Smith Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Larry Wilson Missouri Bills: HCR 44 ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_food

ALEC Model Food and Beverage Resolution WHEREAS this global recession has spread economic stress across all income levels, with lower and middle-income Americans especially hard hit; WHEREAS a frugal lifestyle and stretching the daily living expenses is a necessity for hardworking lower and middle income Americans; WHEREAS governments faced with their own economic shortfalls reflexively pursue indiscriminate taxes rather than reigning in expenditures; 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 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.

HCR 44 in 2010 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; and Whereas, governments faced with their own economic shortfalls reflexively pursue indiscriminate taxes rather than reigning in expenditures; 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, be it resolved that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninetyfifth 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.

44

This bill is based on an NRA-conceived bill that first passed in Florida in 2005 and then was adopted as an ALEC model at a closed-door meeting later that year with ALEC Criminal Justice Task Force co-chair Wal-Mart (the largest seller of long guns and ammunition) at the helm. Key provisions of this bill have been supported by ALEC legislators in 34 states, by the NRA's count, and have resulted in an increase in people shot, including unarmed citizens killed, by people asserting that they are immune from prosecution as a result of these changes made by this law. The "Castle Doctrine" is a deceptive misnomer because Missourians and Americans from every other state already had a long-standing right of self-defense in their homes (their "castles") but this law expands the circumstances in which a person can shoot to kill another person and get immunity from prosecution and civil damages for the death of another. Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Kenny Jones Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Rodney Schad, Charles Portwood, Barney Fisher, Gary Dusenberg, James Whorton, Doug Ervin, Belinda Harris, Brian Baker, Timothy Flook, Therese Sander, Raymond Weter, Brian Munzlinger, Walt Bivins, Cynthia Davis, Jason Smith, Marilyn Ruestman, Mike McGhee, David Sater, Edward Robb, Danielle Moore, and Michael Frame (HB 189). Peter Myers, Timothy Meadows, James Whorton, Doug Ervin, Brian Munzlinger, Jason Smith, Mike Dethrow, Bill Deeken, Tom Loehner, Michael Parson, and Rodney Schad (HB 1103) Missouri Bills: HB 189, HB1103 ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_castle

ALEC Castle Doctrine Act 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: a. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and

2007: HB 189 563.043.

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: (1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and 45

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 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 presumption set forth in Subsection (1) 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 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 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 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

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 (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 of this section does not apply if: (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 (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 (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 (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

46

enter was a law enforcement officer. 3. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. 4. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. 2. A person who uses force as permitted in Section (1) [and other state codes which are affected/amended by this legislation and which refer to the use of force including deadly force] is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, except when: a. The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer as defined in [insert appropriate reference to state/commonwealth code, which defines the term "law enforcement officer" or similar], who was acting in the performance of his or her duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with applicable law; or 3. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force if he or she reasonably believes it necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony 4. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. 563.058. 1. A person who uses force as permitted in sections 563.031, 563.036, 563.043, and 563.046, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil actions for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or

b. The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer.

563.058. the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer.

47

Section2. {Immunity from Criminal Prosecution and Civil Action} 1. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. 3. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (2), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful 4. The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (2).

563.058.

As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. 2. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection 1 of this section, but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. 3. The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection 1 of this section.

48

This resolution represents an attempt to re-interpret the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution in order to thwart federal regulations. Although it is not mentioned in this resolution, one of the objectives of such efforts is to make it more difficult to regulate polluters whose products may endanger the health and safety of Missouri families. Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Lyle Rowland (HCR 7 & HCR 12), Jim Guest (HCR13) Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Don Phillips, Rodney Schad, Paul Curtman, Thomas Long, Bill Lant, Paul Fitzwater, Melissa Leach, Craig Redmon, Cloria Brown, Charlie Denison, Marsha Haefner, Wanda Brown, Sue Allen, Kathie Conway, Tony Dugger, Andrew Koenig, Mike Thompson, Lyndall Fraker, and Kent Hampton. Doug Ervin (HCR13). Missouri Bills: HCR 7, HCR 12, HCR 13 ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_tenther

ALEC Model "Reaffirming 10th Amendment Rights 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 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

2012: HCR 7 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 defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment limits the scope of federal power and prescribes that the federal government was created by the states WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically 49

specifically to be an agent of the states, rather than the states being 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, 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, 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; 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

to be an agent of the states; and WHEREAS, today, in 2012, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; 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 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, 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 the members of the Missouri House of Representatives, Ninety-sixth General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby claims sovereignty for the State of Missouri under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall serve as a notice and demand to the federal

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall serve notice to the federal government of

50

our demand to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we state our intentions to ensure that all government agencies and their agents and employees operating w1thtn the geographic boundaries of { Insert State}, or whose actions have an effect on the inhabitants, lands, or water of { Insert State}, shall operate within the confines of the original intent of the Constitution of the United States; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that suitable copies of this resolution be delivered to the President of the United States, the President pro tempore of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and each member of the congressional delegation of {Insert State}.

government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally-delegated powers; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare a properly inscribed copy of this resolution for the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Missouri Congressional delegation. 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 defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

51

ALEC claims on its website that Missouri "passed the ALEC model as a statute." From ALEC.org: "In December 2008, ALEC adopted as model legislation the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which helps states block a government requirement to purchase health insurance. Now 42 states have either introduced or announced that they will introduce ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act. Six states (Virginia, Idaho, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, and Missouri) passed the ALEC model as a statute, and two states (Arizona and Oklahoma) passed the model as a constitutional amendment. An active citizen initiative is also underway in Mississippi." Missouri has long had a requirement that drivers purchase automotive insurance, and the federal bill was based on efforts to ensure that all Americans were included in the pool of people with health insurance and access to health care. A case challenging these and other provisions is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The so-called "individual mandate" was pushed hard by right-wing politicians and think tanks in the 1990s as an alternative to the Clinton health care reforms and the idea of "singlepayer" health care for Americans or what is known as "Medicare for all." Even though the requirement to purchase insurance was initially embraced by numerous Republican politicians for several years, including then-governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney and former Senator Kit Bond, when it was embraced by President Obama as an alternative way to deal with the crisis in budget-busting health care costs and the number of people under-insured, this formerly "conservative" compromise was denounced by politicians opposed to the administration. Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Jane Cunningham Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Jim Lembke, Kevin Engler, Gary Nodler, Delbert Scott, Brad Lager, Rob Mayer, John Griesheimer, Matt Bartle, Tom Dempsey, Norma Champion, Jason Crowell, Luann Ridgeway, Jack Goodman, Bill Stouffer, Eric Schmitt, Chuck Purgason, Scott Rupp, Kurt Schaefer, Dan Clemens, and Carl Vogel Missouri Bills: SJR 25 ALEC Claim: http://www.alec.org

"Missouri...passed the ALEC model as a statute." http://www.alec.org/2011/01/alec-state-legislators-warn-boehner-that-obamacare-will-coststates-big-if-not-repealed/

52

This legislation by then-Senator Peter Kinder "urges Congress to amend the Social Security Act and other statutes to allow Missouri citizens to voluntarily opt-out of the federal Social Security System and invest their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts." The effort to privatize social security has been funded since the mid-1970s by the Koch family and other billionaires. Workers have a variety of options for personal retirement accounts that risk being gambled and lost on Wall Street, in addition to the guaranteed income provided by Social Security to older and disabled Americans. Most Americans do not realize that the future solvency of the Social Security fund could be secured by taxing all income earned rather than the current loophole for people who earn more than $105,000 a year or who earn all their income from capital gains. Taking more funds out of the social security pool for private investment in Wall Street would weaken the fund and increase the risk to workers of having no pension income or social safety net as they age or if they become disabled. Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Peter Kinder Missouri Bills: SCR 22 ALEC Claim: http://j.mp/alec_privatizess

ALEC Model on Personal Retirement Accounts WHEREAS, Social Security is a federal program that does not recognize the retirement needs of many Americans; 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 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

2004: SCR 22 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, 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, workers deserve the opportunity to invest more productively for their own 53

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

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, 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, 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 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, 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, an increasing number of countries, including Australia, Chile, Mexico, Poland,

54

Sweden and the United Kingdom, now allow their citizens to allocate their taxes to such personal retirement accounts; and WHEREAS, the Social Security Trustees have consistently and repeatedly stated in their annual reports that the Social Security system will be unable to deliver on its long-term promises under its current financing scheme; and WHEREAS, the public, especially younger people, are therefore rightfully suspicious of Social Security's ability to deliver on its long-term promises to them; and WHEREAS, bipartisan Social Security reform proposals now before Congress would address these problems by creating a system of personal accounts with a portion of Social Security taxes; and WHEREAS, the Social Security Administration's own actuaries have judged these bipartisan proposals to be fiscally sound for the next 75 years; and WHEREAS, these proposals would reduce or eliminate the pressure for higher taxes or broadly reduced benefits while reducing Social Security's unfunded liability; and WHEREAS, these proposals would not affect people in or near retirement, or those eligible for or drawing Social Security's disability benefits;

Hungary, Khazakstan, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, now allow their citizens to allocate their taxes to such personal retirement accounts; and WHEREAS, the Social Security Trustees have consistently and repeatedly stated in their annual reports that the Social Security system will be unable to deliver on its long-term promises under its current financing scheme; and WHEREAS, the public, especially younger people, are therefore rightfully suspicious of Social Security's ability to deliver on its long-term promises to them; and WHEREAS, bipartisan Social Security reform proposals now before Congress would address these problems by creating a system of personal accounts with a portion of Social Security taxes; and WHEREAS, the Social Security Administration's own actuaries have judged these bipartisan proposals to be fiscally sound for the next 75 years; and WHEREAS, these proposals would reduce or eliminate the pressure for higher taxes or broadly reduced benefits while reducing Social Security's unfunded liability; and WHEREAS, these proposals would not affect people in or near retirement, nor those eligible for or drawing Social Security's disability benefits; and WHEREAS, the Congress has been unable to pass meaningful Social Security reform; and WHEREAS, the State of Missouri has shown that it invests in a fiscally responsible manner and is capable of administering pension programs; and WHEREAS, the citizens of the State of Missouri deserve better than what Social Security can

55

deliver: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the State/Commonwealth of {Insert State} urges the Congress of the United States to enact legislation amending the Social Security Act and other statutes to allow workers to allocate a portion of their Social Security taxes to personal retirement accounts that they themselves would own and control, and to reject legislation that raises federal retirement taxes, broadly reduces Social Security benefits, or fails to lower Social Security's unfunded liability; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the Missouri Senate, Ninety-Second General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the House of Representatives concurring therein, hereby urges the Congress of the United States to enact legislation amending the Social Security Act and other statutes to allow the citizens of the State of Missouri to voluntarily opt-out of the federal Social Security System and invest their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts that they themselves would own and control, the retirement accounts and investments to be approved by the State Treasurer's Office and the program to be modeled in a manner similar in concept to the Missouri Saving for Tuition 529 program; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Missouri Senate be instructed to prepare properly inscribed copies of this resolution for the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Missouri Congressional delegation.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be sent to each member of Congress.

56

From the Center for Media and Democracy: "This 'model'... attempts to dress up the effort to privatize the American tradition of public education as a parental right, creating a political wedge issue while also elevating these privatization efforts to "constitutional" status, which can then be used as a weapon to strike down any statute that is purported to infringe on the rights granted by this vague amendment." Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Kurt Bahr Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Mellissa Leach, Paul Fitzwater, Rick
Brattin, Sandy Crawford, Diane Franklin, Chrissy Sommer, Ronald Schieber, Sue Allen, Lindell Shumake, Tim Jones, John McCaherty, Thomas Long, Wayne Wallingford, Steven Tilley, Brent Lasater, Eric Burlison, Andrew Koenig, Mark Parkinson, Nick Marshall, and Mike Kelley

Missouri Bills: HCR 50 ALEC Claim: http://j.mp/alec_parental

ALEC Model Legislation 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.

MO Language in 2012: HCR 50 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

57

This bill focuses on home-owners rather than on the mortgage industry and its fraudulent and deceptive lending practices that left numerous Missouri families with escalating interest and balloon payments nearly impossible to repay in exchange for short-term lower payments by the homeowner and major income and profits to banks through re-financing schemes. Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Charlie Shields Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Michael Gibbons Missouri Bills: SB 727 ALEC Claim: http://j.mp/alec_mortgagefraud

ALEC Model Legislation Mortgage Fraud Act As used in this Act: (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. (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

MO Language in 2008: SB 727 4. For the purposes of this section the following terms shall have the following meanings: (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 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 58

lender, borrower, or any 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

other party to the mortgage lending process;

(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;

59

This bill would make it more difficult for states and cities to regulate polluting industries, factory farms, or other activities by embracing a re-interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to allow a property owner to claim a "regulatory" taking of property if a regulation affects property values. Such an interpretation makes it more difficult for the people's representatives to protect the health and safety of Missouri families from businesses that attempt to use their property in ways that expose others to harm or nuisances. Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Marilyn A. Williams Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Gary Wiggins, Sam Leake, Kenneth Legan, Bill Ransdall, Phillip Britt, Peter Myers, James Graham, Daniel Hegeman, Dan Ward, Jerry McBride, Denny Merideth, Bill Foster, Todd Richardson, Mark Elliot, Martin (Bubs) Hohulin, Jim Kreider, and Lanie Black Missouri Bills: HB 1798 ALEC Model: ALECExposed.com

Model Private Property Protection Act 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. (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,

MO Language in 2000: HB 1798 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. 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

60

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

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. 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. 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 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; (3) The owner or user may make his or her reservation in either or both forms. 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. 61

nuisance in fact. Determination by the governmental unit or units involved that a use is a noxious use or poses a demonstrable harm to public health and safety shall not be binding upon the court. Review of the governmental unit or units' determination shall be de novo. (B) Implementation defined. A program is implemented with respect to an owner's or user's property when actually applied to that property. Section 6. {Regulatory rollback.} (A) Conditional relaxation authorized. If the governmental unit of which inverse condemnation is successfully required under Section 3 is unwilling or unable to pay the costs awarded, it may instead relax the land use planning, zoning, or other regulatory program as it affects the plaintiff's land and all similarly situated land in the jurisdiction in which the regulatory program is in effect to the level of regulation in place as of the time the owner acquired title or {insert date}, whichever is later. In such event, the governmental unit shall be liable to the plaintiff landowner or user for the reasonable and necessary costs of the inverse condemnation action, plus any actual and demonstrable economic losses caused the plaintiff by regulation during the period in which it was in effect. (B) Constitutional requirements. This section shall not be deemed to affect any remedy which is constitutionally required. 523.258 2. A program is implemented with respect to an owner's or user's property when actually applied to such property. 523.260. 1. If the governmental unit of which inverse condemnation is successfully required pursuant to sections 523.250 to 523.262 is unwilling or unable to pay the costs awarded, it may instead relax the land use planning, zoning or other regulatory program as it affects the plaintiff's land and all similarly situated land in the jurisdiction in which the regulatory program is in effect to the level of regulation in place as of the time the owner acquired title or on the effective date of sections 523.250 to 523.262, whichever is later. In such event, the governmental unit shall be liable to the plaintiff landowner or user for the reasonable and necessary costs of the inverse condemnation action, plus any actual and demonstrable economic losses caused the plaintiff by regulation during the period in which it was in effect.

2. This section shall not be deemed to affect any remedy which is constitutionally required.

(C) Relaxation procedure. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the governmental unit or units subject to an award of

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the governmental unit or units subject to an award of compensation pursuant to

62

compensation under this Act may elect to relax the land use planning, zoning, or other regulatory program without further public hearings, proceedings, or environmental review required. If the governmental unit or units elect to so relax the affected regulatory program, the previously effective program shall automatically be in effect. Section 7. {Legal challenges.} Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preclude property owners from bringing legal challenges to regulatory programs affected by this Act in instances where the regulation caused diminution in value of the property for the uses permitted at the time the owner acquired title, or {insert date}, whichever is later, nor shall it be construed to preclude property owners from bringing legal challenges to regulatory programs affected by this Act based on other provisions of law.

sections 523.250 to 523.262 may elect to relax the land use planning, zoning or other regulatory program without further public hearings, proceedings or environmental review. If the governmental unit or units elect to so relax the affected regulatory program, the previously effective program shall automatically be in effect.

523.262. Nothing in sections 523.250 to 523.262 shall be construed to preclude property owners from bringing legal challenges to regulatory programs affected by sections 523.250 to 523.262 in instances where the regulation cause diminution in value of the property for the uses permitted at the time the owner acquired title, or the effective date of sections 523.250 to 523.262, whichever is later, nor shall it be construed to preclude property owners from bringing legal challenges to regulatory programs affected by sections 523.250 to 523.262 based on other provisions of law.

63

Asbestos companies have long been members of ALEC and have sought to use ALEC legislators to advance measures that would erase the legal liability of companies when they are purchased by other companies, regardless of the transfer of the assets of such companies which profited from products that killed or injured American citizens and workers (and even though asbestos companies were long aware of the health hazards of the products (for causing cancer, mesothelioma, or asbestosis or other diseases) and there is documentary evidence that leading asbestos companies hid this information. Bills like the one below would allow the owners of the company to escape responsibility for the harms their products caused by selling the company to another corporation, effectively privatizing profits and assets while making the public pay the costs of Americans injured or killed by their products. Traditionally, assets and liabilities must be transferred together in a sale of a company. This bill would alter that traditional rule to the detriment of Americans harmed by the sale of products that contributed to the assets being transferred, thus thwarting responsibilities for injuries and harm. Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Brian Yates Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Bryan Pratt Missouri Bills: HB 2137 ALEC Model: Asbestos Fairness Act

ALEC Model Asbestos Fairness Act "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;

MO Language in 2008's HB 2137 "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;

64

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

(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; (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; (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. 65

(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

(including property damage claims) based on the exercise of control or the ownership of stock or the corporation before the merger or consolidation. The term includes liabilities that, after the time of the merger or consolidation for which the fair market value of total gross assets is determined under Section 4, were on are paid or otherwise discharged, or committed to be paid or otherwise discharged, by or on behalf of the corporation, or by a successor of the corporation, or by or on behalf of a transferor, in connection with settlements, judgments, or other discharges in this state or another jurisdiction. (e) "Transferor" means a corporation from which successor asbestos-related liabilities are or were assumed or incurred. The limitations in Section 3 shall not apply to: workers' compensation benefits paid by or on behalf of an employer to an employee under this State's workers' compensation act on a comparable workers' compensation law of another jurisdiction; Any claim against a corporation that does not constitute a successor asbestos-related liability; or (3) Any obligation under the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. Section 151, et seq.) as amended, or under any collective bargaining agreement. (a) Except as further limited in subsection (b), the cumulative successor asbestos-related liabilities of a corporation are limited to the fair market value of the total gross assets of the transfer determined as of the time of the merger or consolidation. The corporation does not have any responsibility for successor asbestos-related liabilities in excess of this limitation. The term shall include liabilities that, after the time of the merger or consolidation for which the fair market value of total gross assets is determined under section 537.929, are or were paid or otherwise discharged or committed to be paid or otherwise discharged, by or on behalf of the corporation or by a successor of the corporation or by or on behalf of a transferor in connection with settlements, judgments, or other discharges in this state or in another jurisdiction; (5) "Transferor", a corporation from which successor asbestos-related liabilities are or were assumed or incurred. The limitations of section 537.929 shall not apply to: Workers' compensation benefits paid by or on behalf of an employer to an employee under the provisions of chapter 287, RSMo, or a comparable workers' compensation law of another jurisdiction; Any claim against a corporation that does not constitute a successor asbestos-related liability; or 3) Any obligation under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 151, et seq., as amended, or under any collective bargaining agreement. 537.929. 1. Except as further limited in subsection 2 of this section, the cumulative successor asbestos-related liabilities of an innocent successor corporation are limited to the fair market value of the total gross assets of the transferor determined as of the time of the merger or consolidation. The innocent successor corporation does not have responsibility for 66

successor asbestos-related liabilities in excess of this limitation. (b) If the transferor had assumed or incurred successor asbestos-related or liabilities in connection with a prior merger or consolidation with a prior transferor, then the fair market value of the total assets of the prior transferor, determined as of the time of the earlier merger or consolidation, shall be substituted for the limitation set forth in subsection (a) for purposes of determining the limitation of liability of a corporation. A corporation may establish the fair market value of total gross assets for the purpose of the limitations under section 3 through any method reasonable under the circumstances, including: By reference to the going concern value of the assets or to the purchase price attributable to or paid for the assets in an arms-length transaction; or 2. If the transferor had assumed or incurred successor asbestos-related or liabilities in connection with a prior merger or consolidation with a prior transferor, then the fair market value of the total assets of the prior transferor determined as of the time of the earlier merger or consolidation shall be substituted for the limitation set forth in subsection 1 of this section for purposes of determining the limitation of liability of an innocent successor corporation. 537.932. 1. An innocent successor corporation may establish the fair market value of total gross assets for the purpose of the limitations under section 537.929 through any method reasonable under the circumstances, including: By reference to the going concern value of the assets or to the purchase price attributable to or paid for the assets in an arms-length transaction; or In the absence of other readily available information from which the fair market value can be determined, by reference to the value of the assets recorded on a balance sheet. 2. Total gross assets include intangible assets.

In the absence of other readily available information from which the fair market value can be determined, by reference to the value of the assets recorded on a balance sheet. (b) Total gross assets include intangible assets.

Total gross assets include the aggregate coverage under any applicable liability insurance that was issued to the transferor whose assets are being valued for purposes of this Section and which insurance has collected or is collectable to cover successor asbestos-related liabilities (except compensation for liabilities arising from workers' exposure to asbestos solely during the course of their employment by the transferor). A settlement of a dispute concerning such insurance coverage entered into by a transferor

To the extent total gross assets include any liability insurance that was issued to the transferor whose assets are being valued for purposes of this section, the applicability, terms, conditions and limits of such insurance shall not be affected by this statute, nor shall this statute otherwise affect the rights and obligations of an insurer, transferor or successor under any insurance contract and/or any related agreements, including, without limitation, preenactment settlements resolving coverage67

or successor with the insurers of the transferor before the enactment of this chapter shall be determinative of the aggregate coverage of such liability insurance to be included in the calculation of the transferor's total gross assets.

related disputes, and the rights of an insurer to seek payment for applicable deductibles, retrospective premiums or self-insured retentions or to seek contribution from a successor for uninsured or self-insured periods or periods where insurance is uncollectible or otherwise unavailable. Without limiting the foregoing, to the extent total gross assets include any such liability insurance, a settlement of a dispute concerning any such liability insurance coverage entered into by a transferor or successor with the insurers of the transferor before August 28, 2008, shall be determinative of the total coverage of such liability insurance to be included in the calculation of the transferor's total gross assets. 537.935. Except as provided in subsections 2 to 4 of this section, the fair market value of total gross assets at the time of the merger or consolidation shall increase annually at a rate equal to the sum of: The prime rate as listed in the first edition of the Wall Street Journal published for each calendar year since the merger or consolidation, unless the prime rate is not published in that edition of the Wall Street Journal, in which case any reasonable determination of the prime rate on the first day of the year may be used; and One percent. 2. The rate found in subsection 1 of this section shall not be compounded. 3. The adjustment of the fair market value of total gross assets shall continue as provided in subsection 1 of this section until the date the adjusted value is first exceeded by the cumulative amounts of successor asbestos-related liabilities paid or committed to be paid by or on behalf of the innocent successor corporation or a predecessor or by or on behalf of a transferor after the time of the merger or consolidation for

Section 5. Except as provided in Subsections (b), (c), and (d), the fair market value of total gross assets at the time of the merger or consolidation shall increase annually at a rate equal to the sum of: the prime rate as listed in the first edition of the Wall Street Journal published for each calendar year since the merger or consolidation, unless the prime rate is not published in that edition of the Wall Street Journal, in which case any reasonable determination of the prime rate on the first day of the year may be used, or one percent (b) The rate in Subsection (a) is not compounded.

The adjustment of the fair market value of total gross assets continues as provided under Subsection (a) until the date the adjusted value is first exceeded by the cumulative amounts of successor asbestos-related liabilities paid or committed to be paid by or on behalf of the corporation or a predecessor, or by or on behalf of a transferor, after the time of the merger or consolidation for which the fair market value of

68

total gross assets is determined.

which the fair market value of total gross assets is determined. 4. No adjustment of the fair market value of total gross assets shall be applied to any liability insurance that may be included in the definition of total gross assets by subsection 3 of section 537.932. 537.938. 1. The courts of this state shall construe the provisions of sections 537.920 to 537.938 liberally with regard to innocent successors.

(d) No adjustment of the fair market value of total gross assets shall be applied to any liability insurance that may be included in the definition of total gross assets by subsection 4(c).

Section 6. Scope of Chapter. The courts in this state shall apply, to the fullest extent permissible under the United States Constitution, this state's substantive law, including the limitation under this chapter, to the issue of successor asbestos-related liabilities.

69

Resolutions like this seek to defend a procedural rule in the Constitution that thwarts direct democracy by American citizens and has resulted in people being elected to the presidency who did not win a majority of the actual votes by American citizens. Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Bob Dixon Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Mark Parkinson Missouri Bills: HCR 44 ALEC Model: http://j.mp/alec_attorney%20

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

HCR44 http://ow.ly/5Ncd3 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 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 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 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 70

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, under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, (insert states)'s electoral votes could be awarded to a candidate that the majority of the State's citizens did not vote for; and WHEREAS, the current Electoral College system is better suited to handle recounts because they happen at the state level, which is more manageable than if they were to happen at the national level as they might if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact were adopted; and WHEREAS, the current Electoral College system creates a needed balance between agrarian and industrial interests; and WHEREAS, the current Electoral College system best preserves our two-party system and prevents the fracture of America's political structure; and WHEREAS, the United States Congress has rejected over 1000 amendments to the Constitution to change the Electoral College, including amendments to change to a popular vote system; and WHEREAS, the constitutionality of the National

states in presidential elections; and 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 Whereas, under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, Missouri's electoral votes could be awarded to a candidate that the majority of the State's citizens did not vote for; and

Whereas, the current electoral college system is better suited to handle recounts because they happen at the state level, which is more manageable than if they were to happen at the national level as they might if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is adopted; and

Whereas, the current electoral college system creates a needed balance between agrarian and industrial interests; and Whereas, the current electoral college system best preserves our two-party system and prevents the fracture of America's political structure; and Whereas, the United States Congress has rejected over 1000 amendments to the Constitution to change the electoral college, including amendments to change to a popular vote system; and Whereas, the constitutionality of the National 71

Popular Vote Interstate Compact is questionable because Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states that no state, without the consent of Congress, may "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the State of (insert state) endorses its current Electoral College system as the best way to elect the President of the United States.

Popular Vote Interstate Compact is questionable because Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution states that no state, without the consent of Congress, may "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State": Now, therefore, be it resolved that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninetyfourth General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby endorse our current electoral college system as the best way to elect the President of the United States; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the State of (insert state) shall defeat any legislation that creates a multi-state compact for the purpose of dismantling its current Electoral College System. Adopted by the Criminal Justice Task Force at the Annual Meeting, August 2007. Approved by the ALEC Board of Directors September 2007

Be it further resolved that the General Assembly shall defeat any legislation that creates a multistate compact for the purpose of dismantling our current electoral college system.

72

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Luann Ridgeway Missouri Bills: SB 962 ALEC Model:ALECExposed.com
The Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act 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 (2) was eligible to attend a public school in the preceding semester or is starting school in [state] for the firsttime;2 (3) Resides in [state] while receiving an educational scholarship. MO Language in 2006: SB 962 (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;

(b) Was eligible to attend a public school in the preceding semester or is starting school in Missouri for the first time; and (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 73

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

74

Legislators sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Dwight Scharnhorst Legislators co-sponsoring this ALEC legislation in Missouri: Tom Self Missouri Bills: HB 1886 ALEC Model: ALECExposed.com
The Autism Scholarship Program Act (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. MO Language in 2008: HB 1886 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. 2. The study shall assess: (1)The level of participating students' satisfaction with the program;

(B) The study shall assess: (1) the level of participating students' 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; (4) the percentage of participating students who exhibited behavioral problems at their resident school district compared with the percentage exhibiting behavioral problems at their participating school; (5) the class size experienced by participating students at their resident school district and at their participating school; and

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

75

(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) provide the legislature with a final copy of the evaluation of the program. 3. The study shall be completed using appropriate analytical and behavioral sciences methodologies to ensure public confidence in the study. 4. The department shall provide the general assembly with a final copy of the evaluation of the program by December 31, 2009.

76