ALEC Exposed in Nevada

MAY 2013

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 2 ABOUT ALEC ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 ALEC IN NEVADA .................................................................................................................................................... 4 NEVADAN ALEC MEMBERS AND ALUMNI .............................................................................................................. 5 Profiles of Current Office Holders ....................................................................................................................... 5 Former Office Holders ....................................................................................................................................... 10 MONEY TRAIL ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 Taxpayer Funding .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Scholarships ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Campaign Finance ............................................................................................................................................. 15 ALEC’S MODEL BILLS IN NEVADA ....................................................................................................................... 16 ALEC’s Parent Trigger In Nevada .................................................................................................................... 17 ALEC’s School Voucher Bills In Nevada ........................................................................................................... 19 ALEC's Private Schools Bill In Nevada ............................................................................................................. 24 ALEC’s Anti-Healthcare Reform Act ................................................................................................................. 27 ALEC’s English Only Bill In Nevada ................................................................................................................. 28 ALEC’s Machine Gun Bill In Nevada ................................................................................................................ 30 ALEC’s Voting Restrictions Bill In Nevada ....................................................................................................... 33 ALEC’s Ombudsman Bill in Nevada .................................................................................................................. 35 ALEC’s Federal Lands Bill In Nevada .............................................................................................................. 37 ALEC’s Bill To Cut The Minimum Wage In Nevada ......................................................................................... 38 APPENDIX: DONATIONS FROM CORPORATE FUNDERS OF ALEC TO SELECT ALEC POLITICIANS ................... 39 Senator Greg Brower ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Senator Michael Roberson ................................................................................................................................. 40 Assemblyman Cresent Hardy ............................................................................................................................. 41 Senator David Parks .......................................................................................................................................... 42 Senator James Settelmeyer................................................................................................................................. 42 Senator Don Gustavson ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Senator Barbara Cegavske* .............................................................................................................................. 43 Senator Joseph Hardy ........................................................................................................................................ 44 Senator Ben Kieckhefer ...................................................................................................................................... 44 Assemblyman Jim Wheeler................................................................................................................................. 44

1

Executive Summary
“Those who founded ALEC in 1973 probably did not imagine that in just 20 short years ALEC would grow to become the most influential state level organization in the country,” Senator Bill Raggio, 1992. 1 This report documents the known reach of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in the Nevada Legislature. Claiming over 2,000 legislative members nationally and at least 300 corporate members, ALEC boasts it “brings together state lawmakers and business people.” These unelected corporate representatives sit as equals with elected officials on eight ALEC task forces, where by its own admission “both have a voice and a vote in shaping policy.” Legislators then take these corporate approved policy ideas back to their homes states and introduce them as their own. This report includes information ProgressNow Nevada was able to locate on current and former legislative members, their roles within ALEC, proposed ALEC legislation, and campaign contributions made by ALEC corporations to ALEC members. However, because of Nevada’s weak campaign and lobbying expenditure reporting laws and lax record keeping laws, ALEC’s true influence is not fully known and raises many questions to be answered. KEY FINDINGS  At least 10 current members of the Nevada Legislature have ties to ALEC. Notable past legislative members include Senator Bill Raggio (ALEC’s 1993 National Chairman), Speaker Joe Dini, Governor Jim Gibbons, and Congressman Jon Porter. Since 2008, ALEC corporate members have given more than $175,000 to Nevada’s ten current ALEC legislators. When asked for correspondence between legislators and ALEC via a Public Records Request, LCB responded on behalf of Senators saying ALEC communication was “so inextricably intertwined with the policy-making and bill-drafting process that disclosure of the correspondence would inevitably reveal the Senators’ deliberations.” ALEC legislation has been introduced to influence education, healthcare, voting rights, worker’s rights, and gun violence prevention laws in Nevada. The current ALEC state chair is Senator Barbara Cegavske (R – Las Vegas). The Legislative Counsel Bureau has been paying a membership fee to ALEC since 1993. In 2012 this membership fee was $1,000. Membership dues have varied, so no total cost can be calculated. When contacted by ProgressNow Nevada, LCB Director Rick Combs could not identify what this membership provides LCB or its purpose otherwise. In 1995, Raggio, with the help of Dini, orchestrated ALEC trips being included on the list of expenses paid for by the Legislative Commission, resulting in an unknown amount of taxpayer dollars being spent on ALEC trips.

 

  

1

ALEC Annual Report, 1992

2

About ALEC
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate financed bill mill that brings together thousands of lawmakers and hundreds of corporate lobbyists to sit as equals on committees and churn out template legislation designed to help corporate bottom lines. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "The organization, with a staff of 30 and a $5.5 million yearly budget, teams lawmakers up with corporate interests to push decidedly pro-business bills through state legislatures. Any lawmaker who is a member of the group can simply log on to its Web site and find hundreds of bills to copy. They can shop for ideas on how to curb class-action lawsuits, help the telecommunications industry or toughen the criminal justice system." [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8/8/2005] ALEC’s known corporate funders include (see full list at http://www.ALECexposed.org): Altria Anheuser-Busch NA AstraZeneca AT&T Bayer Corp BP Bridgepoint America CenturyLink Chevron Comcast Dow Chemicals eBay Eli Lilly ExxonMobil Farmer’s Group FedEx GlaxoSmithKline K12 Inc. Koch Industries Marathon Oil Microsoft News Corp. Novartis Peabody Energy Pfizer Shell Oil Sprint Nextel State Farm Insurance T-Mobile Takeda Pharmaceutical Time Warner Cable UnitedHealthcare UPS Verizon Visa Yahoo!

How ALEC Works
From the Center on Media and Democracy: Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all eight ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization.

3

ALEC In Nevada
ALEC thrives in secrecy, and has for nearly 40 years. ALEC does not disclose its corporate donors, public or private membership, and even after ALEC’s bills were leaked in the summer of 2011, ALEC did not disclose its library of model bills until 2013. In order to attempt to hold Nevadan leaders accountable for their actions, ProgressNow Nevada filed a public records request with Senators Cegavske, Kieckhefer, and Brower, all of whom are known ALEC members in Nevada. The Senators responded through Legislative Counsel Bureau staff, rejecting our request. The reply admitted that ALEC was “so inextricably intertwined with the policy-making and bill-drafting process that disclosure of the correspondence would inevitably reveal the Senators’ deliberations.” This striking statement admits the great depth of the influence ALEC holds on Nevada’s legislative process. These Senators have allowed ALEC to be inextricably intertwined with their legislative process. The Legislative Council Bureau, responding on behalf of the Senators, claimed further legal privilege, and the right to hide their communications with this group from the public, under the guise that “it is unlikely that the private parties who conducted the private correspondence with the Senators would have felt comfortable communicating their ideas to the Senators frankly and freely if they had known that their correspondence would be disclosed to the public.” While few would doubt that ALEC would prefer to remain in secret, the Senators audaciously argued that their interest in secretively communicating with corporate lobbyists on radical conservative legislation outweighed the public’s interest in disclosure. ProgressNow Nevada could not disagree more. This report is the results of our best efforts to show the full extent of ALEC’s influence in Nevada.

4

Nevadan ALEC Members And Alumni
Profiles of Current Office Holders
ALEC Position: ALEC Corporate Member Donations: ALEC Top Donors: Sen. Greg Brower2 (R-15) ALEC Scholarships: ALEC Bills: None $44,500 (2012 cycle)

AT&T, Bank of America State and Federal Bank, Farmers Insurance PAC, NRA Political Victory Fund, NV Energy Unknown 1 Bill: JOINT SPONSOR: 2013 - SB 241 (Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act) None It is not known if Sen. Brower has attended any ALEC conventions.

ALEC Position: ALEC Conventions Attended:

Sen. Barbara Cegavske3 (R-8)

ALEC Position: ALEC Corporate Member Donations: ALEC Top Donors: ALEC Scholarships: ALEC Bills:

State Chair (2010 – Present) 4 5 Member, Education Task Force6 $8,200 (2010 and 2012 cycle)

Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. 2006-2008: $3,844.57 Since 2008: Unknown 9 Bills: REQUESTED: 2007 - SB 5 (Cancer Drug Donation Act), SB 158 (The Special Need Scholarship Program Act), SB 400 (The Foster Child Scholarship Program Act) 2009 - SB 159 (Cancer Drug Donation Act) 2011 – SB 310 (Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act), SB 366 (Parent Trigger

2 3

ALEC Leaders In The States, 2001 ALEC.org, Accessed 12/11/12 4 Nevada News And Views, 12/06/10 5 ALEC.org, accessed 03/21/13 6 38th Annual ALEC Meeting, 7/1/11

5

ALEC Conventions Attended:

Act) 2013 – SB 241 (Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act) JOINT SPONSOR: 2011 – SB 380 (No Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants) 2013 – SB 188 (Omnibus Common Language Act) 1. Attended the December, 2012 ALEC Convention in Washington DC7 2. Attended the July, 2012 ALEC Convention in Salt Lake City, UT8 3. Attended the April, 2011 ALEC Convention in Cincinnati, OH9 4. Attended the December, 2010 ALEC Convention in Washington DC10 5. Attended the August, 2010 ALEC Convention in San Diego11

ALEC Position: ALEC Corporate Member Donations: ALEC Top Donors: Sen. Don G. Gustavson12 (R-14) ALEC Scholarships: ALEC Bills:

Former Member, Public Safety and Elections Task Force (Task Force disbanded April, 2012) $10,750 (2008 - 2012 cycle)

Walgreen Co., AT&T, CenturyLink, Inc., Farmers Employee Agent PAC, Union Pacific Railroad, United Health Care Group Inc. PAC of Nevada Unknown 8 Bills: REQUESTED: 2011 – SB 380 (No Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants) 2013 – SB 188 (Omnibus Common Language Act), SB 367 (Taxpayer Citizen Protection Act) JOINT SPONSOR: 2009 – AB 213 (Cancer Drug Act), SB 366 (Parent Trigger Act), AB 311 (Business Ombudsperson Act) 2013 – AB 254 (Parent Trigger Act), SB 241 (Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act) 1. Member, Public Safety and Elections Task Force13 2. Attended the April, 2011 ALEC Convention in Cincinnati, OH14 3. Attended the December, 2010 ALEC

ALEC Conventions Attended:

7 8

Sen. Cegavske 2013 Annual CE Filing Sen. Cegavske 2013 Annual CE Filing 9 Sen. Cegavske, 2012 Annual CE Filing (Amended) 10 ALEC 35 Day Mailing, obtained by Common Cause, 12/03/10 11 ALEC 35 Day Mailing, obtained by Common Cause, 10/28/10 12 ALEC Public Safety & Elections Task Force Minutes, obtained by Common Cause, April 2011 13 2011 Annual ALEC Meeting, 6/30/11 14 Sen. Gustavson, 2012 Annual CE Filing

6

Convention in Washington DC15

Sen. Joseph Hardy16 (R-12)

ALEC Position: ALEC Corporate Member Donations: ALEC Top Donors: ALEC Scholarships: ALEC Bills:

Member, Health and Human Services Task Force $5,750 (2012 cycle)

CenturyLink, Farmers Employee Agent PAC, Johnson & Johnson Services Inc., Pfizer Inc. Unknown 6 Bills: REQUESTED: 2011 - SJR 2 (Starting (Minimum) Wage Repeal Act) JOINT SPONSOR: 2009 - AB 311 (Business Ombudsperson Act) 2011 – SB 366 (Parent Trigger Act), SB 310 (Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act), SB 241 (Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act), SB 380 (No Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants) Member, Health and Human Services Task Force 1. Member, Health and Human Services Task Force17 2. Attended the Nov.-Dec. 2011 ALEC Convention in Scottsdale, AZ18

ALEC Position: ALEC Conventions Attended:

Sen. Ben Kieckhefer19 16)

ALEC Position: ALEC Corporate Member Donations: ALEC Top Donors: ALEC (R- Scholarships: ALEC Bills:

None $5,532 (2012 cycle)

Amerigroup Corporation, PhRMA, Sprint Unknown 3 Bills: REQUESTED: 2011 – SB 251 (Council on Effective Government Act) JOINT SPONSOR: 2011 – SB 366 (Parent Trigger Act) 2013 – SB 241 (Great Schools Tax Credit

15 16

ALEC 35 Day Mailing, obtained by Common Cause, 12/03/10 Sen. Hardy Campaign Finance Report, 01/17/12 17 38th Annual ALEC Meeting, 6/30/11 18 Sen. Hardy, 2012 Annual CE Filing 19 Nevada News And Views, 12/06/10

7

ALEC Position: ALEC Conventions Attended:

Program Act) None 1. Attended the July, 2012 ALEC Convention in Salt Lake City, UT20 2. Attended the Nov.-Dec. 2011 ALEC Convention in Scottsdale, AZ21 3. Attended the April, 2011 ALEC Convention in Cincinnati, OH22 4. Attended the August, 2010 ALEC Convention in San Diego23

Sen. David Parks24 (D-7)

ALEC Position: ALEC Corporate Member Donations: ALEC Top Donors: ALEC Scholarships: ALEC Bills:

None $24,950 (2012 cycle)

AT&T Services, Inc., Atria Client Services, CenturyLink, Farmers Insurance PAC, NV Energy, Unknown 1 Bill: JOINT SPONSOR: 2009 - SB 159 (Cancer Drug Donation Act) It is not known if Sen. Parks has attended any ALEC conventions.

ALEC Conventions Attended:

ALEC Position: ALEC Corporate Member Donations: ALEC Top Donors: Sen. Michael Roberson25 (R-20) ALEC Scholarships: ALEC Bills:

None $37,250 (2010 and 2012 cycles)

AT&T Nevada, Bayer, Cash America, CenturyLink Inc. Employees PAC, Farmers Insurance PAC, NV Energy, PHRMA, PhRMA Unknown 4 Bills: REQUESTED: 2011 – SB 373 (Voter ID Act) 2013

20 21

Sen. Kieckhefer, 2013 Annual CE Filing Sen. Kieckhefer, 2012 Annual CE Filing 22 Sen. Kieckhefer, 2012 Annual CE Filing 23 Nevada News And Views, 12/06/10 24 Sen. Parks Campaign Finance Report, 01/17/12 25 Sen. Roberson Campaign Finance Report, 01/15/13

8

ALEC Conventions Attended:

– SB 195 (Parent Trigger Act) JOINT SPONSOR: 2013 – SB 241 (Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act) 2011 - SB 366 (Parent Trigger Act) 1. Attended the July, 2012 ALEC Convention in Salt Lake City, UT26

Sen. James A. Settelmeyer27 (R-17)

ALEC Position: ALEC Corporate Member Donations: ALEC Top Donors: ALEC Scholarships: ALEC Bills:

Member, Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force28 $19, 750 (2008 – 2012 cycles)

Walgreens, Wal-Mart, Farmers, AT&T Unknown 6 Bills: REQUESTED: 2009 – AB 311 (Business Ombudsperson Act) JOINT SPONSOR: 2011 – SB 366 (Parent Trigger Act), SB 380 (No Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants) 2013 – SB 188 (Omnibus Common Language Act), SB 241 (Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act), SB 367 (Taxpayer & Citizen Protection) It is not known if Sen. Settelmeyer has attended any ALEC conventions.

ALEC Conventions Attended:

ALEC Position: ALEC Corporate Member Donations: ALEC Top Donors: Assemblyman Cresent Hardy29 (R-19)

None $28,000 (2010 and 2012 cycles)

ALEC Scholarships:

Walgreens, NV Energy, Inc., Farmers Insurance PAC, Farmers Employee Agent PAC, CenturyLink, AT&T, Associated Builders and Contractors of Nevada Unknown

26 27 28

Sen. Roberson, 2013 Annual CE Filing ALEC Task Force Documents obtained by Common Cause, August 2011 2011 Annual ALEC Meeting, 6/30/11 29 Assemblyman Hardy Campaign Finance report, 01/13/12

9

ALEC Bills:

ALEC Conventions Attended:

3 Bills: JOINT SPONSOR: 2013 – AB 254 (Parent Trigger Act), AB 373 (Family Education Tax Credit), SB 241 (Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act 1. Attended the July, 2012 ALEC Convention in Salt Lake City, UT30 2. Attended the August, 2011 ALEC Convention in New Orleans, LA31

Assemblyman Jim Wheeler32 (R-39)

ALEC Position: ALEC Corporate Member Donations: ALEC Top Donors: ALEC Scholarships: ALEC Bills:

None $3,000 (2012 cycle)

AT&T, Nevada Power Unknown 4 Bills: JOINT SPONSOR: 2013 – AB 254 (Parent Trigger Act), SB 188 (Omnibus Common Language Act), SB 241 (Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act), SB 367 (Taxpayer & Citizen Protection Act) It is not known if Asm. Wheeler has attended any ALEC conventions.

ALEC Conventions Attended:

Former Office Holders
Gov. Jim Gibbons 33 Congressman Jon Porter34 State Controller Kathy Augustine35 Sen. Bob Beers36 Sen. Warren B. Hardy II37
30 31

Asm. Hardy, 2012 CE Report 3 Asm. Hardy, 2012 Annual CE Filing 32 Assemblyman Wheeler Campaign Finance Report 10/15/12 33 ALEC 1995 SB 34 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005 35 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 36 ALEC Policy Forum, 2007 37 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12

10

Sen. Mike McGinness38 Sen. Dennis Nolan39 Sen. William J. Raggio40 Sen. Raymond Rawson41 Sen. Dean A. Rhoads42 Sen. Mike Schneider43 Sen. Sandra Tiffany44 Sen. Randolph Townsend45 Sen. Maurice Washington46 Speaker Joseph Dini, Jr. 47 Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr.48 Assemblywoman Merle A. Berman49 Assemblyman Chad Christensen50 Assemblyman Ty Cobb51 Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick52 Assemblyman David Humke53 Assemblyman John Marvel54 Assemblyman Bob E. Price55
38 39

ALEC 1995 SB Nevada News And Views, 12/06/10 40 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005 41 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 42 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005 43 ALEC 1995 SB 44 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 45 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 46 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 47 ALEC.org page archived from 12/08/00 48 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 49 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 50 Nevada Legislature, accessed 01/17/13 51 ALEC Civil Justice Task Force 35 Day Mailing, obtained by Common Cause, 07/01/10 52 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005 53 ALEC: Keeping The Promise, 1993 54 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 55 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12

11

Assemblyman Jack Regan56 Assemblyman Louis A. Toomin57 Assemblywoman Valerie Weber58

56 57

Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12 ALEC 1995 SB 58 Legislative Biography, accessed 01/28/12

12

Money Trail
Taxpayer Funding The Nevada Legislative Commission has paid membership dues to ALEC since 1993.59 Current public records do not extend back to 1993, so it is impossible to ascertain how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on ALEC, but dues for fiscal year 2012 cost $1,000.00.60 In 1995, Senator Raggio, ALEC’s 1993 National Chairman and Speaker Dini, an ALEC member, attempted to get the Legislative Commission to pay for trips to ALEC Conventions. When the commission rejected the move, Sen. Raggio attempted to remove all legislative travel from the budget.61 Sen. Raggio gave his rationale for the move: “Committee, a matter has come to the chair's attention as a result of a Legislative Commission meeting that was held this morning. A routine item on the agenda was to approve a travel policy for legislators attending meetings of national organizations, to include the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). I might indicate that is the national legislative organization which I served as national chairman. We have as a legislature paid dues to that, as well as to the other legislative groups such as NCSL [National Conference of State Legislatures], CSG [Council of State Governments], WLC [Western Legislative Council], and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. I think that it is a regrettable policy change and is an indication that there is some desire to play favoritism in how we treat legislators. There are a majority of members in this legislature, of both parties, who are dues paying members of the American Legislator Exchange Council. In addition, this legislature pays annual dues to this organization and I think if we are going to deny that, then I think we should reflect upon what we do otherwise. … I think unless we are going to be equitable in treating the members of this legislature the same that we should delete that from the authority within the budget and I will entertain a motion to delete all dues for ALEC, NCSL, CSG, and WLC and all authorization for travel and other allowances for legislators to attend such meetings and that the budget be reopened for that purpose.” 62 This maneuver worked, the Legislative Commission caved to Sen. Raggio’s demand, and the state began to pay for travel to ALEC junkets. 63 In 2003 the Legislative Commission changed policies to reduce the number of reimbursed trips from three to one.64 In 2009, the Legislative Commission temporarily stopped funding legislators’ travel for any trips.65 Due to standard records retention schedules, no records exist to detail what money the state of Nevada spent to finance legislators trips to ALEC conventions between 1995 and 2009.66

59 60

Legislative Commission Minutes, 06/29/95 openbudget.nv.gov, accessed 03/28/13 61 Senate Committee On Finance Minutes, 06/23/95 62 Senate Committee On Finance Minutes, 06/23/95 63 Legislative Commission Minutes, 06/29/95 64 Legislative Commission Minutes, 05/30/03 65 Legislative Commission Minutes, 05/29/09 66 Phone Interview, LCB Staff, 05/01/13

13

Scholarships ALEC runs a series of “scholarship” programs for legislators that allow corporate special interests to give gifts to lawmakers without being subject to normal limits and disclosure rules. The system works by having corporations donate to the fund to “reimburse” legislators for travel. These transfers can range into the thousands of dollars, and yet remain entirely undisclosed despite state lobbyist disclosure laws, and gift prohibitions. Scholarship accounts are used to circumvent prohibitions of gifts. Even in places like Wisconsin where a lobbyist is forbidden to buy a legislator a cup of coffee, they are able donate thousands of dollars to legislators’ trips.67 These scholarships are illegal in at least three states.68 The Center for Media and Democracy was able to uncover the funds’ balance sheets, and glimpse into the system for the years 2006-2008 due to an open records request. 69 ProgressNow Nevada has sought to clarify the status of the Nevada ALEC scholarship account via public records requests, which were rebuffed. In other states, the ALEC state chairperson controls the ALEC scholarship account, soliciting donations from corporations in order to finance travel to posh retreats to meet with corporate CEOs and lobbyists. ALEC State Chairs have urged lawmakers to thank the corporations who have paid for their trips.70 Certain ALEC trips were paid for by the Nevada Legislature from 1995-2009. Between 2006 and 2008, Nevada’s scholarship account has been small, and had a narrow focus. Nevada’s “scholarship” account had only two donors, Bayer Healthcare and Eli Lilly, both pharmaceutical giants, and paid to only two recipients, Senator Barbara Cegavske and the Nevada Legislature. Officials have declined to disclose activity since 2008. This data raises more questions than can be answered. The payments to the legislature may have been in relation to the Legislature’s funding of travel; it is impossible to determine the nature of these transactions since records no longer exist. 71 There is no information on who has paid for legislators’ trips to ALEC since, and what the account has done since the Legislature stopped funding legislative trips. The nature of the precise transfers to Sen. Cegavske is unknown and the Senator has argued through staff that disclosure of her involvement with ALEC is outweighed by her interest in secrecy. Below is the 2006-2008 balance sheet for the scholarship account, as reported by the Center for Media and Democracy and Common Cause:72 Year 2008 Entity Bayer HealthCare Barbara Cegavske Eli Lilly Nevada Legislature Barbara Cegavske Eli Lilly Nevada Legislative Council Bureau Barbara Cegavske Money In $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $507.00 $730.98 $1,000.00 $1,726.40 $1,500.00 Money Out $1,613.59

2007

2006
67 68

PR Watch, 04/17/13 CMD, October, 2012 69 billmoyers.com, 04/23/13 70 CMD, October 2012 71 Phone Interview, LCB Staff, 05/01/13 72 CMD, October, 2012

14

Campaign Finance ALEC’s corporate members have donated over $175,000 since 2008 to elect the current ten ALEC legislators in Nevada.73 The largest ALEC donor to these individuals was unsurprisingly NV Energy, ALEC’s corporate Chair for Nevada.74 The top ALEC corporate donors in Nevada are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. NV Energy, $26,200.00 Farmers Insurance, $21,500.00 AT&T, $16,500.00 CenturyLink, $14,500.00 Walgreens75, $10,500.00

The appendices of this report contain donations for each ALEC legislator.

73

Total includes donations from corporations who have since cut ties to ALEC, but were members when they made the contributions. Details are in the appendix. 74 ALEC “Solutions for the States”, August 2011 75 Walgreens has cut ties with ALEC

15

ALEC’s Model Bills In Nevada
Year Bill Primary Sponsor ALEC Model Privatizing Education 2011 SB 366 Sen. Cegavske (ALEC) Parent Trigger Act 2013 SB 195 Sen. Roberson (ALEC) Parent Trigger Act 2013 SB 290 Sen. Manendo Parent Trigger Act 2013 AB 254 Asm. Hansen Parent Trigger Act 2007 SB 158 Sen. Cegavske (ALEC) The Special Needs Scholarship Program Act 2013 SB 241 Sen. Cegavske (ALEC) Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act Healthcare 2011 SB 310 Sen. Cegavske (ALEC) Freedom of Choice In Health Care Act Guns, Immigration, and Voting Restrictions 2013 AB 340 Asm. Hambrick Consistency In Firearms Regulation Act 2013 SB 188 Sen. Gustavson (ALEC) Omnibus Common Language Act 2011 SB 380 Sen. Gustavson (ALEC) No Sanctuary Cities For Illegal Imigrants 2013 SB 367 Sen. Gustavson (ALEC) Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act 2011 SB 373 Sen. Roberson (ALEC) Voter ID Act Corporate Sponsored Attacks on Workers and the Environment 2009 AB 331 Asm. Settlemeyer (ALEC) Business Ombudsperson Act 2011 SB 251 Sen. Kieckhefer (ALEC) Council On Effective Government Act 2011 SJR 2 Sen. Hardy (ALEC) Starting (Minimum) Wage Repeal Act 2013 AB 227 Asm. Ellison Sagebrush Rebellion Act

16

ALEC’s Parent Trigger In Nevada
ALEC Model Parent Trigger Act BILL(S) 2011 SB 366 2013 SB 195 2013 SB 290 2013 AB 254 Hickey Kirner (ALEC) Livermore Wheeler (ALEC) Introduced/BDR 10/08/09 07/10/12 11/13/12 07/25/12 Senate Sponsors Cegavske (ALEC) Gustavson (ALEC) Halseth Hardy (ALEC) Kieckhefer (ALEC) Status Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Manendo McGinness (ALEC) Robersen (ALEC) Settelmeyer (ALEC)

Assembly Sponsors Fiore Hambrick Hansen Hardy (ALEC)

The bills listed above all contain language from ALEC’s template Parent Trigger Act. The ALEC template bill provides a mechanism to turn public schools into charter schools, and enact education vouchers. It does not include any mechanism to turn a private school into a public one. “Parent triggers” work to gradually eliminate public education, while providing considerable revenue for private for-profit education corporations. The ALEC Parent Trigger template was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, and passed ALEC’s Education Task Force in December 2010.76 Senator Cegavske and Senator Nolan were members of ALEC’s Education Task Force at the time, and both attended the December, 2010 ALEC convention. 77 78 ALEC’s Education Task Force is home to many for-profit education corporations, including K12-Inc. and Insight Schools.79 The privatization of public schools creates expanded markets for these private providers, without providing verifiable evidence of increased educational standards, and with a lack of ways for parents to “pull the trigger” on failing for-profit schools. Below is a comparison of just one of the versions of ALEC’s Parent Trigger Act. 2013 AB 254 As Introduced Sec. 3. 1. The parent or legal guardian of a pupil enrolled in a public school that is designated as demonstrating need for improvement pursuant to NRS 385.3623 may, upon a written petition signed by not less than 51 percent of the parents and legal guardians of pupils enrolled in the school, or 51 percent of the parents and legal guardians of pupils enrolled in the school and the parents and legal guardians of pupils who will matriculate into the school, submit the petition to the board of trustees of the school district to take one or more of the following intervention actions for the school:
76 77 78

ALEC’s Model “Parent Trigger Act“ For all public schools where more than one-half of the parents or legal guardians of pupils attending the school, or a combination of more than one-half of the parents or legal guardians of pupils attending the school and the elementary or middle schools that normally matriculate into a middle or high school, as applicable, sign a petition requesting the local educational agency to implement one or more of the three interventions identified pursuant to Section (5), the local educational agency shall implement the option requested by the parents.

PR Watch, 09/19/12 ALEC 35 Day Mailing, obtained by Common Cause, 12/03/10 ALEC 35 Day mailing, 03/31/11 79 Sourcewatch, accessed on 03/11/13

17

(a) Implement a restart model by closing the school and, pursuant to the provisions of NRS 386.490 to 386.610, inclusive, entering into a contract with an educational management organization that has a demonstrated record of effectiveness to reopen and operate the school as a charter school;

(A) Restart model. A restart model is one in which an LEA converts a school or closes and reopens a school under a charter school operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an education management organization (EMO) that has been selected through a rigorous review process. A restart model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend the school. (B) 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. (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) Implement school closure by closing the school and transferring the pupils enrolled in the school to other public schools within the school district which are higher-achieving than the school that will be closed, including, without limitation, a charter school, and which are in close proximity to the school that will be closed; or

(c) Implement school choice by: (1) Issuing vouchers on behalf of a pupil who would otherwise enroll in the school to attend a private school pursuant to section 4 of this act; and (2) Authorizing a pupil who would otherwise enroll in the school to attend another public school within the school district if space for the pupil is available at the other school. 3. For each year that a pupil is enrolled in a private school pursuant to this section, the parent or legal guardian of the pupil is entitled to receive from the school district a voucher in an amount equal to the lesser of: (a) Seventy-five percent of the average of the total amount of public money that was expended per year by the public school in which the pupil would otherwise enroll for which school choice has been implemented pursuant to section 3 of this act in the immediately preceding 3 years, including, without limitation, operational and facility costs; (b) Seventy-five percent of the average of the basic support guarantee per pupil established by law for the school district pursuant to NRS 387.122 and local funds available in the immediately preceding 3 years; or (c) The total amount charged by the private school for tuition, fees and textbooks.

(B) Any student of a triggered school wishing to attend a private school will qualify for an annual scholarship in an amount equal to the lesser of: (1) 75 percent the triggered school’s annual cost per pupil, including both operational and capital facility costs; or (2) 75 percent the dollar amount the resident school district would have received to serve and educate the eligible student from state and local sources had the student enrolled there.

18

ALEC’s School Voucher Bills In Nevada
ALEC Model The Special Needs Scholarship Program Act The Foster Child Scholarship Program Act The Autism Scholarship Program Act Assembly Sponsors Weber (ALEC) BILL(S) 2007 SB 158 2007 SB 400 2007 AB 130 Introduced/BDR 06/27/05 12/10/06 08/07/06 Senate Sponsors Beers (ALEC) Cegavske (ALEC) Status Passed The Senate Enacted Into Law Heard in Committee Hardy (ALEC) Washington (ALEC)

The corporate leadership of ALEC’s Education Task Force has included for-profit school companies like K-12 Inc., Bridgepoint Education, and Connections Academy.80 Bills that deplete public school funds in order to subsidize private schools provide direct benefit to those corporations. Recognizing that not every state would be able to pass a universal voucher system, ALEC has endorsed an array of bills to advance small school voucher programs. These bills use a foot-in-the-door technique, pulling the heartstrings in order to advance an agenda to privatize education. Nevada saw an all-out effort to expand school vouchers in the 2007 session. Three bills based on ALEC templates were introduced, all slightly different versions, dealing with different subsets of the student population, and seeking to provide vouchers under the guise of “scholarships.” The 2007 session saw a bill to give “scholarships” to those with autism spectrum disorders, a bill to give “scholarships” to those with a larger swath of special needs and yet another bill seeking to give vouchers for foster children. Two of the bills failed, while one became law. This multi-pronged strategy worked in Nevada to advance ALEC’s corporate education policies at the expense of public education Below is a partial comparison of two of the three bills, and one of the ALEC models. 2007 SB 400 As Introduced Sec. 9. 1. There is hereby established the Scholarship Program for Children in Foster Care, to be administered by the Department. Sec. 14. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the legal guardian or custodian of a child may submit to the Department an application to participate in the Scholarship Program if: (a) The child has been placed in a
80

2007 SB 158 As Introduced Sec. 7. 1. There is hereby established the Special Needs Scholarship Program, to be administered by the Department. Sec. 12. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the parent or legal guardian of a child may submit to the Department an application to participate in the Scholarship Program if: (a) The child is a pupil with a disability and has an

ALEC’s Model “The Special Needs Scholarship Program Act” Section 1. {Title} The Special Needs Scholarship Program

(A) Any parent of an eligible student shall qualify for a scholarship from the state for their child to enroll in and attend a participating, private school if: (1) the student with special needs has had an Individualized Education Plan written in

Connections Academy has left ALEC

19

foster home; (b) The child is enrolled in a public school or is not enrolled in a school because he has not attained the age required for enrollment; and (c) An eligible school has accepted the child for admission. A child may enroll in an eligible school that is a public school only if the public school is located outside the school district in which the child resides.

3. Upon receipt of an application pursuant to subsection 1, the Department shall notify the school district in which the child resides that an application to participate in the Scholarship Program has been submitted. The school district in which the child resides shall, within 3 business days after receiving such notice, provide to the Department a copy of the current individualized education program of the child, if any. 5. Upon approval of an application, the Department shall provide a written statement of approval to the legal guardian or custodian of the child, as applicable, and the eligible school in which the child will be enrolled. Upon denial of an application, the Department shall provide a written statement of denial to the legal guardian or custodian of the child indicating the reason for the denial.

individualized education program; (b) The child is enrolled in a public school or is not enrolled in a school because he has not attained the age required for enrollment; (c) An eligible school has accepted the child for admission; and (d) The parent or legal guardian of the child notifies the Department, in the manner required by the Department, of his request for a scholarship before the pupil enters the eligible school. A child may enroll in an eligible school that is a public school only if the public school is located outside the school district in which the child resides. 3. Upon receipt of an application pursuant to subsection 1, the Department shall notify the school district in which the child resides that an application to participate in the Scholarship Program has been submitted. The school district in which the child resides shall, within 3 business days after receiving such notice, provide to the Department a copy of the current individualized education program of the child. 5. Upon approval of an application, the Department shall provide a written statement of approval to the parent or legal guardian of the child and the eligible school in which the child will be enrolled. Upon denial of an application, the Department shall provide a written statement of denial to the parent or legal guardian of the child indicating the reason for the denial.

accordance with the rules of the Department;

(2) the student has been accepted for admission at a participating school; and (3) the parent has requested a scholarship from the state before the deadline established by the Department.

(B) The Department shall inform the resident school district that a student with special needs has requested a special needs scholarship. The resident school district shall, within three business days, provide the Department with a copy of the student's most current Individualized Education Plan.

(C) Upon receipt of the eligible student's request for a scholarship, the Department shall review the Individualized Education Plan drafted by the student's public school to determine the amount of the scholarship. The Department shall provide the student's parent with a timely written explanation of its determination for the amount of the scholarship. 20

6. A child participating in the Scholarship Program who is a pupil with a disability and who is enrolled in a private school that is an eligible school shall be deemed enrolled in the private school by his legal guardian or custodian, as applicable, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1412, rather than placed or referred for placement in the private school by the State or a local school district. Sec. 15. 1. A child may continue to participate in the Scholarship Program, even if the child is no longer placed in a foster home, if the child is enrolled in good standing in an eligible school and until the child: (a) Attains 21 years of age; or (b) Graduates from high school, whichever occurs first. 3. The parent, legal guardian or custodian of a child, as applicable, who participates in the Scholarship Program may: (a) In the manner required by the Department, request a transfer of the child to another eligible school. (b) Withdraw his child from participation in the Scholarship Program at any time upon written notice to the Department. 4. If a child withdraws from the Scholarship Program, he must be allowed to enroll in the public school that he is otherwise zoned to attend. Sec. 20. 1. The Department may enter into a contract with one or more qualified, independent consultants to conduct an evaluation of the Scholarship Program established pursuant to this chapter.

8. The participation of a child in the Scholarship Program does not imply that the public school or school district in which the child was previously enrolled failed to provide a free appropriate public education for the child in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq

(C) A parent's decision for their student to participate in the program constitutes a private placement for purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Sec. 13. 1. A child may continue to participate in the Scholarship Program if the child is enrolled in good standing in an eligible school and until the child: (a) Attains 21 years of age; or (b) Graduates from high school, whichever occurs first.

(G) The Special Needs Scholarship shall remain in force until the student returns to a public school or graduates from high school or reaches his or her 21st birthday, whichever comes first.

3. The parent or legal guardian of a child who participates in the Scholarship Program may: (a) In the manner required by the Department, request a transfer of the child to another eligible school. (b) Withdraw his child from participation in the Scholarship Program at any time upon written notice to the Department. 4. If a child withdraws from the Scholarship Program, he must be allowed to enroll in the public school that he is otherwise zoned to attend. Sec. 18. 1. The Department may contract with one or more qualified, independent consultants to conduct an evaluation of the Scholarship Program established pursuant to this chapter.

(H) At any time, the student's parent may remove the student from the participating school and place the student in another participating school or in a public school.

Section 8. {Evaluation of the Special Needs Scholarship Program} (A) The legislative service agency may contract with one or more qualified researchers who have previous experience evaluating school choice 21

2. If an evaluation is conducted pursuant to subsection 1, the evaluation must include: (a) The level of satisfaction reported by the children who participate in the Scholarship Program; (b) The level of satisfaction reported by the parents, legal guardians or custodians of the children who participate in the Scholarship Program; (c) The effectiveness of the Scholarship Program, including, without limitation, a determination whether the academic achievement of children who participate in the Scholarship Program has improved; (d) The number of children who participate in the Scholarship Program and who exhibited behavioral problems while attending an eligible school as compared to the behavioral problems those children exhibited before enrollment in an eligible school; (e) The average class size of classes in which children who participate in the Scholarship Program are placed while attending an eligible school; (f) The fiscal impact on the State and on each school district; and (g) Any other items deemed necessary by the Department 3. If an evaluation is conducted pursuant to this section, the Department: (a) Shall submit a copy of the final written report of the evaluation to the Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau for transmission to the next regular session of the Legislature. (b) May receive and accept gifts

2. An evaluation conducted pursuant to subsection 1 must include: (a) The level of satisfaction reported by the children who participate in the Scholarship Program; (b) The level of satisfaction reported by the parents and legal guardians of the children who participate in the Scholarship Program; (c) The effectiveness of the Scholarship Program, including, without limitation, a determination whether the academic achievement of children who participate in the Scholarship Program has improved; (d) The number of children who participate in the Scholarship Program and who exhibited behavioral problems while attending an eligible school as compared to the behavioral problems those children exhibited before enrollment in an eligible school; (e) The average class size of classes in which children who participate in the Scholarship Program are placed while attending an eligible school; (f) The fiscal impact on the State and on each school district; and (g) Any other items deemed necessary by the Department. 3. If an evaluation is conducted pursuant to this section, the Department: (a) Shall submit a copy of the final written report of the evaluation to the Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau for transmission to the next regular session of the Legislature. (b) May receive and accept gifts

programs to conduct a study of the program with funds other than state funds. (B) The study shall assess: (1) the level of participating students' satisfaction with the program; (2) the level of parental satisfaction with the program;

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

(5) the class size experienced by participating students at their resident school district and at their participating school; and (6) the fiscal impact to the state and resident school districts of the program. (C) The researchers who conduct the study shall: (3) provide the legislature with a final copy of the evaluation of the program.

(E) The legislative service 22

and grants from any source to pay the costs associated with the evaluation.

and grants from any source to pay the costs associated with the evaluation.

agency may accept grants to assist in funding this study.

23

ALEC's Private Schools Bill In Nevada
ALEC Model Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act Assembly Sponsors Duncan Fiore Hickey P. Anderson Ellison Grady Hambrick Hansen BILL(S) 2013 SB 241 Hardy (ALEC) Kirner Livermore Oscarson Stewart Wheeler (ALEC) Woodbury Introduced/BDR 06/23/12 Senate Sponsors Cegavske (ALEC) Roberson (ALEC) Hutchison Hammond Gustavson (ALEC) Status Introduced Brower (ALEC) Goicoechea Hardy (ALEC) Kieckhefer (ALEC) Settelmeyer (ALEC)

ALEC’s Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act combines two of ALEC’s primary objectives, cutting public schools to give money to private schools, and giving corporations tax breaks; and it is the worst of both worlds. The act is set up to give corporations a tax credit for any donations they make to an organization granting “scholarships” to students. This end-around voucher system uses tax credits rather than direct payments, but is nonetheless state support for private education; and the ALEC model acknowledges a significant fiscal impact to the legislation, depleting resources that could go to public schools. The ALEC model also acknowledges that the credit may have little impact on education at all, stating: “Drafted this way, the tax credit will necessarily reward many families who are already financing their child's education.” Not only will it reward individuals for actions already taken, the bill would reward corporations for actions already taken, lowering their tax burden for no improvement in education at all. The bill seeks to create incentives to advance private education at the expense of public education, but may well simply be a tax giveaway. In the 2013 Legislative Session, Senator Cegavske, a member of ALEC’s Education Task Force, introduced SB 241. The bill follows the same idea as the ALEC model, accounting for state differences. The ALEC model is set up to give a tax credit against the individual or corporate income tax. As Nevada has neither tax, SB 241 would have granted a credit against taxes paid by banks, or license fees paid by gaming companies. This would have eliminated the potential tax benefit to individuals, leaving only the possible tax windfall for corporations.

2013 SB 241 As Introduced 2. The amount of the credit provided by this section is equal to the amount of the donation made by the taxpayer or licensee to a school tuition organization. The total amount of the credit applied against all the taxes and fees described in subsection 1 and otherwise due from a taxpayer or licensee must not exceed the amount of the donation.

ALEC Model Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act (A) A taxpayer who files a state income tax return and is not a dependent of another taxpayer may claim a credit for a contribution made to a scholarship granting organization. (B) The tax credit may be claimed by an individual taxpayer or a married couple filing jointly in an amount equal to the total contributions made to a scholarship granting organization for educational scholarships during the taxable year for which the credit is claimed up to 50 percent of the taxpayer's 24

3. If the amount of the tax or fee described in subsection 1 and otherwise due from a taxpayer or licensee is less than the credit to which the taxpayer or licensee is entitled pursuant to this section, the taxpayer or licensee may, after applying the credit to the extent of the tax or fee otherwise due, carry the balance of the credit forward for not more than 5 years after the end of the calendar year in which the donation is made or until the balance of the credit is applied, whichever is earlier Sec. 4. 1. A school tuition organization must: (a) Be exempt from taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. (b) Accept donations from taxpayers, holders of state gaming licenses and other persons and entities and may also solicit and accept gifts and grants in addition to donations. (c) Not expend more than 4 percent of the total amount of money accepted by the school tuition organization pursuant to paragraph (b) to pay its administrative expenses. (d) Provide grants to the parents or legal guardians of children who are at risk to allow those children to attend schools in this State chosen by the parents or legal guardians, including, without limitation, private schools as defined in NRS 394.103. The total amount of a grant provided by the school tuition organization to a parent or legal guardian pursuant to this subsection must not exceed the tuition charged for enrollment in the school chosen by the parent or legal guardian. For the purposes of this paragraph, children are “at risk” if they have special needs or an economic or academic disadvantage such that they require special services and assistance to enable them to succeed in an educational program. (e) Not limit to a single school the schools for which it provides grants. 2. A school tuition organization shall provide each taxpayer, holder of a state gaming license and other person or entity who makes a donation, gift or grant of money to the school tuition organization

tax liability. (C) The tax credit may be claimed by a corporate taxpayer in an amount equal to the total contributions made to a scholarship granting organization for educational scholarships during the taxable year for which the credit is claimed up to 50 percent of the taxpayer's tax liability. (D) A corporate taxpayer, an individual taxpayer, or a married couple filing jointly may carry forward a tax credit under this program for three years.

(A) Administrative Accountability Standards. All scholarship granting organizations shall: (2) demonstrate to the Department that they have been granted exemption from the federal income tax as an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (5) ensure that at least 90 percent of their revenue from donations is spent on educational scholarships, and that all revenue from interest or investments is spent on educational scholarships; (3) distribute periodic scholarship payments as checks made out to a student's parent or guardian and mailed to the qualifying school where the student is enrolled. The parent or guardian must endorse the check before it can be deposited;

(4) provide a Department-approved receipt to taxpayers for contributions made to the organization; 25

pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 1 with an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, which includes, without limitation: (a) A statement that the school tuition organization satisfies the requirements set forth in subsection 1; and (b) The total amount of the donation, gift or grant made to the school tuition organization. Sec. 5. A school tuition organization which receives a donation, gift or grant of money described in section 4 of this act shall report to the Department of Taxation, on or before January 31 of each year, on a form prescribed by the Department of Taxation: 1. The name, address and contact information of the school tuition organization; 2 The total number of such donations, gifts and grants received by the school tuition organization during the immediately preceding calendar year; 3. The total dollar amount of such donations, gifts and grants received during the immediately preceding calendar year; 4. The total number of children for whom the school tuition organization made grants during the immediately preceding calendar year pursuant to section 4 of this act; 5. The total dollar amount of such grants made during the immediately preceding calendar year; and 6. For each school for which such a grant was made during the immediately preceding calendar year: (a) The name and address of the school; (b) The number of children enrolled in the school for whom such a grant was made; and (c) The total dollar amount of such grants provided for children enrolled in the school.

(10) publicly report to the Department by June 1 of each year the following information prepared by a certified public accountant regarding their grants in the previous calendar year:

(a) the name and address of the student support organization; (b) the total number and total dollar amount of contributions received during the previous calendar year; and (c) the total number and total dollar amount of educational scholarships awarded during the previous calendar year, the total number and total dollar amount of educational scholarships awarded during the previous year to students qualifying for the federal free and reduced-price lunch program, and the percentage of first-time recipients of educational scholarships who were enrolled in a public school during the previous year.

26

ALEC’s Anti-Healthcare Reform Act
ALEC Model “Freedom of Choice In Health Care Act” Assembly Sponsors None. BILL(S) 2011 SB 310 Introduced/BDR 03/24/10 Senate Sponsors Cegavske (ALEC) Status Heard in Committee Hardy (ALEC)

ALEC’s bill template “Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act” is an attack on President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. ALEC noted that a primary purpose of the bill is to grant states legal standing in order to sue to block the ACA.81 Since this legislation, the Supreme Court has upheld the ACA.82 In 2011 Senator Cegavske introduced SB 310, a version of the ALEC model. What is notable about SB 310 however, is Sen. Cegavske’s brazen acknowledgement of the bill’s ALEC origin. Senator Cegavske testified in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing, stating: “Senate Bill 31 would enact Freedom of Choice in the Health Care Act. It is model legislation developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). It is in response to proposed efforts of the 111th United States Congress health-care reform and is based on an Arizona ballot question that narrowly lost the same year.” 83 ALEC Model “Freedom of Choice In Health Care Act” Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the “Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act.” Section 2. The people have the right to enter into private contracts with health care providers for health care services and to purchase private health care coverage. The legislature may not require any person to participate in any health care system or plan, nor may it impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan.

2011 SB 310 As Introduced 1. This section may be cited as the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act. 2. A person in the State of Nevada has the right to enter into private contracts with providers of health care for the provision of health care services and to purchase private health care coverage. 3. The Legislature hereby pledges that it will not enact legislation: (a) Requiring a person to participate in any health care system or plan; or (b) That imposes a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participating in any particular health care system or plan.

81 82

alec.org, accessed 03/27.87 New York Times, 06/28/12 83 Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, 04/14/11

27

ALEC’s English Only Bill In Nevada
ALEC Model “Omnibus Common Language Act“ Assembly Sponsors Wheeler (ALEC) Hansen Ellison BILL(S) 2013 SB 188 Livermore Stewart Introduced/BDR 09/04/12 Senate Sponsors Gustavson (ALEC) Cegavske (ALEC) Status Introduced Goicoechea Settelmeyer (ALEC)

ALEC’s Omnibus Common Language Act mandates that the only language for public documents is English. The ALEC template does this while giving a list of exceptions, all of which go to show why the policy is a bad idea in the first place. As the ALEC bill points out, the use of languages other than English is necessary for the government to provide public safety, education, and economic benefits. Even as written, the bill would make government services worse, and less efficient, as this bill would ban forms using different languages that serve to ease governmental processes. This is not to mention that a similar bill was ruled unconstitutional in Arizona.84 In Nevada, SB 188 differs from the ALEC model in some key ways. The ALEC template, for example, includes a provision to permit the use of non-English languages to teach English to those that do not speak it (e.g. ELL classes). Nevada’s bill does not include such a provision. 2013 SB 188 As Introduced 1. English is hereby designated as the official language of the State of Nevada 2. As the official language of this State, the English language is the sole language of State Government and its political subdivisions, except as otherwise provided in this section. 3. All official documents, transactions, proceedings, meetings and publications issued, conducted or regulated by, on behalf of, or representing the State or its political subdivisions must be in English, except that a language other than English may be used when required: (a) By the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Nevada, or a federal statute or regulation; (b) To protect public health and safety; (c) In judicial proceedings to ensure that justice is carried out; (d) To refer to a proper name, a term of art or a phrase from a language other than English; (e) To promote commerce, trade or tourism; (f) To provide instruction in a foreign language; and
84

ALEC Model “Omnibus Common Language Act“ (A) The common language is recognized to be English; and the common language is designated as the language of official public documents and records and official public meetings.

(B) Exemptions. The provisions of this Act shall not apply: (1) to instruction in foreign language courses; (2) to instruction designed to aid students with limited English proficiency in a timely transition and integration into the general education system; (3) to the promotion of international commerce, tourism, and sporting events; (4) when deemed to interfere with needs of the justice system; (5) when the public safety, health, or emergency services require the use of other languages, provided, however, that any such authorization for the use of languages other than the common language in printing informational materials or publications for general distribution must be approved in an open public meeting [refer to code

CNN, 04/29/98

28

(g) To facilitate activities relating to conducting any census of populations.

citations defining "open meetings" laws] by the governing board or authority of the relevant state or municipal entity and the decision must be recorded in publicly available minutes [refer to code citations defining "Freedom of Information Act" documents or comparable laws];

29

ALEC’s Machine Gun Bill In Nevada
ALEC Model Consistency In Firearms Regulation Act Assembly Sponsors Hambrick BILL(S) 2013 AB 340 Introduced/BDR 12/04/12 Senate Sponsors None Status Introduced

ALEC’s Public Safety and Elections Task force was reportedly disbanded in April 2012 after several controversies including the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the connection with the “Stand Your Ground” law. At the final meeting of the Task Force, the NRA proposed amendments to an older version of the ALEC model “Consistency in Firearms Regulation Act.” The amendments passed unanimously. Nevada’s Assembly Bill 340 is a copy of the ALEC model, as finally amended by the NRA.85 ALEC claims the task force has ended; yet its legislation continues to haunt Nevada. The bill itself would have repealed any and all restrictions on firearms or ammunition that were more strict than state law, and taken power from local governments. In this way, the model bill seeks to remove past gun safety efforts, and prevent future gun safety efforts from local governments. 2013 AB 340 As Introduced (a) The purpose of this section is to establish state control over the regulation of and policies concerning firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition to ensure that such regulation and policies are uniform throughout this State and to ensure the protection of the right to keep and bear arms, which is recognized by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Nevada (b) The regulation of the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, carrying, ownership, transportation, storage, registration and licensing of firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition in this State and the ability to define such terms is within the exclusive domain of the Legislature, and any other law, regulation, rule or ordinance to the contrary is null and void. ALEC’s Model Consistency In Firearms Regulation Act The purpose of this section is to establish complete state control over regulation and policy pertaining to firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition in order to ensure that such regulation and policy is applied uniformly throughout this state to each person subject to the state’s jurisdiction and to ensure protection of the right to keep and bear arms recognized by the Constitution of the United States [and of this State, if applicable]. This section is to be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose. (A) Except as otherwise provided in this section or as expressly authorized by a statute of this state, the regulation of all of the following is hereby declared to be the exclusive domain of the state: (1) Firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition. (2) The ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition. (3) Commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition. (4) Any other matter pertaining to firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition. (B) An ordinance, rule, resolution, or policy adopted by a political subdivision of this state, or an official action -- including in any legislative,

85 PR Watch, 03/22/13

30

(c) This section shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose. 4. Any ordinance or regulation which is inconsistent with this section or which is designed to restrict or prohibit the sale, purchase, transfer, manufacture or display of firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this State is null and void, and any official action taken by an employee or agent of a county in violation of this section is void. 7. Any person who is adversely affected by the enforcement of an ordinance or regulation that violates this section on or after October 1, 2013, may file suit in the appropriate court for declarative and injunctive relief and damages attributable to the violation. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, such a person is entitled to:

police power, or proprietary capacity -- taken by an employee or agent of such political subdivision in violation of this section is void. This section is to be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose. (B) An ordinance, rule, resolution, or policy adopted by a political subdivision of this state, or an official action -- including in any legislative, police power, or proprietary capacity -- taken by an employee or agent of such political subdivision in violation of this section is void.

(a) Reimbursement of actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs which the person has incurred if, within 30 days after the person commenced the action but before a final determination has been issued by the court, the board of county commissioners repeals the ordinance or regulation that violates this section. (b) Liquidated damages in an amount equal to two times the actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the person if, more than 30 days after the person commenced the action but before a final determination has been issued by the court, the board of county commissioners repeals the ordinance or regulation that violates this section. (c) Liquidated damages in an amount equal to three times the actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the person if the court makes a final determination in favor of the person. 8. This section must not be construed to prevent: (a) A law enforcement agency or correctional

(D) A person adversely affected by any ordinance, resolution, rule, or practice promulgated or enforced in violation of Subsection (B) of this Section may file suit in an appropriate court for declarative and injunctive relief and for all actual and consequential damages attributable to the violation. (E) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a party who brings or maintains an action at law or in equity against a political subdivision that has regulated the ownership, possession, storage, carrying, transfer or transportation of firearms, firearm accessories, ammunition or ammunition components in violation of Subsection (B) of this Section shall be entitled to: (1) Reimbursement of actual damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred if, within 30 days of commencement of the action but prior to a final determination by a court in favor of either party, the political subdivision rescinds or repeals the ordinance, resolution, rule or practice at issue in the action. (2) Prejudgment liquidated damages if, after the expiration of the 30-day period in subparagraph (1) but prior to a final determination by a court in favor of either party, the political subdivision rescinds or repeals the ordinance, resolution, rule or practice at issue in the action. (3) Post-judgment liquidated damages upon a final determination by a court in favor of the party who brings or maintains the action.

(C) This section shall not be construed to prevent any of the following: 31

institution from promulgating and enforcing its own rules pertaining to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that are issued to or used by peace officers in the course of their official duties. (b) A court or administrative law judge from hearing and resolving a case or controversy or issuing an opinion or order on a matter within its jurisdiction. (c) A public employer from regulating or prohibiting the carrying or possession of firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition during or in the course of an employee’s official duties.

(d) The enactment or enforcement of a county zoning or business ordinance which is generally applicable to businesses within the county and thereby affects a firearms business within the county, including, without limitation, an indoor or outdoor shooting range.

(e) A county from enacting and enforcing rules for the operation and use of any firearm range owned and operated by the county. (f) A political subdivision from sponsoring or conducting a firearm-related competition or educational or cultural program and enacting and enforcing rules for participation in or attendance at any such competition or program. (g) A political subdivision or any official thereof with appropriate authority from enforcing any statute of this State.

(1) A duly organized law enforcement agency of a political subdivision from promulgating and enforcing rules pertaining to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition issued to or used by peace officers in the course of their official duties. (3) A court or administrative law judge from hearing and resolving a case or controversy or issuing an opinion or order on a matter within its jurisdiction. (2) An employer from regulating or prohibiting an employee’s carrying or possession of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition during and in the course of the employee’s official duties [except as provided in the jurisdiction’s worker protection/parking lot law, if any]. (4) The enactment or enforcement of a generally applicable zoning or business ordinance that includes firearms businesses along with other businesses, provided that an ordinance designed or enforced to effectively restrict or prohibit the sale, purchase, transfer, manufacture, or display of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state is in conflict with this section and is void. (5) A political subdivision from enacting or enforcing rules of operation and use for any firearm range owned and operated by the political subdivision. (6) A political subdivision from enacting or enforcing ordinances pertaining to the reckless or negligent discharge of a firearm. (7) A political subdivision from sponsoring or conducting any firearm-related competition or educational or cultural program and from enacting and enforcing rules for participation in or attendance at such program.

32

ALEC’s Voting Restrictions Bill In Nevada
ALEC Model Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act Assembly Sponsors Wheeler (ALEC) Hansen BILL(S) 2013 SB 367 Ellison Introduced/BDR 09/04/12 Senate Sponsors Gustavson (ALEC) Status Introduced Settelmeyer (ALEC)

This bill would require voters to present proof of citizenship before registering to vote and to receive public benefits. Voters are already required under penalty of perjury to assert their citizenship, and undocumented immigrants are already barred from receiving public benefits. There is no evidence of any undocumented immigrants casting votes in Nevada elections.86 The purpose of this bill is to increase bureaucratic hurdles to voting and receiving public benefits to complicate the system, make government less efficient and less effective, and in doing so, discourage valid citizens from exercising their rights. 2013 NV SB 367 As Introduced Sec. 4. 1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, a county clerk, field registrar, employee of a voter registration agency or person assisting a voter pursuant to subsection 13 of NRS 293.5235 shall not register a person to vote unless the person submits proof of citizenship to the county clerk. 2. Proof of citizenship may be established by any one of the following: (a) A valid United States passport, or a legible photocopy of the pertinent pages thereof, identifying the person and showing the passport number. ALEC Model Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act (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:

(3) A legible photocopy of pertinent pages of the applicant's united states passport identifying the applicant and the applicant's passport number or presentation to the county recorder of the applicant's united states passport. (b) A birth certificate or a legible photocopy thereof (2) A legible photocopy of the applicant's birth certificate that verifies citizenship to the satisfaction of the county recorder. (c) A United States naturalization document, or a (4) A presentation to the county recorder of the legible photocopy thereof, or the registration applicant's United States naturalization documents number on a Certificate of Naturalization. If a or the number of the certificate of naturalization. If person provides the registration number on a only the number of the certificate of naturalization Certificate of Naturalization to prove citizenship, is provided, the applicant shall not be included in the person must not be registered to vote until the the registration rolls until the number of the county clerk verifies the registration number with certificate of naturalization is verified with the the United States Citizenship and Immigration United States immigration and naturalization Services of the Department of Homeland Security. service by the county recorder. (d) Any document or method of proof of citizenship (5) Other documents or methods of proof that are established by federal law. established pursuant to the immigration reform and control act of 1986.
86

Reno Gazette-Journal, 10/12/10

33

(e) A driver’s license bearing an indication that the person holding the license is a citizen of the United States.

3. A person who is registered to vote on or before October 1, 2013, is deemed to have provided proof of citizenship and is not required to submit proof of citizenship pursuant to this section.

(1) The number of the applicant's driver License or nonoperating identification license issued after October 1, 1996 by the Department of Transportation or the equivalent Governmental agency of another state within the United States if the agency indicates on the applicant's driver license or nonoperating identification license that the person has provided satisfactory proof of United States citizenship. (G) Notwithstanding subsection f of this section, any person who is registered in this State on the effective date of this amendment to this section is deemed to have provided satisfactory evidence of citizenship and shall not be required to resubmit evidence of citizenship unless the person is changing voter registration from one county to another.

34

ALEC’s Ombudsman Bill in Nevada
ALEC Model “Business Ombudsperson Act” Assembly Sponsors Settelmeyer (ALEC) Cobb (ALEC) Gansert Goedhart Goicoechea BILL(S) 2009 AB 331 Grady Hambrick Stewart Woodbury Introduced/BDR 02/09/09 Senate Sponsors McGinness (ALEC) Nolan (ALEC) Status Heard in Committee Washington (ALEC)

In 2009, then-Assemblyman Settelmeyer introduced a version of the ALEC template “Business Ombudsperson Act.” The bill spends taxpayer dollars to have a government official cater to business. The most astounding aspect to this bill is that Assemblyman Settelmeyer testified that not only was the bill an ALEC model, but that he did not like the form of the bill: “This is a model bill from the American Legislative Exchange Council. It does not have the exact language I would like to have. I would like to see a clause inserted that says we are dealing only with small businesses, those with 50 employees or less. That language did not make it into the text, and I do not have an amendment at this time.” 86 This demonstrates a fundamental problem with ALEC’s methods: rather than work to make a bill that fit Nevada’s interests, Asm. Settelmeyer advanced ALEC’s policies blindly. This is not an isolated incident. Legislators in Florida87 and Missouri88 have been caught introducing bills that are incorrectly adapted from ALEC models. 2009 AB 331 As Introduced Sec. 5. The Ombudsman shall: 1. Work in coordination with each public agency that has regulatory authority over a business in this State to ensure that businesses which are subject to enforcement-related communication by employees of the public agency, including, without limitation, audits or on-site inspections, are provided with a means to comment on the enforcement activity conducted by the employees of the public agency. 2. Establish a means to receive comments from a business regarding the actions of an employee of a public agency conducting an enforcement activity, a means to refer comments received to the director, administrator, chief or other person in charge of the public agency when appropriate and a means to keep the identity of the person or business making
87 88

ALEC Model “Business Ombudsperson Act” (2) The Ombudsman shall-(A) work with each agency with regulatory authority over businesses to ensure that business concerns that receive or are subject to an audit, onsite inspection, compliance assistance effort, or other enforcement related communication or contact by agency personnel are provided with a means to comment on the enforcement activity conducted by such personnel; (B) establish means to receive comments from business concerns regarding actions by agency employees conducting compliance or enforcement activities with respect to the business concern, means to refer comments to the head of the affected agency in the appropriate circumstances, and otherwise seek to maintain the identity of the

ThinkProgress, 02/02/12 ProgressMissouri, no date given

35

the comment confidential

person and business concern making such comments on a confidential basis to the same extent as employee identities are protected under state law; 3. Establish a rating system for public agencies (D) in addition agencies will be rated on if they which includes, without limitation, rating an agency notify businesses about the Ombudsman and if they on whether the public agency has notified the have an established non-retaliatory policy for businesses which it regulates about the individuals who file complaints with the Ombudsman and the purpose of the Office of the Ombudsman; and Business Ombudsman and whether the public agency has adopted a policy against reprisal and retaliation for the filing of complaints against a public agency with the Ombudsman. 4. Based upon substantiated comments received (C) based on substantiated comments received from from businesses, prepare a report evaluating the business concerns, annually report to the legislature enforcement activities of the employees of public and affected agencies evaluating the enforcement agencies, including a rating of the responsiveness to activities of agency personnel including a rating of businesses of the regional and program offices of the responsiveness to business of the various each public agency, and submit it to: regional and program offices of each agency; (a) The Governor on or before January 30 of each year; and (b) The Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau for transmittal to the Legislature on or before January 30 of each odd-numbered year. 5. Provide an affected public agency with the opportunity to comment on draft reports prepared pursuant to subsection 4 before the final report is submitted and include the comments of the public agency with the final report. (F) provide the affected agency with an opportunity to comment on draft reports prepared under subparagraph (C), and include a section of the final report in which the affected agency may make such comments as are not addressed by the Ombudsman in revisions to the draft. 6. Compile a report of the findings and (E) coordinate and report annually on the activities, recommendations of the Ombudsman for each findings and recommendations to the Governor and public agency and submit it to the Governor and the to the heads of affected agencies; and director, administrator, chief or other person in charge of each affected public agency on or before July 31 of each year.

36

ALEC’s Federal Lands Bill In Nevada
ALEC Model Sagebrush Rebellion Act Assembly Sponsors Adams Bustamante Carillo Duncan Ellison Fiore Flores Grady Hambrick Hansen Hardy (ALEC) Healey BILL(S) AB 227 Hickey Kirkpatrick Kirner Livermore Neal Ohrenshchall Oscarson P. Anderson Spiegel Stewart Wheeler (ALEC) Woodbury Introduced/BDR 11/21/12 Senate Sponsors Atkinson Brower (ALEC) Cegavske (ALEC) Denis Goicoechea Gustavson (ALEC) Hammond Hardy (ALEC) Hutchison Status Passed the House Jones Kieckhefer (ALEC) Kihuen Manendo Parks (ALEC) Roberson (ALEC) Settelmeyer (ALEC) Spearman Woodhouse

ALEC has been tied to the “Sagebrush Rebellion Act” since the early 1980s. 89 90 ALEC’s original model was an effort to transfer control of federal lands to the states. 91 Recently the Sagebrush Rebellion concept has made a comeback; in 2012 Utah lawmakers passed legislation demanding the federal government transfer control of the lands to the state, for the expressed purpose of opening the land to logging, and mining.92 93 94 ALEC spearheaded the bill decades ago and Utah legislators claimed their 2012 bill was supported by ALEC. 95 While ALEC does not currently list the bill as a model, it seems they created a web page for the ‘Sagebrush Rebellion Act’ as recently as January 2013. 96 In Nevada, lawmakers, including all ten identified current members of ALEC, introduced AB 227, a bill to create a study of the transfer of the lands, intending to study many of the same aspects of such a land transfer as the ALEC model and the Utah study.

89 90

ALEC, 1979 ALEC, 1980 91 ALEC, 1995 92 2012 HJR3 As Enrolled 93 2012 HB 148 As Enolled 94 AP, 03/07/12 95 AP, 03/07/12 96 google.com, accessed 04/27/13

37

ALEC’s Bill To Cut The Minimum Wage In Nevada
ALEC Model Starting (Minimum) Wage Repeal Act Assembly Sponsors None BILL(S) 2011 SJR2 Introduced/BDR 11/02/10 Senate Sponsors Hardy (ALEC) Status Heard in Committee

ALEC has supported repealing the minimum wage, viewing it as a “mandate on business,” and while noting that most minimum wage workers are retirees and students, it advocated for its repeal to allow businesses to pay lower wages to employees.97 As of 2012, ALEC supported the repeal of the minimum wage as a model.98 In 2012, ALEC discontinued promoting the model bill, but still opposes linking the Minimum Wage to inflation.99 The Nevada Constitution requires workers to be paid a minimum wage, and indexed the minimum wage to rise with inflation. This clause in the constitution has led to Nevada workers being paid more than the federal minimum wage.100 This provision was supported in 2006 by 68 percent of Nevadans.101 In Nevada’s 2011 session, Senator Hardy, an ALEC member, proposed repealing this provision in the constitution with SJR2. In testimony in committee, Sen. Hardy suggested that businesses be allowed to hire students and hospitality workers for less than $8 per hour.102 This one-sentence repeal bill would allow businesses to cut wages for low-income employees, falling disproportionately on retirees and students.

97 98

ALEC, 1996 ALEC 35 day mailing, as obtained by Common Cause, 10/25/12 99 ALEC.org, accessed 04/29/13 100 dol.gov, accessed 04/29/13 101 nvsos.gov, accessed 04/29/13 102 Senate Committee Minutes, 02/16/11

38

APPENDIX: Donations From Corporate Funders Of ALEC To Select ALEC Politicians
The following data is from the Nevada Secretary of State’s campaign finance database. When corporations are included that have left ALEC, only the contributions made before the corporation severed ties with ALEC have been included. For a complete list of the companies that have left ALEC, see alecexposed.org.

Senator Greg Brower
Entity Allergan USA Inc Altria Client Services American Insurance Association PAC Amerigroup Corporation Amerigroup Corporation Associated Builders & Contractors Associated Builders & Contractors Astellas Pharma US, Inc AT&T AT&T Nevada Employee PAC Bank of America State and Federal PAC1 Cash America International, Inc. CenturyLink Inc. Employees PAC Charter Farmers Insuarnce PAC (FEAPAC) Farmers Insuarnce PAC (FEAPAC) Farmers Insurance PAC Farmers Insurance PAC K12 Management Inc MillerCoors2 Nevada Power Company Nevada Power Company dba NV Energy Nevada Power Company dba NV Energy Nevada Power Company dba NV Energy Nevada Power Company dba NV Energy Nevada Power Company dba NV Energy Nevada Power Company dba NV Energy NRA Political Victory Fund NRA Political Victory Fund Pfizer Inc
1 2

Date Amount 5/4/12 $1,500.00 5/18/12 $2,000.00 10/19/12 $1,000.00 8/3/12 $500.00 2/24/12 $500.00 10/19/12 $1,000.00 5/18/12 $2,500.00 8/10/12 $1,000.00 5/4/12 $3,000.00 12/13/12 $1,000.00 5/24/12 $3,000.00 9/28/12 $1,000.00 12/31/12 $500.00 9/28/12 $500.00 10/12/12 $2,500.00 8/24/12 $2,500.00 4/20/12 $2,500.00 12/21/11 $2,500.00 10/12/12 $1,000.00 3/8/12 $500.00 6/7/12 $1,000.00 12/19/12 $1,000.00 10/4/12 $1,000.00 9/6/12 $1,000.00 4/20/12 $1,000.00 2/24/12 $1,000.00 12/21/11 $1,000.00 10/4/12 $1,000.00 1/18/12 $500.00 9/14/12 $750.00

Bank of America cut ties with ALEC MillerCoors cut ties with ALEC

39

Pfizer Inc. 2/3/12 $750.00 PhRMA 12/19/12 $1,000.00 Union Pacific Railroad Corporation 5/18/12 $1,000.00 UnitedHealth Group Inc. PAC of Nevada 10/19/12 $1,000.00 Verizon 11/1/12 $1,000.00 TOTAL, 2012 Cycle: $44,500.00

Senator Michael Roberson
Entity Allergan USA, Inc Altria Associated Builders & Contractors Astellas Pharma US, Inc Astra Zeneca AT&T Nevada Bank of America Corporation Pac3 Bayer Bristol-Myers Squibb Company4 Cash America Cash America CenturyLink Inc. Employees PAC Daiichi Sankyo Inc Farmers Employee Agent PAC Farmers Insurance PAC (FEAPAC) Medco Health Solutions, Inc Nevada Power Company Nevada Power Company NFIB Nevada Safe Trust NRA Political Victory Fund NRA Political Victory Fund NV Energy Pfizer Inc. PHRMA PhRMA UnitedHealth Group Inc. PAC of Nevada UnitedHealth Group Inc. PAC of Nevada Verizon Wireless Wells Fargo & Co. Employee PAC5 Wells Fargo & Co. Employee PAC5 Wells Fargo & Co. Employee PAC5 TOTAL, 2010 and 2012 Cycle:
3 4

Date Amount 7/5/12 $1,500.00 10/17/12 $1,000.00 9/30/10 $1,000.00 6/5/12 $750.00 9/17/12 $1,000.00 12/9/10 $2,000.00 12/22/10 $1,000.00 11/9/11 $1,500.00 10/15/12 $1,000.00 6/5/12 $1,500.00 10/14/10 $1,000.00 12/12/12 $2,000.00 10/4/12 $500.00 12/6/10 $1,000.00 12/6/12 $2,000.00 1/4/11 $1,000.00 12/5/12 $1,000.00 1/26/12 $1,000.00 10/6/10 $500.00 10/6/10 $500.00 6/3/10 $250.00 11/16/10 $5,000.00 10/6/11 $1,000.00 10/22/12 $2,000.00 10/12/11 $1,500.00 12/13/12 $750.00 1/4/11 $1,000.00 10/10/12 $1,000.00 9/14/11 $1,000.00 9/17/10 $500.00 8/26/10 $500.00 $37,250.00

Bank of America cut ties with ALEC Bristol-Meyers Squibb cut ties with ALEC 5 Wells Fargo cut ties with ALEC

40

Assemblyman Cresent Hardy
Entity Altria Client Services Inc Amerigroup Corporation Associated Builders and Contractors Associated Builders and Contractors Associated Builders and Contractors of Nevada Associated Builders and Contractors of Nevada Astella Pharma US, Inc. AT&T AT&T AT&T Bank of America6 Cash America Century Link Century Link Farmers Employee Agent PAC Farmers Employee Agent PAC Farmers Insurance PAC Farmers Insurance PAC Nevada Power Co. NV Energy, Inc. NV Energy, Inc. NV Energy, Inc. NV Energy, Inc. Pfizer Inc Pfizer Inc UnitedHealth Group Incorporated UnitedHealth Group Incorporated UnitedHealth Group Incorporated Walgreens7 Walgreens7 Walgreens7 Walgreens7 Walgreens7 Walgreens7 TOTAL, 2010 and 2012 Cycle: Date Amount 8/18/11 $750.00 8/7/12 $500.00 9/30/10 $500.00 9/30/10 $500.00 5/17/12 5/17/12 9/22/12 5/1/12 12/14/10 12/14/10 10/15/12 5/30/12 9/11/12 10/24/11 11/30/10 11/30/10 10/15/12 11/14/11 11/7/11 8/26/10 8/26/10 6/16/10 6/16/10 8/15/12 10/6/11 10/25/12 10/5/10 10/5/10 8/2/11 8/2/11 7/14/10 7/14/10 7/14/10 7/14/10 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $28,000.00

6 7

Bank of America cut ties with ALEC Walgreens has cut ties with ALEC

41

Senator David Parks
Entity American Council of Life Insurers PAC Fund Amerigroup Corporation Astellas Pharma US, Inc Astra Zeneca AT&T Services, Inc. Atria Client Services Bank of America State and Federal PAC8 Cash America International, Inc. CenturyLink CenturyLink Farmers Insurance PAC (FEAPAC) Nevada Rural Electric Association NRA - Political Victory Fund NV Energy, Inc NV Energy, Inc Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Inc. Union Pacific Railroad Company UnitedHealth Group Incorporated NV PAC Verizon Wireless TOTAL, 2012 Cycle: Date Amount 10/6/12 $500.00 5/2/12 $500.00 7/31/12 $1,000.00 9/21/12 $500.00 12/8/11 $2,000.00 10/14/11 $1,500.00 10/2/12 $1,000.00 6/1/12 $1,000.00 12/17/12 $1,000.00 9/15/11 $5,000.00 7/16/12 $2,000.00 9/17/12 $700.00 5/3/12 $500.00 1/23/12 $2,000.00 1/23/12 $2,000.00 9/17/12 $750.00 11/30/11 $750.00 5/7/12 $750.00 4/13/12 $1,000.00 10/29/12 $500.00 $24,950.00

Senator James Settelmeyer
Entity Allergan USA, INC Astra Zeneca AT&T AT&T Bank of America9 Century Link Farmers Farmers Employee Agent PAC NRA-Political Victory Fund NV Energy PhRMA Union Pacific Corporation UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
8 9

Date Amount 10/26/10 $1,000.00 9/17/12 $1,000.00 10/18/11 $2,000.00 5/2/08 $1,500.00 8/5/08 $1,000.00 6/20/12 $1,000.00 8/13/09 $2,000.00 10/16/07 $500.00 12/2/07 $500.00 1/25/12 $1,000.00 12/14/09 $1,000.00 11/16/08 $500.00 11/5/10 $1,000.00

Bank of America cut ties with ALEC Bank of America cut ties with ALEC

42

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 10/29/09 $500.00 Verizon 10/10/12 $1,000.00 10 Wal-Mart 12/31/09 $1,250.00 10 Wal-Mart 9/26/07 $1,000.00 Walgreens 7/29/09 $2,000.00 TOTAL, 2008-2012: $19,750.00

Senator Don Gustavson
Entity Date Amount ABC - Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc 10/9/10 $1,000.00 ALTRIA Client Services 11/3/08 $500.00 AT&T 8/4/10 $1,000.00 Centurylink, Inc 10/9/10 $1,000.00 Farmers Employee Agent PAC 9/28/10 $1,000.00 NFIB - Nevada Safe Trust 10/9/10 $250.00 NRA-Political Victory Fund 6/11/10 $500.00 NV Energy, Inc. 12/9/10 $500.00 Union Pacific Railroad 10/5/10 $1,000.00 United Health Care Group Inc. PAC of Nevada 8/15/10 $1,000.00 Walgreen Co. 8/17/10 $2,500.00 11 Wells Fargo & Co. Employee PAC 10/22/10 $500.00 TOTAL, 2008-2012: $10,750.00

Senator Barbara Cegavske*
Also see ‘scholarship’ data Entity Bayer Bristol-Myers Squibb Company12 Eli Lilly and Company Johnson & Johnson Services Inc.13 Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc.13 Pfizer Inc. PhRMA Unitedhealth Group Inc. NV PAC TOTAL, 2010 and 2012 Cycle: Date Amount 11/9/11 $1,500.00 10/26/10 $1,500.00 12/8/10 $1,000.00 9/14/11 $1,000.00 10/25/10 $500.00 10/28/10 $1,000.00 10/12/11 $1,500.00 12/19/12 $200.00 $8,200.00

10 11 12

Wal-Mart cut ties with ALEC Wells Fargo cut ties with ALEC Bristol-Meyers Squibb cut ties with ALEC 13 Johnson and Johnson cut ties with ALEC

43

Senator Joseph Hardy
Entity Astra Zeneca Century Link Farmers Employee Agent PAC Johnson & Johnson Services Inc. Pfizer Inc. TOTAL, 2012 Cycle: Date Amount 10/11/12 $750.00 11/17/11 $2,000.00 10/22/12 $1,000.00 11/15/11 $1,000.00 12/12/11 $1,000.00 $5,750.00

Senator Ben Kieckhefer
Entity Date Amount Amerigroup Corporation 12/8/11 $1,000.00 Astra Zeneca 9/14/12 $500.00 Pfizer Inc. 6/20/12 $750.00 Pfizer Inc. 10/6/11 $750.00 PhRMA 11/14/11 $1,500.00 14 Sprint 10/22/11 $1,032.00 TOTAL, 2012 Cycle: $5,532.00

Assemblyman Jim Wheeler
Entity Date Amount Altria 10/30/12 $500.00 AT&T 7/24/12 $1,000.00 Bank of America Corp PAC15 9/6/12 $500.00 Nevada Power 7/10/12 $1,000.00 TOTAL, 2012 Cycle: $3,000.00

14 15

Sprint has cut ties with ALEC Bank of America cut ties with ALEC

44

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful