Arizona’s Records Show more than One Lobbyist Reporting fees Involving the AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL (ALEC), a Homeland Security Fact Sheet mentioning ALEC, document showing ALEC and Grover Norquist’s ATR National Involvement in Electronic Commerce on the internet, etc., etc., etc.

Fennemore Craig PC is are lawyers and lobbyist that work a great deal in immigration in Arizona as well as other states.

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL (ALEC) files taxes as a 501 (c) 3 group as if it were a charity. 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct.
AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL (ALEC) is deeply involved in the politics of this country from state to state

Following two belong to Fennemore Craig PC

—————————————————
Both of these bills below HB 2469 and SB 1165 are considered to come from the influence of ALEC. When researching Arizona records as you see below it says in the record as stated word for word below both of these bills were modeled on Legislation supported by ALEC.

HB 2469

CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS

Modeled on legislation supported by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a new statutory scheme similar but not identical to Rule 23 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure would have established rules regarding the certification and conduct of class actions, presumably usurping the Arizona Supreme Court’s exclusive rule making authority in this area. (See also SB 1165, below.)

SB 1165

CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS

Modeled on legislation supported by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a new statutory scheme similar but not identical to Rule 23 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure would have established rules regarding the certification and conduct of class actions, presumably usurping the Arizona Supreme Court’s exclusive rule making authority in this area. Enactment was made conditional on passage of SCR 1005, below. 

———————————————————————————–

A look at the Arizona Commerce Authority and it appears they have included ALEC’s ranking of them in econmincs

Overall economic indices and high-tech metrics in which Arizona has been ranked highly include:

Second in economic outlook (ALEC-Laffer, 2010)

Second in entrepreneurial activity (ITIF, 2010)

Seventh in growth prospects (Forbes, 2010)

Seventh in IPOs (Beacon Hill Institute, 2008)

Eighth in economic performance (ALEC-Laffer, 2010)

10th in risk-capital and entrepreneurial infrastructure (Milken Institute, 2008)

10th in technology concentration and dynamism (Milken Institute, 2010)

————————————————————————————–

Also in Arizona they held meetings that they considered membership drives:

ALEC Legislative Membership DriveRep. & Dinner

3/7/2006 | 5:30PM – 6:00PM

Location: @ Morton’s, 24th St. & Camelback

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

5,000 PRIVATE PRISON BEDS

PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS

AUGUST 10, 2011

GOODYEAR, ARIZONA

• Roma Thomas, Arizona citizen: Ms. Thomas asked how many of those present at the

hearing had heard of ALEC and decided that not many did. She said that ALEC describes

itself as the nation’s largest non-partisan organization of State Legislators, but it is comprised

of “ultra conservative” lawmakers and wealthy corporations. She stated that ALEC is

shaping American politics and lawmakers write business friendly legislation advocated for

by ALEC, including “three strikes” laws. She said that ALEC wants to destroy unions, which

may concern those from the construction industry present at the hearing. Ms. Thomas stated

that ALEC wants to expand private prisons for two of its largest members: CCA and The

GEO Group, Inc. Ms. Thomas stated that last summer, ALEC “conspired to draft SB 1070”

and that SB 1070 “helped keep CCA prisons full of immigrant detainees.” Ms. Thomas stated

that the United States has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world and that

Scandinavian countries are much more sensible. Ms. Thomas stated that ALEC members

include Governor Brewer, Newt Gingrich, Eric Cantor and the Governors of Ohio,

Wisconsin and Texas. Ms. Thomas urged residents to “be careful what you vote for” and

stated that, “We are building a prison industrial complex.” Ms. Thomas opposes the proposal.

Goodyear Public Hearing

August 11, 2011

Page 7 of 9

——————————————————————————————

Besides your current corporations and House of Representative or Senate members doing the work of ALEC, can we say that once out of office these leaders remove themselves from such a group with a lot of money?  Consider this even after leaving elective office these political leaders have the possibility to attain influential jobs in our states as well as nationally that also can push  the positions of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Arizona Corporation Commission Brenda Burns -Previously served in Arizona House of Representative and Senate for several years

As an active member of the American Legislative Exchange Council, she served on its board for nine years, becoming ALEC’s national Chairman in 1999. There she worked with other national leaders on many issues, with a strong focus on States’ Rights.

BACKGROUND REPORTS:

American Legislative Exchange Council, Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force

The State Factor, A Policy Guide for the Internet and Electronic Commerce. Washington, DC: American Legislative Exchange Council, Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force, vol. 25, no. 1 (March 1999)

Stanbury, W. T. Overweening Ambition: Assessing the CRTC’s [Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission] Plans to Regulate the Internet. Public Policy Sources; no., 15. Vancouver, Canada: Fraser Institute, 1999.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/pps/15/

In a fact sheep involving Homeland Security ALEC is mentioned

It appears in 1999 Arizona House of Representatives were doing a INTERNET STUDY COMMITTEE ONLINE  and they used as a part of their background information reports from ALEC

To read in entirety how ALEC  with American Tax Reform are mention on what is considered a national effort by certain ‘GROUPS AND ASSOCIATIONS INVOLVED WITH THE ISSUES: Advisory Commission on on Electronic Commerce (ACEC)’ in other words involving the ‘internet’ you can scroll through the PDF Document below.

GROUPS AND ASSOCIATIONS INVOLVED WITH THE ISSUES:

Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce (ACEC)

http://www.cns.state.va.us/e_commerce/index.htm

American Legislative Exchange Council-Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force

http://www.alec.org/

Americans for Tax Reform

http://www.atr.org

National Tax Association

http://www.ntanet.org/

BACKGROUND REPORTS:

American Legislative Exchange Council, Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force

The State Factor, A Policy Guide for the Internet and Electronic Commerce. Washington, DC: American Legislative Exchange Council, Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force, vol. 25, no. 1 (March 1999)

[see: JURISDICTION-LAW]

California, State of

“If I’m So Empowered, Why Do I Need You?” Defining Government’s Role in Internet Electronic Commerce. State of California, Electronic Commerce Advisory Council, 1998.

Click to access report.pdf

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

ARIZONA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Minutes of the Meeting

Tuesday, July 30, 2002

9 a.m., House Hearing Room 4

Members Present:

Speaker Jim Weiers, Cochair President Randall Gnant, Cochair

Representative Linda Gray Senator Ken Bennett

Representative Laura Knaperek Senator Jack Brown

Representative Bob Robson Senator David Petersen

Senator Peter Rios

Members Absent:

Representative Ken Cheuvront Senator Chris Cummiskey

Representative Leah Landrum Taylor Senator Toni Hellon

Representative Marion Pickens

Staff:

Mr. Mike Braun, Executive Director, Arizona Legislative Council

Speaker Weiers called the meeting to order at 9:12 a.m. and attendance was noted.

Speaker Weiers indicated that the first item on the agenda is the selection of the contractor for English Language Learners Cost Study.

Mr. Mike Braun, Executive Director, Arizona Legislative Council, explained that in December, 2001, the Legislature passed HB 2010 that mandated a study to determine the actual cost of complying with all state and federal laws relating to language acquisition programs. HB 2010 also created a joint legislative committee on school maintenance and operation funding that was charged with determining the scope and content of that study. The joint legislative committee met earlier this year and on June 17, 2002, adopted a scope and content document and published a Request for Proposal (RFP), with a response cutoff date for July 17, 2002. Responses from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) (Attachment 1) and Sjoberg Evashenk (Attachment 2) were received and submitted to each of the Committee members to review.

Mr. Braun pointed out that the responses were evaluated based on the criteria indicated in the RFP which included experience, expertise, reliability of author and key personnel, and the schedule for timely completion of work. Mr. Braun recommended that the Council accept the NCSL proposal. He explained that both firms met the criteria as outlined; however, the significant difference between the two proposals was the cost.

Mr. Braun recalled that the original appropriation had $500,000 earmarked for the study and the work of the Committee. In the last regular session, that amount was reduced to $250,000. Of the two proposals, the response from the NCSL showed a cost of $238,000, which is within the noted appropriation. The other respondent estimated a cost of $280,000, which is considerably over the appropriation.

Senator Rios noted that additional follow-up questions were sent to NCSL and asked if Mr. Braun was satisfied with the responses to those questions. Mr. Braun replied that he was. He further explained that the initial response from NCSL omitted an important piece of information regarding the review of teaching practices in other states, which was addressed in the supplementary questions. There also were some additional questions from the caucus staff that NCSL responded to in more detail.

Senator Brown made a motion that the Committee accept the bid from the National Conference of State Legislatures for $238,000. The motion CARRIED by a voice vote.

Mr. Braun next discussed the payment of the Council of State Government (CSG) Dues in the amount of $108,579. He noted that payment for these particular dues can only be made after an affirmative vote from the Council members.

President Gnant made a motion that the Committee approve the payment of the Council of State Government Dues in the amount of $108,579. The motion FAILED by a voice vote. DIVISION was called. The motion FAILED by a division of 4-5.

Representative Gray commented that it is her understanding that members could still attend the conferences even though they have not joined. Mr. Braun replied that legislators can attend CSG functions and pay the nonmember rate.

Senator Brown noted that there is an extended period of time that CSG will continue to accept the Legislators as members. He stated that he feels CSG is a good organization and enjoys learning from other state’s members. He stressed that he supports the CSG.

President Gnant commented that he has attended many CSG meetings and feels they are more valuable than the meetings provided by American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and is as good as NCSL. He pointed out that NCSL is a very good organization for providing sessions for staff support. CSG West is particularly good because the participants discuss issues that affect the western states. He suggested that the legislators would be missing an opportunity to learn and share experiences with legislators from other states.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:23 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol Dager

Committee Secretary