ALEC In Nebraska

Released December 3, 2013

Table Of Contents
Key Findings _______________________________________________________________ 2 What Is ALEC? _____________________________________________________________ 3 ALEC Associates In Nebraska _________________________________________________ 5 The Money Trail: Scholarship Payments ________________________________________ 6 The Money Trail: Taxpayer Funded Junkets ______________________________________ 8 Bills and Issues _____________________________________________________________ 9 The Environment _________________________________________________________ 9 ALECs Support of the Keystone XL Pipeline _________________________________ 9 ALECs Fracking Secrecy Bill ____________________________________________ 14 Education ______________________________________________________________ 17 ALECs Tax Credit Voucher Scheme_______________________________________ 17 ALECs Charter Schools Act _____________________________________________ 20 Health Care _____________________________________________________________ 23 ALECs Anti-Healthcare Reform Bill ______________________________________ 23 ALECs Bill To Lower Nebraskas Healthcare Standards _______________________ 24 Crony Capitalism ________________________________________________________ 25 ALECs Tobacco Tax Cut _______________________________________________ 25 ALECs Asbestos Bill ___________________________________________________ 26 ALECs Restaurant Liability Carve Out _____________________________________ 30 Voter ID, Immigration, and Guns ____________________________________________ 32 ALECs Voter ID Bill ___________________________________________________ 32 ALECs Extreme Anti-Immigrant Bill ______________________________________ 33 ALECs Castle Doctrine Bill _____________________________________________ 36 ALECs Emergency Guns Bill ____________________________________________ 38 Appendix 1: ALEC Scholarship Account ________________________________________ 40

Key Findings
ALEC is a major player in Nebraska politics, influencing myriad issues. ALEC and its allies have successfully passed its corporate-sponsored legislation in Nebraska in the past, and continues to carry the water of corporate special interests in advocating radical change in our state. Only five of Nebraskas State Senators are associated with ALEC. Five of the 49 current Nebraska State Senators are known ALEC members. Last year that number was as high as 16 members, but several senators cancelled their memberships when citizens brought to their attention what ALEC is really all about in addition to the longtime work Common Cause in our state does to expose ALEC's copy cat bills. Additionally, US Senator Fischer and Congressman Smith are ALEC alumni and Senator Johanns has presented at their conference as a guest speaker.
ALEC

and Nebraska Senators have continued to utilize a scholarship fund, using corporate donations to fund Senators travel to ALEC conventions. It is not clear how this conforms to NADC regulations on the operation of the fund. The usage of this fund is being challenged currently, and ALEC is changing the way the funds are managed. ALEC helped Sens. Janssen and McCoy, now both candidates for Governor, with content for their failed bills. We covered this two years ago with extensive blog post. We were able to help kill the ALEC bills.
ALEC

has played an integral part in the advocacy of the Keystone XL pipeline in Nebraska and nationwide. ALEC and TransCanada pushed their agenda thru "copy and paste" resolutions in support of the pipeline as well as funded at least one State Senator--Jim Smith, author of the pipeline routing bill being challenged in court-- to visit the tarsands region and meet with oil executives. We wrote an extensive blog post on Sen. Smith's trip. TransCanada's executive Beth Jensen, who is also a founding member of the "nonprofit" Nebraskans for Jobs, serves on an ALEC committee. ALEC has also advanced oil company interests in Nebraska through a fracking bill, which would further endanger our water supply. members are very active in Nebraska, advancing measures to: o Privatize our schools through charter schools and tax credit school vouchers o Advance radical gun laws including the infamous Florida Castle Doctrine Model o Needlessly complicate the voting process o Rig the legal system to benefit ALECs corporate sponsors o Implement constitutionally suspect anti-immigrant measures

ALEC

What Is ALEC? The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC is a Washington, DC, based group funded almost entirely by corporations, corporate linked foundations, big business associations, insurance companies, and the super-rich. ALEC was formed in 1973 by a group of conservative activists who came together to advance a national right-wing agenda in state legislatures across the country. ALEC says it has more than 300 corporate and 2,000 (mostly Republican) state legislative members. These members who work outside of the public view to approve model legislation and to promote a right-wing national agenda that is designed in many ways to increase corporate profits at the publics expense. ALECs known corporate funders have included: (See the full list via alecexposed.org ) Altria Anheuser-Busch AstraZeneca AT&T Bayer Corp BP Bridgepoint America Celgene CenturyLink Chevron Comcast Dow Chemicals eBay Eli Lilly ExxonMobil Farmers Group FedEx K12 Inc. Koch Industries Marathon Oil Microsoft News Corp. Novartis Peabody Energy Pfizer Shell Oil State Farm Insurance T-Mobile Takeda Pharmaceutical Time Warner Cable UnitedHealthcare UPS Verizon Visa Wall Street Journal Yahoo!

How ALEC Works Legislators and corporate lobbyists gather together at ALEC conferences, often held at luxury resorts, away from the public eye. The legislators bring home model bills, many of which were written by the corporations themselves, designed to help the corporate bottom line. The People of Nebraska have nothing to do with the process, and are entirely shut out of the closed-door meetings at which the legislation is voted on. These conventions often double as family vacations, where legislators bring their families to visit travel destinations like Hilton Head, Coeur DAllene, or San Diego. Frequently legislators are unable to afford such luxury, so willing lobbyists and special interests are eager to pick up the tab for lawmakers. ALEC spends more than half a million dollars each year to pay for legislators travel,1 with the money coming from pharmaceutical companies, oil giants and other multinational firms. These payments from lobbyists and special interests can cumulate to
1 CMD, Dec. 2012

thousands of dollars and are barred in at least three states. Yet often the transactions are not disclosed to the public as gifts or reimbursements by firms with lobbying interests. In some states, including Nebraska, lawmakers are able to wrangle the state into paying for their trips to ALEC resort meetings, forcing the taxpayer to pick up the tab for the lawmakers luxury trips to meet with corporate lobbyists through ALEC. In ALECs bicameral Task Forces, corporate special interests vote as a separate body, held equal with legislators. Lobbyists and legislators both propose model bills, and both groups vote whether to adopt the model. If the special interests dont approve of a bill, they can vote it down, and this has happened. ALECs legislative leaders are tasked under ALECs public bylaws with getting the bills introduced into law. Many ALEC legislators introduce the corporate-authored ALEC bills in their state legislatures as verbatim copies of the ALEC models but without any reference to ALECs role. The ALEC business model is incredibly effective. ALECs former Executive Director bragged, With our success rate at more than 20 percent, I would say that ALEC is a good investment. Nowhere else can you get a return that high.2 According to ALEC documents, 115 pieces of ALEC legislation were passed in the 2010 legislative session nationwide;3 this is the last publically available copy of their scorecard. ALECs influence increased after the 2010 elections, and as this report demonstrates, ALEC remains a major player in our state legislature. ALEC is not elected, yet it has had more voice in what is happening in our states and country than many voters do. By creating model legislation and using friendly legislators, the people's voice is removed from the process as corporations take control of our state government. Too often, ALEC bills are pushed through legislatures, with ALEC legislative leaders in control, in ways that demonstrate disinterest or hostility to the will of the people, in favor of a desire to enact ALEC agenda items as quickly as possible, as we have seen in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and North Carolina.4

2 ALEC, 1995 3 ALEC, 2010 4 Progress Iowa, Jan. 2013

ALEC Associates In Nebraska

Federal Representatives: Senator Mike Johanns, presented at ALECs December, 2010 conference5 Senator Deb Fischer, an ALEC Aluma6 Represenative Adrian Smith, an ALEC Alumnus7

Legislative Members: Five of Nebraskas Senators have ties to ALEC. Known associates are: Sen. Jim Smith o ALEC State Chairman8 Sen. Mark Christenson9 Sen. Thomas Hansen10 Sen. Tyson Larson11 Sen. Beau McCoy12

We would like to thank the Senators who cancelled their memberships and those that did not renew their ALEC memberships. Senators Conrad, Haar, Mello, and Nordquist withdrew from ALEC, citing its extreme views as reason for their departure. Senators who allowed their membership to expire in 2013 include John Harms, Scott Price, John Wightman and Ken Schilz. Other Senators who are no longer members include Charlie Janssen, Pete Pirsch and Tanya Cook. Senator Steve Lathrop said he was never and would never be part of this extreme group.

5 ALEC 35 Day Mailing as obtained by Common Cause, 03/31/11 6 ALEC.org, accessed 07/25/13 7 ALEC.org, accessed 07/25/13 8 ALEC.org, accessed 07/25/13 9 ALEC 35 Day Mailing, as obtained by Common Cause, 06/30/11 10 Common Cause.org, accessed 07/29/13 11 Common Cause.org, accessed 07/29/13 12 Common Cause.org, accessed 07/29/13

The Money Trail: Scholarship Payments

In 1995 Senator Ed Schrock asked the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission (NADC) whether a Senator was permitted to accept scholarship money from ALEC.13 The NADC ruled that, When a lobbyist or a principal makes a contribution to the ALEC Nebraska Scholarship Account, the lobbyist or principal knows that it will be used to provide a scholarship or gift to a Nebraska state senator. If the amount of the donation is more than $50, he or she may accomplish indirectly that which could not be done directly. In essence, ALEC, through its Nebraska Scholarship Account, is acting on behalf of a lobbyist or principal. 14 The NADC concluded, a Nebraska state senator may not accept a scholarship of more than $50 from the Nebraska Scholarship Account of ALEC as that account is now funded. 15 The NADC provided three alternatives, including not accepting scholarship money from lobbyists or principals, limiting scholarship donations from lobbyists and principals to $50 times the number of scholarships planned, and to only grant reimbursements through the ALEC general fund. 16 ALECs 2011 tax forms state that ALECs scholarship funds were not to be counted as revenues and expenses of ALEC, and that ALEC does not select the individuals and the State Chair retains the exclusive right to determine the expenditures.17 It is not clear how the scholarship fund conforms to NADC regulations. The Center for Media and Democracy with Common Cause have reported on the balance sheets of ALEC Scholarship accounts in every state in the country, between 2006 and 2008. 18 This report denoted reimbursement payments from an ALEC scholarship fund to legislators far in excess of $50. The full balance sheets for those years are in the Appendix to this report. The largest recipient of scholarship funds was former Sen. Abbie Cornett, who received $5,367.36. The ALEC scholarship programs are the subject of legal debates nationwide. Theyve been banned in at least three states.19 In Nebraska, the Center for Media and Democracy recently filed a complaint against Sen. Jim Smith, asking the NADC to investigate whether the senator received contributions from TransCanada for a trip to Alberta, Canada in relation to meetings on the Keystone XL pipeline.20 The two groups also filed a letter to the NADC, asking the commission to investigate the legality of the scholarship fund and its operations.21 Watchdog groups are questioning how the ALEC scholarship fund, its recipients, and donors comply with Nebraska law, as articulated by the NADC opinions. Whether or not the fund is operating illegally and violating the letter or the law, ALECs scholarship payments violate the
13 NADC, 03/24/95 14 NADC, 03/24/95 15 NADC, 03/24/95 16 NADC, 03/24/95 17 ALEC, 09/11/12 18 CMD, Oct. 2012 19 CMD, Oct. 2012 20 PRWatch, 07/03/13 21 Press Release, Common Cause, 08/05/13

spirit of the law, as they are a secret means to funnel payments from lobbyists and corporations to Nebraskan Politicians.

The Money Trail: Taxpayer Funded Junkets

Theres a special irony in using government spending to attend a convention to learn how to cut government spending. Nebraskas ALEC politicians have spent more than ten thousand dollars on ALEC junkets, and had the audacity to have the taxpayer pick up the bill via travel reimbursements.22 Total Reimbursement $1,500.00 $2,285.91 $704.10 $652.96 $145.20 $115.82 $302.09 $918.13 $943.05 $2,000.58 $478.96 $10,046.80

Name Jim Smith Leroy Louden John Synowiecki Ray Aguilar Tom Carlson Vickie McDonald Jeanne Combs Ray Janssen Carol Hudkins Vickie McDonald Donald Pederson

Reason For Travel ALEC ANNUAL MTG, SALT LAKE CITY, UT ALEC ANNUAL MTG, CHICAGO, IL ALEC STATES & NATION POLICY SUMMIT, WASHINGTON, DC ALEC ANNUAL MTG, PHILADELPHIA, PA ALEC SPRING TASK FORCE, HILTON HEAD, SC ALEC SPRING TASK FORCE, HILTON HEAD, SC ALEC STATES & NATION POLICY SUMMIT, PHOENIX, AZ ALEC STATES & NATION POLICY SUMMIT, PHOENIX, AZ ALEC ANNUAL MTG, SAN FRANCISCO, CA ALEC ANNUAL MTG, SAN FRANCISCO, CA ALEC ANNUAL MTG, SAN FRANCISCO, CA

Dates 7/24/28/12 7/29-8/2/08 12/6-9/07 7/24-28/07 4/26-28/07 4/26-28/07 12/6-9/06 12/6-9/06 7/19-22/06 7/19-22/06 7/19-22/06 Grand Total:

22 Legislative Council Documents On File With BOLD Nebraska

Bills and Issues

You will see in the following pages examples of how ALEC model legislation has been incorporated into legislation introduced by various Nebraska State Senators. Some of the legislation was introduced by past members of ALEC when they were still members. We would again like to thank our Senators who have since removed themselves from affiliation with ALEC.

The Environment ALECs Support of the Keystone XL Pipeline

State Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Ohio South Dakota 2013 Bill(s) HR877 SR 41, HR47 HCR5014 SCR273, HR122 SCR115, SCR125 SCR6 HF987, SF479 SR3, SC543 HCR19, SCR 7 SCR7, HCR9 HCR1006 State Alaska Hawaii Iowa Maine Missouri New Jersey Oklahoma Tennessee Washington 2012 Bill(s) HJR37 HCR215, HR166 HR109, SR103 SP676 SCR21, HCR37 AR92, SR65 SCR16, SCR15 HR195 SJM8018

In 2012 and 2013 at least 32 resolutions in 19 states called on the federal government to permit the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The states spanned the entire country, from Maine to Hawaii, legislators even in states with seemingly little or no interest in the proposed pipeline rushed to support TransCanadas efforts for the permit. This national effort was spearheaded through ALEC and illustrates several disturbing flaws of ALEC, the promulgation of purely corporate legislation in a coordinated national effort bought and paid for by corporations in an ethically suspect manner. TransCanada is a funder of ALEC, and has sat on ALECs Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force.23 At ALECs 2011 States and Nation Policy Summit in Scottsdale, Arizona the task force passed a Resolution in Support of the Keystone XL Pipeline.24 It is unsurprising that a corporate advocacy group would promulgate support for TransCanadas efforts.

23 ALEC 35 Day Mailing, as obtained by Common Cause, 07/01/10 24 ALEC 35 Day Mailing, as obtained by Common Cause, 04/06/11

The Center for Media and Democracy revealed the truly disturbing fact that the model resolution simply parrots TransCanadas talking points.25 Because of ALEC, legislators in states around the nation are replacing legislation with corporate talking points. ALECs veil of secrecy prevents the public from knowing who wrote the model bills, bills can be written by corporate members of the task forces, and TransCanada has sat on the applicable task force. Below is a comparison of some of the resolutions to the TransCanada talking points.
TransCanada Talking Points The Keystone XL project will support the creation of more than 20,000 jobs in the U.S. more than 13,000 construction jobs and 7,000 manufacturing jobs representing work for pipefitters, welders, electricians, heavy equipment operators and other sectors in virtually every state in the U.S. The combined Keystone XL and Gulf Coast projects will inject $20 billion into the U.S. economy and pay over $5 billion in taxes to local counties over their lifetimes. ALEC Model WHEREAS, construction of the project will create 120,000 jobs nationwide including 20,000 in construction and manufacturing, create $20 billion in economic growth and generate millions of dollars worth of government receipts; and

Minnesota HF987 Pipelines are the safest method for the transportation WHEREAS, pipelines are the safest method for the of petroleum products when compared to other transportation of petroleum products when compared to methods of transportation, 40 times safer than moving other methods of transportation. Pipelines are 40 times crude oil by rail and 100 times safer than transporting safer than moving crude oil by rail and 100 times safer by truck. than transporting by truck. Keystone XL will replace the Keystone XL will replace the equivalent of a tanker equivalent of a tanker train 25 miles long, or 200 ocean train 25 miles long, or 200 ocean tankers per year. This tankers per year. This will reduce greenhouse gas will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as emissions by as much as 19 million tons, or the equivalent 19 million tons, or the equivalent of taking almost 4 of taking almost four million cars off the road; and million cars off the road. Louisiana SCR125 The United States accounts for 20 per cent of world WHEREAS, the United States of America accounts for energy consumption and is the worlds largest nearly nineteen percent of the world energy consumption petroleum consumer. The U.S. consumes 14 to 15 and is the world's largest petroleum consumer with a daily million barrels of oil each day. Current imports amount consumption of almost nineteen million barrels of oil; and to eight to nine million barrels each day, WHEREAS, current imports amount to more than eight approximately 60 per cent of the United States million barrels each day that represents approximately requirements. fifty percent of this country's requirements; and Kentucky HCR 5014 Furthermore, 75% of the pipe used to build Keystone XL in the United States will come from North American mills, with half being made by workers in the United States, and goods for the pipeline valued at approximately $800 million have already been sourced from United States manufacturers:

Goods for the pipeline valued at approximately $800 million have already been sourced from U.S. manufacturers.

25 CMDs PRWatch, 02/15/13

10

Conflict-free oil from Canada is the largest source of crude for American refineries.

Ohio SCR7 WHEREAS, The growing production of conflict-free oil from the Canadian oil sands and the Bakken formation in Saskatchewan, Montana, and North Dakota can replace crude oil imported from countries that do not share American values and therefore additional pipeline capacity to refineries in the United States Midwest and Gulf Coast regions is required; and

TransCanadas efforts are part of a highly coordinated national effort. The pipeline has received extensive backing from ALEC, as well as the Koch Brothers Americans For Prosperity (AFP), the State Policy Network and its affiliates. Americans for Prosperity, an ALEC member, is the major political group for the Koch Brothers.26 In addition to spending millions on elections around the country, AFP has undertaken a publicity campaign for Keystone XL in Nebraska, 27 and around the country.28 Koch Exploration Canada even has a pending permit to extract from the Alberta Tar Sands.29 ALEC, AFP and TransCanada have also forged an alliance with the Laborers International Union of North America to try to gain approval of the Keystone XL. LIUNA Local 1140 and TransCanada partnered to establish Nebraskans for Jobs and Energy Independence (NJEI) to advocate for the Keystone XL pipeline. Local 1140 Business Manager, Ron Kaminski, serves as President and member of the three-member board of directors. NJEIs line has been: construction of KXL would create tens of thousands of jobs, despite a number of reputable studies proving this untrue. On the three-member NJEI Board with LiUNA leader Ron Kaminski is Beth Jensen, Director of Government Relations for TransCanada and an American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Task Force member. Beth Jensen is also a Natural Resources Task Force member for ALEC, and attends their annual meetings along with representatives from the Americans for Prosperity and the American Petroleum Institute. Nebraskans for Jobs and Energy Independence has been the main astroturf organization consistently cited as grassroots support for the Keystone XL. The State Policy Network, a web of right-wing think tanks, including the Platte Institute in Nebraska, is another major partner and driver of ALEC. The Platte Institute markets itself as a non-partisan research and educational organization dedicated to improving the quality of life for all citizens of Nebraska by advancing sensible, well-researched solutions to state and local economic policy issues. But real research into the Platte Institute demonstrates that the organization is driven by corporate interests and ALEC. The Platte Institute has led a media campaign for the pipeline for years,30 as have SPN affiliates around the country.3132 These
26 nytimes.com, accessed 07/26/13 27 americansforprosperity.org, 11/28/12 28 americansforprosperity.org, accessed 07/26/13 29 CMDs PRWatch, 07/01/13 30 Platte Institute, Sept. 2011 31 Mackinac Center, 11/07/11 32 Bluegrass Institute, 02/12/12

11

groups are part of a nationally coordinated corporate financed Astroturf movement for the Keystone XL. As noted in an earlier section, one of the great draws of ALEC for legislators is the corporatefunded Scholarship Funds, which pay for legislators to travel to meet lobbyists at ALEC events. TransCanada has provided funding for these scholarships in the past.33 More recently, TransCanada sponsored an ALEC Academy. The Academy was a small, private junket to Alberta, Canada, for the purpose of seeing tar sand operations, and meeting with lobbyists from Shell, Devon Energy, and of course TransCanada. The price ALEC has stated for sponsoring an ALEC Academy is $80,000, with lobbyists possibly picking up further costs for legislators. 34 For legislators, the trip was extravagant. Legislators were met at the airport by TransCanada lobbyists, and flown in chartered flights around Alberta to visit facilities. Dinners at Ruths Chris Steakhouse, and the Petroleum Club were (for at least some legislators) paid for by lobbyists. The trip was as close to all expenses paid as possible, a fun jaunt with oil lobbyists. At the end, legislators were asked to thank the lobbyists that paid for segments of the trips.35 ALECs corporate financed lavish trips are a major draw for legislators, and a boon to the lobbyists and TransCanada efforts. On this trip to Alberta was Nebraska Senator Jim Smith. The Center for Media and Democracy filed a complaint with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission, asking the commission to investigate whether or not Sen. Smith took illegal gifts on the trip.36 CMD asked whether costs of chartered flights and luxurious dinners may have exceeded the $50 per month limit of Nebraska law. At the release of this report, this issue is still outstanding. This was not the first of TransCanadas actions to come under legal scrutiny. In 2010, TransCanda faced controversy over campaign donations to Governor Heineman and Attorney General Bruning. The donations were potentially illegal as TransCanada is a foreign-based company, leading the Attorney General and Governor to return the contributions. 37 Even setting aside the fact that this corporate legislation promulgated by a nationally coordinated apparatus used unethical and legally questionable tactics, its just bad policy. TransCanada uses false estimates of job creation to push for approval of the pipeline.38 The pipeline would pass through the Sandhills and the Ogallala Aquifer, risking spills into a primary water source for agriculture and human consumption in the entire region.39 The risk is real, as illustrated by the
33 CMD, Oct. 2012 34 CMDs PRWatch, 07/01/13 35 CMDs PRWatch, 07/01/13 36 CMDs PRWatch, 07/03/13 37 Omaha World-Herald 10/05/10 38 Politifact, 04/11/12 39 Bold Nebraska Map, accessed 07/29/13

12

track record of the Keystone I pipeline, which spilled 14 times in its first year of operation.40 Through ALEC, this risky corporate agenda has been taken nationwide

40 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 06/04/11

13

ALECs Fracking Secrecy Bill

ALECs 2011 States and Nation Policy Summit in Scottsdale Arizona was sponsored by Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Koch Industries, and the American Gas Association among other fracking companies. ALECs Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force debated and approved the Disclosure of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Composition Act. The fracking process involves companies pumping water, sand, and chemicals into the ground in order to extract oil and natural gas. The ALEC model reads like a bill to require companies disclose the chemicals they pump into the ground. In reality the bill creates a massive trade secrets loophole, allowing for companies to keep secret many of the chemicals they pump into the ground, and risk contaminating drinking water. The ALEC model provides considerable secrecy for corporations, rather than allowing for the public to be informed about the agricultural, environmental, and health risks posed by fracking. It is unsurprising that the ALEC model was written by Exxon Mobil. 41 Fracking has been linked by scientific journals and the federal government to an increase in earthquakes in places that are not prone to seismic activity.42 Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma Ohio, and Colorado, have seen increased incidence of earthquakes attributed to fracking.43 Fracking fluids can include toxic chemicals and carcinogens, so contamination of drinking water is undeniably a threat to public health. 44 Whether or not the fracking process itself is a hazard to drinking water is subject to much debate. What is undeniable is that the inevitable accidents in relation to fracking and drilling activity have contaminated streams, fields, and lakes. Flawed well casings provide further risk to water supplies.45 In 2012, Senator Wallman introduced a fracking secrecy bill clearly based on ALECs model legislation. The impact of fracking in Nebraska would be seriousthe majority of our state sits over the Ogallala aquifer, which provides drinking water to millions of people, and agriculture for multiple states. Year: 2012 Bill: LB877 Introduced by: Sen. Wallman Result: Died in committee ALEC Model Disclosure of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Composition Act (1) require an operator of a well on which a hydraulic fracturing treatment is performed to: (a) complete the form posted on the hydraulic fracturing chemical registry Internet website of
41 CMD, 09/27/12 42 Los Angeles Times, 05/26/13 43 Bloomberg Business, 04/01/13 44 Propublica, 04/18/11 45 New York Times, 11/17/11

2012 LB877 As Introduced Section 1. (1) The owner or operator of a well on which a hydraulic fracturing treatment is performed shall provide the composition of the hydraulic fracturing fluids used in such

14

the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission with regard to the well; (b) include in the form completed under Paragraph (A): (i) the total volume of water used in the hydraulic fracturing treatment; and (ii) each chemical ingredient that is subject to the requirements of 29 C.F.R. Section 1910.1200(g)(2), as provided by a service company or chemical supplier or by the operator, if the operator provides its own chemical ingredients; (c) post the completed form described by Paragraph (A) on the website described by that paragraph or, if the website is discontinued or permanently inoperable, post the completed form on another publicly accessible Internet website specified by the (relevant state agency) (e) in addition to the completed form specified in Paragraph (D), provide to the (relevant state agency) a list, to be made available on the internet website of the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission or, if necessary, another publicly accessible website, of all other chemical ingredients not listed on the completed form that were intentionally included and used for the purpose of creating a hydraulic fracturing treatment for the well. The (relevant state agency) rule shall ensure that an operator, service company, or supplier is not responsible for disclosing ingredients that: (i) were not purposely added to the hydraulic fracturing treatment; (ii) occur incidentally or are otherwise unintentionally present in the treatment; or (iii) in the case of the operator, are not disclosed to the operator by a service company or supplier. The rule shall not require that the ingredients be identified based on the additive in which they are found or that the concentration of such ingredients be provided; (3) prescribe a process by which an entity

treatment to the Nebraska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. The commission shall provide a form for such purpose, which form shall include: (a) The total volume of water used in the hydraulic fracturing treatment; and (b) Each chemical ingredient that is subject to the requirements of 29 C.F.R. section 1910.1200(g)(2), as provided by a service company or chemical supplier or by the operator if the operator provides its own chemical ingredients. (2) The owner or operator shall submit the completed form to the commission which shall post the completed form on its web site.

(3) The owner or operator shall also provide to the commission a list, to be posted on the commission's web site, of all other chemical ingredients not listed on the form completed under subsection (1) of this section that were intentionally included and used for the purpose of creating a hydraulic fracturing treatment for the well. The commission shall ensure that an owner, an operator, a service company, or a supplier is not responsible for disclosing ingredients that:

(a) Were not purposely added to the hydraulic fracturing treatment; (b) Occur incidentally or are otherwise unintentionally present in the treatment; or (c) In the case of the owner or operator, are not disclosed to the owner or operator by a service company or supplier. The ingredients need not be identified based on the additive in which they are found, and the concentration of such ingredients need not be provided. Sec. 3. The Nebraska Oil and Gas

15

required to comply with Subdivision (1) or (2) may withhold and declare certain information as a trade secret including the identity and amount of the chemical ingredient used in a hydraulic fracturing treatment;

(5) limit the persons who may challenge a claim of entitlement to trade secret protection under Subdivision (3) to: (a) the landowner on whose property the relevant well is located; (b) a landowner who owns property adjacent to property described by Paragraph (a); or (c) a department or agency of this state with jurisdiction over a matter to which the claimed trade secret is relevant; (6) require, in the event of a trade secret challenge, that the (relevant state agency) promptly notify the service company performing the hydraulic fracturing treatment on the relevant well, the supplier of the additive or chemical ingredient for which the trade secret claim is made, or any other owner of the trade secret being challenged and provide the owner an opportunity to substantiate its trade secret claim; and (7) prescribe a process, consistent with 29 C.F.R. Section 1910.1200, for an entity described by Subdivision (1) or (2) to provide information, including information that is a trade secret as defined by Appendix D to 29 C.F.R. Section 1910.1200, to a health professional or emergency responder who needs the information in accordance with Subsection (i) of that section.

Conservation Commission shall prescribe a process by which an entity required to comply with section 1 or 2 of this act may withhold and declare certain information as a trade secret for purposes of the Trade Secrets Act, including, but not limited to, the identity and amount of the chemical ingredient used in a hydraulic fracturing treatment. Sec. 4. (1) The following may challenge a claim of entitlement to trade secret protection under section 3 of this act: (a) The landowner on whose property the well is located; (b) A landowner who owns property adjacent to property on which the well is located; or (c) A department or agency of this state with jurisdiction over a matter to which the claimed trade secret is relevant. (3) In the event of a trade secret challenge, the Nebraska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission shall: (a) Promptly notify the service company performing the hydraulic fracturing treatment, the supplier of the additive or chemical ingredient for which the trade secret claim is made, or any other owner of the trade secret being challenged and provide the owner an opportunity to substantiate its trade secret claim; and (b) Prescribe a process consistent with 29 C.F.R. section 1910.1200 for an entity described in section 3 of this act to provide information, including information that is a trade secret as defined by Appendix D to 29 C.F.R. section 1910.1200, to a health professional or emergency responder who needs the information.

16

Education ALECs Tax Credit Voucher Scheme

ALEC established a School Choice Subcommittee in 2004, headed by several legislators and K12 Inc., Connections Academy, The Friedman Foundation, the Alliance for School Choice, and the Institute of Justice. The subcommittee passed the Great Schools Tax Credit Program and the Family Education Tax Credit Program. ALEC explicitly thanked Robert Enlow of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice for his vision and work crafting the model bills.46 ALECs Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act attempts to indirectly use state tax subsidies to finance private education. The model establishes a tax credit for parents or corporations that donate to an organization that provides scholarships to students to attend private schools. Instead of directly subsidizing private education at the expense of public education, the ALEC model would do so indirectly. Yet the ALEC model notes: The definition for an eligible student in this model legislation includes students presently enrolled in a private school. Drafted this way, the tax credit will necessarily reward many families who are already financing their child's education at a non-resident public school or a private school. For this reason some states with a scholarship tax credit program have chosen to place a cap on the total dollar amount of scholarships eligible for the tax credit. Alternatively, legislators wishing to draft a bill with a more modest fiscal impact may want to limit eligibility to students who attended a public school in the last year or are starting school in their state for the first time. In this case, there may actually be a savings for state taxpayers since a scholarship covering private school costs in many cases will be less than the cost of state support provided to students attending a public school.47 These notes indicate that the authors deliberately wrote the ALEC model to be less accountable than state voucher programs, and acknowledge that the bill is likely to be a tax-giveaway to those already attending private schools, rather than allowing new students to attend private schools, and does so by depleting resources that could have funded public education. With cookie cutter bills, expect cookie cutter results. Several ProgressNow affiliates authored a report on ALECs education agenda, demonstrating that in Georgia this model credit had been enacted, with a negligible increase in students attending private schools, and that the credit had been deliberately written as a tax giveaway to those attending private schools.

46 ALEC.org, archived by archive.org, 02/04/05 47 alec.org, accessed 05/16/13

17

Year: 2013 Bill: LB14 Introduced by: Sen. Krist Result: Died in Committee ALECs Model Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act (G) Educational scholarships means grants to students to cover all or part of the tuition and fees at either a qualifying private school or a qualifying public school, including transportation to a public school outside of a students resident school district. (B) Eligible student means a student who: (1) is a member of a household whose total annual income the year before he or she receives an educational scholarship under this program does not exceed an amount equal to 2.5 times the income standard used to qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch under the national free or reduced-price lunch program established under 42 USC Section 1751 et seq. Once a student receives a scholarship under this program, the student will remain eligible regardless of household income until the student graduates high school or reaches 21 years of age;1 (2) was eligible to attend a public school in the preceding semester or is starting school in [state] for the first time;2 (3) Resides in [state] while receiving an educational scholarship. (H) Scholarship Granting Organization means an organization that complies with the requirements of the states school scholarship tax credit program and provides or is approved to provide educational scholarships to students attending qualifying schools of their parents choice.

2013 LB14 As Introduced (2) Education scholarship means a financial grant-in-aid to be used to pay all or part of the tuition and fees for attending a qualified school and includes any tuition grants;

(3) Eligible student means a resident of Nebraska who (a) is a dependent member of a household for which the gross income for the most recently concluded calendar year before the student receives an education scholarship pursuant to the Elementary and Secondary Educational Opportunity Act does not exceed three times the income standard used to qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch under the National School Lunch Program established under 42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq. and (b) is or may be enrolled as a full-time student in any of grades kindergarten through twelve in a qualified school;

(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

(5) Scholarship-granting organization means a charitable organization in this state that (a) is exempt from federal income taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and (b) is certified pursuant to section 4 of this act to provide taxcredit-supported education scholarships to eligible students to assist them in attending qualified schools; and Sec. 5. (1) An individual taxpayer who makes one or more cash contributions to one or more scholarship-granting organizations during a tax

18

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 taxpayers 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.

(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 taxpayers tax liability.

year shall be eligible for a credit against the income tax due under the Nebraska Revenue Act of 1967. The amount of the credit shall be sixty percent of the total of such contributions made during the tax year. (2) Taxpayers who are married but file separate returns for a tax year in which they could have filed a joint return may each claim only onehalf of the tax credit that would otherwise have been allowed for a joint return.5 (3) The tax credit allowed under this section shall not exceed the taxpayer's income tax liability for the tax year, but any amount that would otherwise have qualified for the credit but for this limitation may be carried forward and applied against the taxpayer's income tax liability for the next five years immediately following the tax year in which the credit is first allowed. The tax credit cannot be carried back Sec. 8. (1) A corporate taxpayer as defined in section 77-2734.04 which makes one or more cash contributions to one or more scholarshipgranting organizations during a tax year shall be eligible for a credit against the income tax due under the Nebraska Revenue Act of 1967. The amount of the credit shall be sixty percent of the total of such contributions made during the tax year.

19

ALECs Charter Schools Act

ALECs advocacy of charter schools dates back to at least 1995.48 At that point, ALECs advocacy was limited to the Charter Schools Act, a bill to allow for charter schools. ALECs Charter Schools Act exempts charter schools from all statutes and rules that apply to public schools.49 Depending on the state, this could exempt charters from teacher quality standards, academic accountability regulations, safety measures, even theoretically exempting them from ALEC bills, like teacher evaluations, school audits, and certain curricula. Since then, ALECs charter school promotion has expanded to at least four bills,50 allowing legislators to customize their bill, with myriad charter school provisions to create almost any arrangement they want. In Nebraskas 2013 session, Legislative Bill 593 takes language from three ALEC measures. The National Education Policy Center points to the broad base of evidence that average charter school performance is equal to or lower than public school achievement.51 ALECs corporate funders include National Heritage Academies, a for profit-charter school company, a major charter school company from Michigan. Not only do charter schools show negative (or mediocre at best) results in the quality of education, but they also divert funding from public schools, gradually privatizing our school system. ALECs education policies advance the profits for their members, rather than the education of students.52 Year: 2013 Bill: LB593 Introduced by: Sen. Lautenbaugh Result: Died in Committee ALEC Model Charter Schools Act, Next Generation Charter Schools Act, Indiana Education Reform Package (A) Upon the effective date of this article and thereafter, a charter applicant seeking to establish a public charter school may submit the charter petition to one of several charter authorizers: (1) The elected governing authority of a county or municipality [define limitations, if any]; (2) The mayor of a city [define limitations, if any];
48 ALECExposed.org, accessed 05/29/13 49 alec.org, accessed 05/29/13 50 ALEC.org, accessed 07/25/13 51 NEPC, 06/24/09 52 ALEC v. Kids, 06/25/13

2013 LB593 As Introduced

Sec. 4. Persons or entities eligible to submit an application to establish a charter school include, but are not limited to, a business, a corporate entity, two or more certified teachers, or ten or more parents. The application may be filed in conjunction with a college, a university, a museum, or another similar entity. Private, denominational, and parochial schools and schools which elect pursuant to section 79-

20

(3) The state board of education; (4) The board of trustees of a two- or four-year institution of higher learning as defined by [insert state statute], as described in Subsection 4(B); (A) The school may limit admission in the following ways: (1) pupils within an age group or grade level; (2) pupils who have attributes designating them as at risk of failure; (3) pupils who have a specific affinity for the schools teaching methods, the schools learning philosophy, or a subject such as mathematics, science, fine arts, performing arts, or a foreign language. (A) An organizer may submit to the sponsor a proposal to establish a charter school. (B) A proposal must contain at least the following information: (1) Identification of the organizer. (2) A description of the organizers organizational structure and governance plan. (3) The following information for the proposed charter school: (l) A description of the physical plant. (m) Budget and financial plans. (e) Educational mission goals. (f) Curriculum and instructional methods. (g) Methods of pupil assessment. (h) Admission policy and criteria, subject to Section 9. (p) Discipline program.

1601 not to meet accreditation or approval requirements are not eligible to submit an application to establish a charter school.

(c) A charter school may limit enrollment to specific grade levels or areas of focus of the school, such as mathematics, science, or the arts; (d) No admission fee or tuition shall be charged to apply to or attend the charter school; (e) A charter school may establish reasonable academic standards as a condition for eligibility for applicants; and (2) An application to establish a charter school shall be submitted each year no later than January 15. Such application shall include, but not be limited to: (a) The name of the applicants; (b) A description of the proposed charter school's organizational structure and governing body; (c) A financial plan for the first year of operation; (d) A description of the charter school's physical plant and location; (e) A description of the grade levels to be included in the school; (f) A description of the academic content standards the charter school will adopt as provided under section 79-762.02 and the curriculum to be provided; and (g) A description of the requirements for enrollment in the charter school and student discipline code required of students. Section 13. If a teacher employed by a school (4) Each school board or board of education district makes a written request for an extended shall grant a leave of absence to any teacher leave of absence to teach at a charter school, employed by the school district requesting the school district shall grant the leave. such leave in order to teach in a charter school. Section 12. Transportation for students Sec. 13. The Class V school district in which a enrolled at a school shall be provided by the charter school is located shall provide school district in which the school is located, transportation to the charter school for students pursuant to [insert state statute], for a student living in such school district who attend the who resides in the same school district in charter school, on the same terms and which the outcomes-based school is located. conditions as transportation is provided to

21

Transportation may be provided by the school district in which the school is located for a student residing in a different school district.

students attending the public schools of such school district. Students attending the charter school who do not reside in the Class V school district in which the charter school is located shall be eligible for transportation as provided for students pursuant to the option enrollment program established under sections 79-234 to 79-246.

22

Health Care ALECs Anti-Healthcare Reform Bill

ALECs bill template Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act is an attack on President Obamas 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.53 Since this legislation, the Supreme Court has upheld the ACA.54 ALEC members include pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and Cellgene, as well as UnitedHealthcare, the massive private insurer. The ACA is beginning to show its ability to cut into the profit margins of the insurance companies, with premiums projected to fall dramatically, or even be cut in half.55 ALEC is tracking the passage of its model as either law, or as enacted changes to state constitutions17 states have enacted the ALEC policy.56 Year: 2011 Bill: LB219 Introduced by: Sen. McCoy Result: Died in Committee ALECs Model Freedom of Choice in Healthcare Act 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 LB219 As Introduced (2)(a) Any person may make direct payment for a lawful health care service provided to him or her or his or her dependent without the imposition of any fine or penalty. An employer may make direct payment for a lawful health care service provided to an employee or such employee's dependent without the imposition of any fine or penalty. Sec. 3. (1) No individual, employer, or health care provider shall be compelled directly or indirectly to participate in a health care system.

53 alec.org, accessed 03/27.87 54 New York Times, 06/28/12 55 New York Times, 07/16/13 56 ALEC.org, accessed 12/02/13

23

ALECs Bill To Lower Nebraskas Healthcare Standards

ALECs Model Health Care Choice Act for States is a blanket waiver for the insurance companies. The ALEC model allows for insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines in order to circumvent state mandates on coverage. This would allow for an insurance company to sell insurance in Nebraska under the laws of Alabama or Idaho, which have lower standards than Nebraska. Perhaps alluding to the fact that this was corporate sponsored legislation from ALEC, Sen. Price commented in committee that, It just seems like the national thing is playing out again here in a microcosm. 57 Year: 2010 Bill: LB693 Introduced by: Sen. Price Result: Died in Committee ALEC Model Health Care Choice Act For States (B) The selected out-of-state insurers shall not be required to offer or provide state-mandated health benefits required by {insert state} law or regulations in health insurance policies sold to {insert state} residents. 2010 LB693 As Introduced

(c) Foreign insurers authorized to offer or issue a sickness and accident insurance policy pursuant to this section shall not be required to offer or provide health insurance coverage required by Nebraska law or rules and regulations adopted and promulgated pursuant to Nebraska law except for the requirements in the sections enumerated in subsection (2) of section 44-135. (E) The {insert title of state insurance (d) The director may conduct market and commissioner} shall be authorized to conduct solvency examinations of foreign insurers market conduct and solvency examinations of seeking to offer or issue or offering or issuing all out-of-state companies seeking to offer sickness and accident insurance policies in this health benefit plans in this state or who have state. Such examinations shall be conducted in been given approval to offer health benefit the same manner and under the same terms and plans in this state. Such examinations shall be conditions as examinations are conducted for conducted in the same manner and under the domestic insurers and foreign and alien same terms and conditions as for companies insurers operating pursuant to a certificate of located in this state. authority in this state. (A) The {insert state legislative body} Sec. 4. (1) The Legislature recognizes the need recognizes the need for individuals, employers, for individuals, employers, and other and other purchasers of health insurance purchasers of health insurance in this state to coverage in this state to have the opportunity to have the opportunity to choose health choose health insurance plans that are more insurance policies that are more affordable and affordable and flexible than existing market flexible than existing market policies of policies offering accident and sickness sickness and accident insurance coverage in insurance coverage. Therefore, the {insert this state. Further, the Legislature seeks to
57 Nebraska Legislature, 02/01/10

24

state legislative body} seeks to increase the availability of health insurance coverage by allowing insurers authorized to engage in the business of insurance in selected states to issue accident and sickness policies in {insert state}. (C) Each written application for participation in an out-of-state health benefit plan shall contain the following language in boldface type at the beginning of the document: (1) This policy is primarily governed by the laws of {insert state where the master policy is filed}; therefore, all of the rating laws applicable to policies filed in this state do not apply to this policy, which may result in increases in your premium at renewal that would not be permissible in a {insert state}approved policy. Any purchase of individual health insurance should be considered carefully since future medical conditions may make it impossible to qualify for another individual health policy. For information concerning individual health coverage under a {insert state}-approved policy, please consult your insurance agent or the {insert state Department of Insurance or similar agency}.

(D) Each out-of-state health benefit plan shall contain the following language in boldface type at the beginning of the document: (1) The benefits of this policy providing your coverage are governed primarily by the laws of a state other than {insert state}. While this health benefit plan may provide you a more affordable health insurance policy, it may also provide fewer health benefits than those normally included as state mandated health benefits in policies in {insert state}. Please consult your insurance agent to determine which state-mandated health benefits are excluded under this policy.

increase the availability of health insurance in the state by allowing insurers authorized to engage in the business of insurance in selected states to offer or issue sickness and accident insurance policies in Nebraska. (2)(a) Any application for a policy of sickness and accident insurance of a foreign insurer, when such policy will be delivered or issued for delivery to any person in this state, shall contain the following in boldface type at the beginning of the application: "The policy which is the subject of this application is primarily subject to the laws of [state of domicile of foreign insurer]. Any rating law applicable to policies offered in this state do not apply to this policy, which may result in an increase in your renewal premium which would not be permissible in a policy subject to the rating laws of the State of Nebraska. Any purchase of individual health insurance should be considered carefully since future medical conditions may make it impossible to qualify for another individual health insurance policy. For information concerning individual health insurance coverage under a policy offered by an insurer subject to the laws of the State of Nebraska, please contact your insurance agent or the Department of Insurance." (b) Any policy of sickness and accident insurance of a foreign insurer, when delivered or issued for delivery to any person in this state, shall contain the following in boldface type at the beginning of the policy: "This policy is primarily subject to the laws of [state of domicile of foreign insurer]. While this health insurance policy may provide you with more affordable health insurance coverage than a policy subject to the laws of the State of Nebraska, it may also provide less coverage than would be included in a policy subject to the laws of the State of Nebraska. Please contact your insurance agent to determine what types of health insurance coverage that would be required by the State of Nebraska is excluded from this policy."

25

Crony Capitalism ALECs Tobacco Tax Cut

ALEC has been a longtime ally of the Tobacco industry, with ties stretching back to 1979. ALEC was one of big tobaccos few allies in the multi-state lawsuits ending in 1998, and tobacco companies continue to maintain memberships on ALECs boards and task forces. In 2006, one of ALECs task forces passed a resolution advocating that states switch from an advalorem tax on moist tobacco products to a weight based excise tax. This different method of calculating tobacco taxes would be a significant tax cut on chewing tobacco.58 In 2007, Sen. Engel introduced a bill, and testifying in committee he described the precise origins of the bill: SENATOR ENGEL: This came from out in the lobby. But I'll tell you where it originated, back at ALEC last summer, we have an economic development and commerce committee task force. And out of that task force is where this came about. They drafted some model legislation. And that's where I got the idea.59 Originally Sen. Engels bill achieved the ideals of the ALEC resolution, but was slightly altered in the legislative process, transforming into a small tax increase on tobacco. Governor Heineman vetoed the legislation.60 Sen. Engel was back at the table the next year, with an effort that failed. And in 2009, Sen. Cornett advanced LB89, which passed into law, achieving the solution ALEC had suggested.61 Sen. Cornett was a State Chair of ALEC.62 ALEC claims that State Chairs have control of the scholarship funds. 63 UST Public Affairs lobbied for Sen. Cornetts successful bill.64 According CMDs report of the balance sheet of the Nebraska ALEC Scholarship fund, UST gave the fund $1,500 in 2007. The report does not include any information on the funds activity in 2009.65 UST is the producer of chewing tobacco brands Copenhagen and Skoal.66 Sen. Cornett received $5,367.36 in scholarship funds between 2006 and 2008, making her Nebraskas largest known recipient. 67

58 PRWatch, 07/15/11 59 Nebraska Legislature Transcriber's Office, 03/15/07 60 Legislative Journal, 04/05/07 61 LB 89 Fiscal note, 03/12/09 62 commoncause.org, accessed 07/30/13 63 ALEC, 09/11/12 64 Nebraska Legislature Committee Statement, 01/22/09 65 CMD, Oct. 2012 66 ussmkeless.com, accessed 07/30/13 67 CMD, Oct. 2012

26

ALECs Asbestos Bill

The bill was a copy of the ALEC model Successor Asbestos-Related Liability Fairness Act, nearly verbatim as displayed below. This bill benefits one corporation,68 and only one corporation: Crown Holdings, f.k.a. Crown Cork and Seal.69 The inventor of the bottle cap started Crown in 1892, and today it manufactures bottles, cans, and other packaging.70 Crown merged with Mundet Cork in 1966, and Mundet had worked with asbestos; by acquiring Mundets assets, Crown also acquired Mundets liabilities. The ALEC model exists to reduce Crowns liability for damages due to asbestos. The bill would dramatically limit the amount that asbestos victims could recover, benefitting Crowns bottom line. Asbestos causes asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer, and this bill makes it more difficult for victims of asbestos to recover damages.71 72

Year: 2010 Bill: LB763 Introduced by: Sen. Mello Result: Enacted into law ALEC Model Successor Asbestos-Related Liability Fairness Act A.) Asbestos claim means any claim, wherever or whenever made, for damages, losses, indemnification, contribution, or other relief arising out of, based on, or in any way related to asbestos, including: (1) the health effects of exposure to asbestos, including any claim for: a. personal injury or death; b. mental or emotional injury; c. risk of disease or other injury; or d. the costs of medical monitoring or surveillance, to the extent such claims are recognized under state law; (2) any claim made by or on behalf of any person exposed to asbestos, or a representative, spouse, parent, child, or other relative of the person; and (3) any claim for damage or loss caused by the
68Southeast Texas Record, 10/26/10 69Minnpost, 04/11/12 70 crowncork.com, accessed 07/12/13 71 AP, 01/29/12 72 Better Georgia, 10/13/13

2010 LB763 As Introduced (1) Asbestos claim means any claim, wherever or whenever made, for damages, losses, indemnification, contribution, or other relief arising out of, based on, or in any way related to asbestos, including: (a) Any claim involving the health effects of exposure to asbestos, including a claim for personal injury or death, mental or emotional injury, risk of disease or other injury, or the costs of medical monitoring or surveillance; (b) Any claim made by or on behalf of any person exposed to asbestos, or a representative, spouse, parent, child, or other relative of the person; and (c) Any claim for damage or loss caused by the installation, presence, or removal of asbestos;

27

installation, presence, or removal of asbestos. A.) Except as further limited in Subsection (b), the cumulative successor asbestos-related liabilities of a corporation are limited to the fair market value of the total gross assets of the transferor determined as of the time of the merger or consolidation. The corporation does not have any responsibility for successor asbestos-related liabilities in excess of this limitation.

Sec. 4. (1) Except as further limited in subsection (2) of this section, the cumulative successor asbestos-related liabilities of a successor corporation are limited to the fair market value of the total gross assets of the transferor determined as of the time of the merger or consolidation. The successor corporation does not have responsibility for successor asbestos-related liabilities in excess of this limitation. B.) If the transferor had assumed or incurred (2) If the transferor had assumed or incurred successor asbestos-related or liabilities in successor asbestos-related liabilities in connection with a prior merger or connection with a prior merger or consolidation with a prior transferor, then the consolidation with a prior transferor, then the fair market value of the total assets of the prior fair market value of the total gross assets of the transferor, determined as of the time of such prior transferor determined as of the time of the earlier merger or consolidation, shall be earlier merger or consolidation shall be substituted for the limitation set forth in substituted for the limitation in subsection (1) Subsection (a) for purposes of determining the of this section for purposes of determining the limitation of liability of a corporation limitation of liability of a successor corporation. A.) A corporation may establish the fair market Sec. 5. (1) A successor corporation may value of total gross assets for the purpose of establish the fair market value of total gross the limitations under Section 3 through any assets for the purpose of the limitations under method reasonable under the circumstances, section 4 of this act through any method including: reasonable under the circumstances, including: (1) by reference to the going concern value of (a) By reference to the going concern value of the assets or to the purchase price attributable the assets or to the purchase price attributable to or paid for the assets in an arm's-length to or paid for the assets in an arms-length transaction; or transaction; or (2) in the absence of other readily available (b) In the absence of other readily available information from which fair market value can information from which the fair market value be determined, by reference to the value of the can be determined, by reference to the value of assets recorded on a balance sheet. the assets recorded on a balance sheet. B.) Total gross assets include intangible assets. (2) Total gross assets include intangible assets. C.) Total gross assets include the aggregate (3) To the extent total gross assets include any coverage under any applicable liability liability insurance that was issued to the insurance that was issued to the transferor transferor whose assets are being valued for whose assets are being valued for purposes of purposes of this section, the applicability, this Section and which insurance has been terms, conditions, and limits of such insurance collected or is collectable to cover successor shall not be affected by this section, nor shall asbestos-related liabilities (except this section otherwise affect the rights and compensation for liabilities arising from obligations of an insurer, transferor, or workers' exposure to asbestos solely during the successor corporation under any insurance course of their employment by the transferor). contract or any related agreements, including,

28

A settlement of a dispute concerning such insurance coverage entered into by a transferor or successor with the insurers of the transferor before the enactment of this title shall be determinative of the aggregate coverage of such liability insurance to be included in the calculation of the transferor's total gross assets.

without limitation, preenactment settlements resolving coverage-related disputes and the rights of an insurer to seek payment for applicable deductibles, retrospective premiums, or self-insured retentions or to seek contribution from a successor corporation for uninsured or self-insured periods or periods when insurance is uncollectible or otherwise unavailable. Without limiting the foregoing, to the extent total gross assets include such liability insurance, a settlement of a dispute concerning any such liability insurance coverage entered into by a transferor or successor corporation with the insurers of the transferor before the effective date of this act shall be determinative of the total coverage of such liability insurance to be included in the calculation of the transferors total gross assets. A.) Except as provided in Subsections (b), (c), Sec. 6. (1) Except as provided in subsections and (d), the fair market value of total gross (2) through (4) of this section, the fair market assets at the time of a merger or consolidation value of total gross assets at the time of the increases annually at a rate equal to the sum of: merger or consolidation shall increase annually (1) the prime rate as listed in the first edition of at a rate equal to the sum of: the Wall Street Journal published for each (a) The prime rate as listed in the first edition calendar year since the merger or of the Wall Street Journal published for each consolidation, unless the prime rate is not calendar year since the merger or published in that edition of the Wall Street consolidation, unless the prime rate is not Journal, in which case any reasonable published in that edition of the Wall Street determination of the prime rate on the first day Journal, in which case any reasonable of the year may be used; or determination of the prime rate on the first day (2) one percent. of the year may be used; and B.) The rate in Subsection (a) is not (b) One percent. compounded. (2) The rate found in subsection (1) of this C.) The adjustment of fair market value of total section shall not be compounded. gross assets continues as provided under (3) The adjustment of the fair market value of Subsection (a) until the date the adjusted value total gross assets shall continue as provided in is first exceeded by the cumulative amounts of subsection (1) of this section until the date the successor asbestos-related liabilities paid or adjusted value is first exceeded by the committed to be paid by or on behalf of the cumulative amounts of successor asbestoscorporation or a predecessor, or by or on behalf related liabilities paid or committed to be paid of a transferor, after the time of the merger or by or on behalf of the successor corporation or consolidation for which the fair market value a predecessor or by or on behalf of a transferor of total gross assets is determined. after the time of the merger or consolidation D.) No adjustment of the fair market value of for which the fair market value of total gross total gross assets shall be applied to any assets is being determined. liability insurance otherwise included in the (4) No adjustment of the fair market value of

29

definition of total gross assets by subsection 4(c).

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

total gross assets shall be applied to any liability insurance that is included in total gross assets under subsection (3) of section 5 of this act. Sec. 7. (1) The courts of this state shall construe the provisions of the Successor Asbestos-Related Liability Act liberally with regard to successor corporations.

30

ALECs Restaurant Liability Carve Out

According to ALEC, the Commonsense Consumption Act was approved as an ALEC model in 2004. The bill, still an ALEC model, is a measure attempting to prevent people from suing them for their products. The popular notion of preventing people from suing fast food restaurants for obesity, yet the bill is based on the notion that corporations should not be held liable for the effects of their products. The private sector chair of the ALEC Task Force that adopted the model in fact compared the concept to the suits of a multitude of states against the tobacco industry in the late 1990s.73 It is even more striking as an example of crony capitalism, creating a special carve out in the legal system for certain food companies. McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, YUM! Brands (which includes KFC and Pizza Hut), Darden Restaurants (which includes Red Lobster and Olive Garden), Kraft, Wendys, and Mars, among other interested corporations have been part of ALEC in the last decade; these corporations are among the large number that have recently left ALEC.74 Year: 2007 Bill: LB625 Introduced by: Sen. Engel Result: Died in Committee ALECs Model Commonsense Consumption Act Section 1. {Short Title} This act may be known as the Commonsense Consumption Act. (1) A claim means any claim by or on behalf of a natural person, as well as any derivative or other claim arising therefrom asserted by or on behalf of any other person. (4) A knowing and willful violation of federal or state law means that (a) The conduct constituting the violation was committed with the intent to deceive or injure consumers or with actual knowledge that such conduct was injurious to consumers; and (b) The conduct constituting the violation was not required by regulations, orders, rules or other pronouncement of, or any statute administered by, a Federal, state, or local government agency. (2) The term other person as used in the immediately preceding sentence means any individual, corporation, company, association,
73 senate.gov, accessed 07/02/13 74 sourcewatch.org, accessed 07/02/13

2007 LB626 As Introduced Section 1. Sections 1 to 8 of this act shall be known and may be cited as the Commonsense Consumption Act. (1) Claim means any claim by or on behalf of a natural person and any derivative or other claim arising therefrom that is asserted by or on behalf of any other person; (4) Knowing and willful means that the conduct constituting the violation: (a) Was committed with the intent to deceive or injure consumers or with actual knowledge that such conduct was injurious to consumers; and (b) Was not required by regulation, order, rule, or other pronouncement of a government agency or by a statute administered by a government agency; (5) Other person means an individual, corporation, limited liability company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint-

31

firm, partnership, society, joint-stock company, or any other entity, including any governmental entity or private attorney general. (A) Prevention of Frivolous Lawsuits.Except as exempted in paragraph 3B below, a manufacturer, packer, distributor, carrier, holder, seller, marketer or advertiser of a food (as defined at Section 201(f) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(f)), or an association of one or more such entities, shall not be subject to civil liability arising under any law of the State of ______ (including all statutes, regulations, rules, common law, public policies, court or administrative decisions or decrees, or other State action having the effect of law) for any claim arising out of weight gain, obesity, a health condition associated with weight gain or obesity, or other generally known condition allegedly caused by or allegedly likely to result from long-term consumption of food. (B) Exemptions. Paragraph 3A above shall not preclude civil liability where the claim of weight gain, obesity, health condition associated with weight gain or obesity, or other generally known condition allegedly caused by or allegedly likely to result from long-term consumption of food is based on (1) A material violation of an adulteration or misbranding requirement prescribed by statute or regulation of the State of _____ or the United States of America and the claimed injury was proximately caused by such violation; or (2) Any other material violation of federal or state law applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, advertising, labeling, or sale of food, provided that such violation is knowing and willful (as defined below), and the claimed injury was proximately caused by such violation.

stock company, or other entity, including any governmental entity.

Sec. 3. Except as otherwise provided in section 4 of this act, a manufacturer, packer, distributor, carrier, holder, seller, marketer, or advertiser of a food, or an association of one or more such entities, shall not be subject to civil liability for any claim arising under any law of the State of Nebraska, including all statutes, regulations, rules, common law, public policies, court or administrative decisions or decrees, or other state action having the effect of law, for any claim arising out of weight gain or obesity, a health condition associated with weight gain or obesity, or other generally known condition allegedly caused by or allegedly likely to result from long-term consumption of food.

Sec. 4. Section 3 of this act shall not preclude civil liability when the claim of weight gain or obesity, health condition associated with weight gain or obesity, or other generally known condition allegedly caused by or allegedly likely to result from long-term consumption of food is based on: (1) A material violation of an adulteration or misbranding requirement prescribed by statute or regulation of the State of Nebraska or of the United States of America and the claimed injury was proximately caused by such violation; or (2) Any other material violation of federal or state law applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, advertising, labeling, or sale of food if the violation is knowing and willful and the claimed injury was proximately caused by such violation.

32

Voter ID, Immigration, and Guns ALECs Voter ID Bill

ALEC promulgated a Voter ID Act based off an Arkansas bill in 2009, and following the 2010 elections; Voter ID efforts flooded state legislatures throughout the country. This flurry of highly similar, though non-verbatim, bills have been linked repeatedly to ALEC.75 The bill is an onerous regulation on the right to vote, complicating the voting system, lengthening lines and making government less efficient, in order to prevent virtually non-existent instances of voter impersonation.76 Year: 2013 Bill: LB381 Introduced by: Sen. Janssen Result: Died in Committee ALECs Model Voter ID Act (a) "Proof of identity" means a document or identification card that: (1) Shows the name of the person to whom the document was issued;

(2) Shows a photograph of the person to whom the document was issued; (3) Contains an expiration date, and is not expired. (4) Is issued by the United States or the State of Arkansas.

2013 LB381 As Introduced (2) A document issued by the United States which shows: (a) The name of the individual to whom the document was issued and the name conforms to the name in the voter's voter registration record; (b) A photograph of the individual to whom the document was issued; and (c) An expiration date which is not passed or which passed after the date of the most recent general election; or (3) Any other document which: (a) Is issued by a government entity; (b) Has a photograph of the individual to whom the document was issued; and1 (c) Is approved pursuant to rules and regulations adopted and promulgated by the Secretary of State.

75 New York Times, 04/21/12, Los Angeles Times, NBC, 08/21/12 76 ABC, 09/12/12

33

ALECs Extreme Anti-Immigrant Bill

LB48 mirrors ALECs No Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants Act, upon which the controversial 2010 SB1070 law in Arizona was based. The ALEC model was reportedly drafted by former Arizona Senator Russell Pearce and current Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, and was a product of ALECs notorious Public Safety and Elections Task Force.77 NPR reported that Corrections Corporation of America, a private prison company, expected significant revenues from the detention of illegal immigrants, and participated in the meeting in which the proposal became an ALEC model.78 This same task force also promoted controversial Voter ID legislation, as well as the NRA sponsored Stand Your Ground model bill. 79 Facing public pressure, ALEC claimed to have eliminated this task force in April 2012, although its model bills continue to be introduced in states. 80 Portions of the Arizona law have been struck down by the United States Supreme Court,81 and the legal battle continues.82 Year: 2011 Bill: LB48 Introduced by: Sen. Janssen Result: Died in Committee ALEC Model No Sanctuary Cities For Illegal Immigrants Act (A) No official or agency of this state or county, city, town, or other political subdivision of this state may adopt a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. (E) Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:
77PR Watch, 06/25/12 78 NPR, 10/28/10 79 Better Georgia, 10/13/13 80 Better Georgia, 10/13/13 81New York Times, 06/27/12 82Jurist, 03/22/13

2011 LB48 As Introduced Sec. 3. (1) No official or agency of this state or a county, city, or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. Furthermore, except as provided in federal law, no official or agency of this state or a county, city, or other political subdivision of this state shall prohibit or in any way restrict the sending, receiving, or maintaining of information related to a person's immigration status for the following official purposes: (a) Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service, or license provided by any federal, state, local, or other political subdivision of this state;

34

(1) Determining eligibility for any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state public benefit, service or license (2) Verifying any claim of residence or domicile 46 if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state. (3) Confirming the identity of any person who is detained. (4) If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by Title II, Chapter 7 of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act. (B) For any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of this state or county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made to determine the immigration status of the person. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code Section 1373 (c). (D) Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who is unlawfully in the United States and who is in the agency's custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency. (A) It is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an authorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state. (B) A violation of this section is a Class 1 Misdemeanor (A) It is unlawful for a person to: (1) Transport or move or attempt to transport or move an alien in this state in a means of transportation if the person knows or is in

(b) Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or by a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state; (c) Determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by Title II, Chapter 7 of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended; or (d) Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1373 and 8 U.S.C. 1644, as amended.

(2)(a) A peace officer shall determine the immigration status of a person who has been lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. (b) If reasonable suspicion exists that an incarcerated person is unlawfully present in the United States, then the custodial authority shall determine the person's immigration status prior to his or her release from custody. (3) Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is in the law enforcement agency's custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency. Sec. 5. (1) It is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States to work as an employee or independent contractor in this state. (2) A violation of this section is a Class I misdemeanor.

Sec. 6. (1) No person shall knowingly or recklessly conceal, harbor, transport, move, or attempt to conceal, harbor, transport, or move, in this state for the purpose of shielding from

35

reckless disregard of the fact that the alien has come to, entered or remains in the United States in violation of law. (2) Conceal, harbor or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in this state, including any building or any means of transportation if the person knows or is in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien has come to, entered or remains in the United States in violation of law. (3) Encourage or induce an alien to come to or reside in this state knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entering or residing in this state is or will be in violation of the law

detection, a person who is unlawfully present in the United States. (2) No person shall knowingly or recklessly encourage or induce a person who is unlawfully present in the United States to come to or reside in this state. (3) A violation of subsection (1) or (2) of this section is a Class I misdemeanor. A separate offense may be charged for each unlawfully present person involved in the violation of such subsections.

36

ALECs Castle Doctrine Bill

ALECs model Castle Doctrine bill, otherwise known as the Stand Your Ground, Shoot First, or Kill at Will bill, is perhaps ALECs most infamous model bill. In the spring of 2012, Stand Your Ground laws became a household term when George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager who was returning to his fathers home having been out to buy some candy and an iced tea. Police did not initially arrest Zimmerman, apparently invoking Floridas 2005 Stand Your Ground law as an obstacle to arrest or prosecution. More than six weeks after the incident, following significant local and national outrage, Zimmerman was finally charged with murder. 83 George Zimmerman was ultimately not found guilty of killing Trayvon Martin. As the Center for Media and Democracy documented, the National Rifle Association helped draft the Florida Stand Your Ground law, which the NRAs lobbyist then proposed as an ALEC model bill during an ALEC conference in Texas in 2005.84 ALEC adopted the bill, and since then more than two dozen other states have passed similar laws.85 The results of this law throughout the states are disturbing. Researchers have found that states with such laws have more homicides than states without; a 7-9% increase, totaling an additional 500-700 people who are killed in states with these laws as opposed to the states without them.86

Year: 2011 Bill: LB298 Introduced by: Sen. Christensen Result: Died in Committee ALECs Model Castle Doctrine Act A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force a. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that persons will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle;
83 Progress Iowa, Jan. 2013 84Media Matters, 03/27/12 85 PR Watch, 2/27/13 86 NPR, 01/02/13

2011 LB298 As Introduced A person not engaged in illegal activity who is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force. (a) The person against whom the force is used has unlawfully entered an occupied dwelling or occupied motor vehicle and is not attempting to exit the dwelling or motor vehicle at the time deadly force is used;

37

2. A person who uses force as permitted in Section (1) [and other state codes which are affected/amended by this legislation and which refer to the use of force including deadly force] is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,

(2) The fact that conduct is justifiable under sections 28-1406 to 28-1416 establishes immunity in any civil action against the actor for such conduct unless the actor recklessly or negligently injures or creates a risk of injury to an innocent person or innocent persons as set forth in subsection (2) or (3) or section 281414.

38

ALECs Emergency Guns Bill

Another bill brought to ALEC by the NRA, the Emergency Powers Firearm Owner Protection Act (EPFOPA) seems to be a bill in reaction to the results of Hurricane Katrina.87 The New Orleans Police Superintendent explained the departments actions in response to the Katrina disaster, "We took guns that were stolen that were stashed in alleyways. If we went into an abandoned house and a gun was there, absolutely we took the weapons Obviously there were looters out there. We didn't want some burglar or looter to have an opportunity to arm themselves."88 Year: 2013 Bill: LB390 Introduced by: Sen. Christensen Result: Died in Committee ALEC Model Emergency Powers Firearm Owner Protection Act Section 2. Pursuant to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and [insert appropriate section referencing state right to keep and bear arms clause] of the Constitution of [insert state name], nothing under this or any other provision of law shall be construed to authorize the seizure or confiscation of a firearm or ammunition during a declared state of emergency or natural disaster except from a person who is unlawfully carrying or in unlawful possession of such firearm or ammunition. Section 3. Pursuant to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and [insert appropriate section] of the Constitution of [insert state name], nothing under this or any other provision of law shall be construed to authorize the Governor, any political subdivision of the state, or any other governmental authority to impose additional restrictions on the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transport, carrying, storage, display or use of firearms or ammunition during a declared state of emergency or natural disaster. (a) IN GENERAL- Any individual aggrieved
87 Sourcewatch.org, accessed 07/25/13 88 Fox News, 04/19/06

2013 LB390 as Introduced (1) Notwithstanding any other law, no person acting on behalf or under the authority of the state or a political subdivision of the state may do any of the following during a declared state of emergency: (a) Prohibit or restrict the otherwise lawful possession, use, carrying, transfer, transportation, storage, or display of a firearm or ammunition;3 (b) Seize or confiscate, or authorize the seizure or confiscation of, any otherwise lawfully possessed firearm or ammunition unless the person acting on behalf of or under the authority of the state or a political subdivision of the state is (i) defending himself or herself or another from an assault, (ii) arresting a person in actual possession of a firearm or ammunition for a violation of law, or (iii) seizing or confiscating the firearm or ammunition as evidence of a crime; or (c) Require registration of any firearm or ammunition for which registration is not otherwise required by law. (3) Any individual aggrieved by a violation of

39

by a violation of this section may seek relief in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress against any person who subjects such individual, or causes such individual to be subjected, to the deprivation of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this section. (b) REMEDIES- In addition to any existing remedy in law or equity, under any law, an individual aggrieved by the seizure or confiscation of a firearm in violation of this section may bring an action for return of such firearm in the jurisdiction in which that individual resides or in which such firearm may be found.

this section may seek relief in an action at law or in equity for redress against any person who subjects such individual, or causes such individual to be subjected, to an action prohibited by this section.

(c) ATTORNEY FEES- In any action or proceeding to enforce this section, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the United States or [insert state name], a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.

(4) In addition to any other remedy at law or in equity, an individual aggrieved by the seizure or confiscation of a firearm or ammunition in violation of this section may bring an action for the return of such firearm or ammunition, or the value thereof if the firearm or ammunition is no longer available, in the county court of the county in which that individual resides or in which such firearm or ammunition is located or in which the seizure or confiscation occurred. (5) In any action or proceeding to enforce this section, the court shall award a prevailing plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

40

Appendix 1: ALEC Scholarship Account

Below is a list of the undisclosed ALEC Scholarship Account. Data is only available 20062008, courtesy of CMD.89

Year 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

Entity Vickie McDonald William Avery Mark Christensen John Synowiecki Eli Lilly James H. Moylan Verizon Pete Pirsch Abbie Cornett Transferred from NE Scholarship Account 02/04 Abbie Cornett Jeanne Pence Eli Lilly Pfizer Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation Nebraska Telecommunications Association Radcliffe and Associates Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry Nebraska Bankers Assocation Nebraska Press Association Metropolitan Utilities District of Omaha Takeda Pharmaceuticals Mark Christensen Verizon Reynolds America UST Public Affairs Inc. Nebraska Trucking Association Tom White Bayer Healthcare Mark Christensen Ray Aguilar State Farm Insurance Company Joel Johnson

Money In

Money Out $1,984.45 $2,097.50 $1,360.91 $753.58

$500.00 $250.00 $1,500.00 $1,304.88 $1,183.00 $34,605.81 $849.22 $1,563.28 $500.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $1,067.98 $500.00 $350.00 $1,500.00 $350.00 $1,082.37 $1,000.00 $1,735.50 $1,194.02 $250.00 $1,240.84

89 CMD, Oct. 2012

41

2007 2007 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006

Abbie Cornett Abbie Cornett KinderMorgan Gwen Howard John Jordison Jeanne Combs Rad Cliffe Abbie Cornett Gwen Howard Union Pacific Railroad Bayer Healthcare Pfizer Inc RJ Reynolds NE Farm Bureau Federation Metropolitan Utilities District of Omaha NE Bankers Association Great Plains Communications Donald Pederson NE Telecom Association Carol Hudkins NE Chamber of Commerce & Industry Verizon Transfer

$1,344.40 $900.90 $350.00 $500.00 $1,640.02 $120.39 $350.00 $1,089.84 $168.00 $350.00 $1,500.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $1,662.23 $1,200.00 $350.00 $1,170.44 $350.00 $1,000.00

42