The most recent example of a puppet politico using an ALEC-penned bill verbatim is Rachel Burgen, R-56 of Florida. She submitted "her" bill--to lower corporate taxes, surprise, surprise--in November 2011 without even removing ALEC's name or mission statement. She got called on it, pulled the bill and submitted the same bill again a few days later, this time with ALEC's name deleted.

Heaven save us from the 1% and their political stooges!

@Bren -

How does any of ALEC's proposed legislation act to "destabilize our system of government and turn it into something we would decry in another nation?"

In fact, the sex-ed bill addressed in the article actually returns the power about what to teach on such subject to the local level school boards, thus making it all about the parent-teacher and community sentiment relationship with public education.

That's not only a good thing for local level community involvement, but it's also a principle that's deeply rooted in our system of government going back to the founding of our nation. The bill was a proper application of our Constitutional set-up and permits for the greatest exercise of individual liberty and freedoms.

But for some reason, on this issue, you seem to support sweeping top down dictatorial / mandated decisions from the few in power at the very top. Why?

And yet you claim that ALEC is trying to 'destabilize our system of government?'

Based solely on the sex-ed bill, it look to me like they're trying to preserve our system of government before it has been perverted into something that our traditions, principles, and founders never intended.

J.B., there were teen pregnancies prior to 1950. Back then and before Roe v. Wade, they were handled in several ways: "Shotgun" weddings, extended "visits" to out-of-state relatives and adoptions, and "New York" vacations.

It just wasn't talked about openly as it is now.

It would be good if parents talked to their children about these things. A big problem is that parents don't realize they need to talk about it earlier, not later. Also, many don't realize that they don't control the information--the kids get it from peers and it's often wrong. Parents need to take control by discussing it early, and in age-appropriate ways.

@Bren -

The big difference between teen pregnancies then vs now is that back then, most people still took personal responsibility for the teen pregnancies. Now, most people expect the government to take responsibility for them.

I don't know about you, but I'll take the personal responsibility sentiment of then vs the expected government responsibility of today's sentiment.

"Zack" I am a bleeding heart liberal, but I have two jobs . . . and no, this article is not made up - all you have to do is click on the links. Don't be lazy now.

I too give Jason credit for voicing his opinion in public and opening the door for discussion and criticism of that opinion. I also give him credit for being willing to defend that position in the discussion/commentary portion of the blog. He is an admirable person of good character and I deeply respect him, even though I don't think we've agreed on a single issue yet.

I'm still waiting and holding my breath though that maybe one day there will be something that we can agree on :-)

One thing Jason needs to do is to make sure that his next auto purchase is of an American union assembled model, as his Hyundai just isn't cutting the mustard as far representing himself as being a man of his personal convictions. I don't care if you only buy used, as it's still highly symbolic, and isn't that what most exercises of patriotism encompass today?

Think about it!

Thanks "JB". And you're right - the Patch is a great opportunity for residents to voice their opinions is through a blog or through their responses. It is also a great way to get local news from right here in Greendale (which you usually won't see on the nightly news).
But back to this post - Does it bother you that this group of business lobbyists is making decisions for Mary Lazich and Jeff Stone instead of these reps going to the people for ideas for legislation? Does it bother you that they write off their dues and travel expenses and have it paid for with our tax dollars?
And I really have no idea what you are talking about when you claim that unions choose Democratic recall candidates - Most liberals (and unions) would love to see Feingold or Dave Obey run for Governor, but neither seem interested (despite apparently being strong-armed by those "liberal thugs").

Perhaps the claim that unions are choosing democratic recall candidates came from this news item:

"Capitol Report: Unions busy behind the scenes vetting candidates to take on Walker"

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/capitol-report/capitol-report-unions-busy-behind-the-scenes-vetting-candidates-to/article_db50f24a-4073-11e1-a549-001871e3ce6c.html?mode=story

@Jason
I would hope that my representatives would meet with business leaders about any legislation. A legislator that fails to meet with business leaders is either lining his own pockets or working strictly for a single lobbyist.

The process of our government doesn't allow a single entity to control legislation. Not every republican is a member of ALEC. If every member was, then yes I would have a problem. For instance, all democrats seem to back the unions. Don't you find that odd. When one party is all-in with one outside entity, the question must be raised, why?

I am not in favor of tax payers paying for their travel. However, I am also not in favor of them receiving full time pay or crazy health insurance. There is much we could weed out of the budget.

Come on Jason--even you have to admit that by coming together to all endorse the same candidate, they are determining who will and will not be getting the nomination.

As far as the 'forcing them to run' claim, of course nobody is forcing anyone to run, but they are definitely discouraging guys like Barret. Without any union endorsement (or the money that goes along with it), he knows that he doesn't stand a chance of winning and is unlikely to run. Perhaps I can ask you a similar question: Is ALEC forcing anyone to choose and pass their legislation?

ALEC is an organization comprised of corporatists and right-wing politicos (with the exception of 7 Democrats).

Task forces write legislation for politicos for which the corporate members (which includes Charles and David Koch) have veto power.

According to The Nation, "ALEC’s priorities for the 2011 session included bills to privatize education, break unions, deregulate major industries, pass voter ID laws and more. In states across the country they succeeded, with stacks of new laws signed by GOP governors like Ohio’s John Kasich and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, both ALEC alums."

Here's a link to The Nation article, http://www.thenation.com/article/161978/alec-exposed/

So? As I mentioned before, ALEC really cannot force anyone to pass any legislation.

ALEC may provide sample text for bills, but the bills still have to go through bipartisan committees (who have the authority to amend, change or kill the legislation), then to each house floor for debate, amendments, and a vote. Note that both houses have to agree on the same version of the bill. After that, it has to be signed by the governor to become law. Beyond that, the laws are subject to review by the courts to ensure that they aren't in violation of the constitution.

Getting sample legislation from outside sources is nothing new, nor is it something that is exclusive to republicans and the 7 democrats you mentioned. As long as we still have the same procedure for passing bills into law and the same public oversight, it really shouldn't matter. The public still judges the actions of the legislature as they always have--if they pass laws that that aren't liked, people can choose to vote the legislators out of office. If they pass laws that are liked, people can vote to keep them in office.

@CowDung...Your process, that you have outlined, only works when you have a diverse legislature and governor. If they are all of the same political party, such we currently have in Wisconsin, then the process becomes an exercise in driving a steam roller over the opposition. I think you might agree that once something becomes law, that it becomes more difficult to change. This is why I strongly support a balance in the legislature and a balance of power between the three branches, which we currently don't have. I don't care if Walker is recalled or that all the state senators are recalled, all I want is a check to the current abuse of power.

You only consider the current state of affairs to be an abuse of power because you happen to disagree with the politics of those in power. If all the legislation they were passing was something you agreed with, you would take no issue with what they were doing and you would not be making accusations about abuses of power. Consider how the congressional republicans have been tagged with the 'party of no' label by some on the left. The label was applied because the republicans opposed the 'steamrolling' that Obama and the Dem majorities in Congress were attempting to do in order to pass their agenda into law. The expectation was that the republicans need to roll over and 'do the Molly Bloom', and allow the Dems to run the show unchecked.

The bottom line is that the makeup of our government is determined by the people. Every two years, we hold elections and have the chance to change the makeup of the legislature. If the republicans are in power, we don't even wait the full two years thanks to the lax recall laws we have.

We had the Dems in control of the presidency and both houses on congress in 2008. People didn't like the way it was going, so the Dems ended up losing the house in 2010. The republicans here are facing the same challenge--if people don't like what they are doing with their time in power, they can vote for someone else the next time around.

@CowDung....With the Republican controlled House, we would expect a great deal more compromise, which has not happened. I wasn't upset when the House moved to Republican control, but it does upset me the unwillingness to compromise. I agree we all want our agenda to go through, but that isn't possible in a society such as ours. I remember during the Reagan administration when the Republicans gained control of the Senate, it was a positive and created an atmosphere where meaningful legislation was accomplished. One thin you can't accuse the Democrats of is of being of a single mind. If they aren't fighting the Republicans, they are fighting each other. You'll never convince me that single party control is a good thing, no matter whose in power.

That 'compromise' thing goes in both directions, doesn't it? Republicans have been making proposals of their own and suggesting alternatives to what the Dems are trying to push through. They clearly aren't just saying 'no' and walking away...

Perhaps the difference between the way congress ran back in the 1980s compared to now has something to do with the person in the White House. President 'elections have consequences' Obama doesn't seem to be the kind to help build consensus between the parties...

Cow, sorry if I wasn't clear. The legislators who introduce ALEC-written bills belong to ALEC. They agree to the bills written by the special interest task forces, and ALEC's corporate members have veto rights. So it's not an issue of being forced/not forced to introduce legislation, presenting those bills is the entire purpose of being associated with ALEC.

Once again, so?

It's not like the legislative process is being bypassed or anything. The legislators are still accountable to the public for the bills they introduce and vote for (or against).

@Lyle -

Republicans also in-fight just as much as the Dems do - especially since the inception of the 'Tea Party' sub-caucus. Need I remind how the Tea Partiers stood firm against TARP, the debt ceiling deal, etc. while a majority of the traditional Republicans caved on those votes?

@ "Mike" That is exactly the way it was in the Doyle-era comprehensive-approach to sex education. Now - well, kids will learn how to balance a checkbook and properly clean an oven, but not how to prevent from getting a "bun" in their own personal "oven".
Fact is, a lot of parents do not teach their kids about sex because they assume it will be done at school (and it's not easy to discuss).

@Mike and Jason
The process by which children happen can be discussed in biology class. When we segregate it and attempt to it teach from a health care perspective, it has no morals. To use Jason's oven analogy; it is like telling a small child that touching the stove is bad, it will burn them and give them a bad booboo. Then we hand them an oven mitt, tell them this will usually protect then and then walk away. No body would raise a small child like that, why do we do it with sex? We have zero tolerance for alcohol and drugs, but we make an exception for sex? Why?

The discussion should be the parents, I don't care how awkward it may be. I have a seventh grader, getting his first dose this year in school; however if I felt he wasn't ready, I am left without a choice. I could opt out, but the awkwardness he would feel among his classmates would outrageous. Once the sex door is open, it cannot be undone. Once an adolescent boy starts thinking about sex, he doesn't stop until.......well I'll have to get back to you on that one.

@J.B. -

Excellent point and I share your sentiments here!

Once again, I ask you: Is ALEC forcing anyone to choose and pass their legislation?

ALEC isn't doing any reaching at all. They have no ability or authority to introduce legislation on the floor of any statehouse. Only elected legislators can do that...

Cow, please see my response above. In a nutshell, the legislators who introduce ALEC legislation belong to ALEC. They sign off on bills written by the special interest group's task forces. This isn't simply a case of a lobbying group convincing legislators to introduce bills--the legislators themselves are part of the egregious process.

How is that different then legislators introducing bills that are given to them by the labor unions or any other lobbying group? Do you really think that the Democrats in congress wrote the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act all by themselves?

@Bren -

If the legislators have an active role in drafting the legislation proposed by ALEC, then how or why is that any different than if the legislator had come up with the same bill on their own accord?

And if a legislator has a good idea and wants to share it with others or receive input to make it an even better idea, then what is so wrong with that?

And yes, the left also has their own versions of ALEC - they just aren't as big or well organized, but I don't see screaming about any of the boogie-men on the left. Why not?

@JRH...There's only one problem with what you state about ALEC and how they come up with the model legislation. For the most part the legislators are actively involved in the actual drafting. It's done for them by the staff and industry members of ALEC. Please share with me what Democratic organizations do what ALEC does, I'm interested.

@J.B. Schmidt...J.B. you're going to have to come to grips with the changes in society. We are no longer living at a time where people will accept the social stigma associated with teenage sex and possible pregnancy. That kind of stigmatization will no longer work anymore. We have to deal with the reality as it is, not what we wish it to be. Quite simply all kids need sex education provided by trained professionals. If a parent wants to handle this without the school, then they can opt out and handle it in a way they feel is appropriate. If the parents want their children to be taught abstinence, then they should be the ones to teach it. No sex education class teaches kids to engage in premarital sex. To require abstinence only sex education is taking a religious imperative and legislating it and forcing it on everyone. If you insist the denial of modern sex education, then you will be partially responsible for every unwanted pregnancy that could be prevented, every case of STD that could be prevented and every abortion of a pregnancy that could be prevented.

Sex before the age of 18 in this state is illegal and look at how well that has worked. You can't legislate morality. That's like trying to inspect quality into a product after its already been built, it doesn't work.

@Lyle
I disagree. We all want a society based on what we wish. I would rather assume that culture can return be changed, it is for the kids.

How much 'training' is required for sex ed? For all the talk of conservatives attempting to get into the bedrooms of American's, we must question what needs to be taught? We don't have this problem because kids are using their parts incorrectly. We don't have this problem because the instructions of our contraceptives are printed in Chinese. We don't have this problem because STD's are a new disease to the human race. We have this problem because sex has become an act of nature instead of an act of devotion (I would say marriage). The teaching of abstinence is no different in its extremes then the current teaching of sex. Sex education without morals is as much a 'religion' as sex with morals.

As for opting out, try telling your middle school kid that he will be the only one not taking a class the rest of the school is enrolled in. I just ran into this with a different subject. The teacher proposed something and then asks the parents. It should be an opt-in program. However, that would break the progressive control of the school system.

@Lyle (cont)
Don’t legislate morality when it comes to sex and reproductive health. However, you have no problems with regulation if it is the morality of the environment, or if it is the morality of gun ownership, or the morality of wealth or the morality of public education. Those you appear not care about the regulation.

@J.B. Schmidt...Teaching morality is the domain of the parent and not the school. Sexual morality is no different. Associating morality with the environment, gun ownership, wealth and public education is a red herring. I would suggest that you take a course in the philosophy of morals and ethics. Not all values are manifested in an effort to demonstrate moral imperatives.

I agree with parents teaching morality. However, there is a false notion about morality that is attempting to be portrayed here.

The idea that the absence of morality is therefore neutral morality. That is not true. A class taught void of morality has the same divergence from neutral morality as a class taught with only religious morality. Simply because a class about sex void of morality goes against the morality of religion. Hence, the progressive education system has installed its own morality into the sex ed class. That is why an approach of abstinence fits both objectives.

"But kids are going to have sex anyway and they will not understand how to protect themselves." Oddly enough, we don't teach kids how to consume alcohol safely. Nor do we teach kids how to safely make meth or how to smoke pot. Yet, we teach that morally the abuse of those substance is wrong.

Why is sex treated differently then other harmful activities that kids could be involved with?

J.B., I just skimmed the MJS article about this. I believe the collective bargaining should be restored as that had no financial impact as was proven. It's probably too late to do anything about the financial concessions 6 months into the budget.

Frankly I'm more concerned about other ALEC legislation that got pushed through, such as the Voter ID bill and its $5m price tag. I'd do my best to restore the $1.6b slashed from K-12 education and repeal the power plant/leasing privileges in the new budget. I'd repeal the corporate tax breaks especially because those don't seem to have had much impact (unless more dealings are being hidden from us). I'd also repeal any changes to the high school sex-ed curriculum as I believe that's a decision best made by teaching and medical professionals.

The point is, if the state is in financial trouble, wringing more financial concessions from public union employees and then not putting those dollars toward the projected deficit is offensive and fiscally foolish. Spending $5m on a Voter ID bill right now is unnecessary and a hideous waste of money. Please, whoever finishes Scott Walker's term, please bring Wisconsin back to political balance and fiscal common sense!

@Bren -

"I'd also repeal any changes to the high school sex-ed curriculum as I believe that's a decision best made by teaching and medical professionals."

I guess that in Bren's world, the parents of those children aren't entitled to any say in this decision at all?

Very interesting position to take.

@JRH..The standard sex education program is created by professionals. Parents do have a say and can opt out their children from receiving the instruction. As far as dealing with unwanted pregnancy like they did in the 1950s, no thank you. I was alive and well then and the system didn't work to well. Families tried to hide it, but everyone knew what happened. I had classmates in the early sixties who went away to live with an aunt in a far away city. Only to return a changed person. I knew a lot who went away for a special medical procedures. Don't romanticize the past. Believe me, society is better off now than then.

@Lyle
There is nothing romantic about getting pregnant while in high school. Unless you find out you can watch Teen Mom on MTV and relate with those teens and realize it can be a fun experience or even better you get your own TV show. Then I can do a google search for my favorite teeny bopper singer and find the actually video that create her child out of wedlock.

The difference is as Hoffa pointed out is that 50 years ago it was looked on as bad. Maybe you had sex, however, your risk for being excluded from life (ie go to your aunts) was greater then today. With all behavior being best controlled by public stigma, we are making sex appear the proper activity during your high school years. If teen pregnancy really wants to be curbed, we need to have REAL parents teacher their children. Not a sterilized nursed with a banana and a condom.

P.S.
Just a quick explanation. Googling my favorite teeny bopper was purely a hypothetical situation and not a description of my free time.

Mr. Hoffa, I was writing about external decision-making only. I don't believe politicians who are not licensed teachers or medical doctors are qualified to make decisions on health curriculum.

J.B., you and I agree that both parties engage in strategy (and spend way too much time and money on it, in my opinion!). The public unions definitely have a stake in this recall election and are making their opinions known. However, they should also remember that the effort is not just about them, and it's a mistake for them to believe otherwise--214,000 (or now about 207,000) public employees v. 1m signatures prove that this is a much larger issue.

I'm against the ALEC agenda because it is destabilizing our economy and government system to benefit a few. Why is it all right for a bank CEO to make terrible decisions and get a huge bonus, but not all right for someone else to make a family-sustaining wage right here in America? Since when do we make the distinction that only the rich deserve opportunities to succeed in our country?

And I can't answer for Jason about wanting to demonize Republicans overall. I would myself say that the Republican Party has been overshadowed by the Koch/Tea/ALEC agenda. Consider the rapid and outraged response to the radical actions taken by Karen Handel at Susan G. Komen Foundation (Handel was previously a failed Tea/GOP candidate for governor in GA). People in both parties are tired of these shenanigans. They hurt us and our country.

What 'ALEC legislation' guarantees huge bonuses for bank CEOs that makes terrible decisions? I must have missed it when Walker passed that one. I also don't see where they are trying to take away anyone's 'right' to a family sustaining wage, other than perhaps emphasizing that earning a 'family sustaining' wage is really not a right, and people should be paid according to the value of their work.

Cow, I have made a note to remind myself that paragraphs are our friends! You're right, ALEC isn't connected to those business practices except in my paragraph. Mea culpa!

In that context, I reiterate my observation that some people seem to be more concerned about the welfare of the rich instead of everyone's welfare. I hear people verbally roasting public sector employees over an open fire for making $50-$60K year while defending Wall Street bonuses and I'm incredulous.

Certainly people should be paid for the value of their work, but I will argue that pay for CEOs should align with worker wages a la the Japan model.

The level of compensation that the CEO enjoys is an issue for the boards of directors and stockholders, not the government, ALEC or anyone not associated with of the CEO's company. Wall Street bonuses are paid according to the contract that was agreed upon--if the conditions for the bonus have been met, the bonuses have to be paid.

I also don't believe that CEO pay should be tied to the wages of the workers. To me, that makes little sense, and doesn't consider the work or responsibilities of the CEO at all. Should a CEO of an engineering firm necessarily make more money than the CEO of a factory that employs lots of relatively low wage laborers?

As far as 'roasting' those making $50-60k, it's not about how much they are earning, nor is it about them. The issue is the system that allows the public unions to be 'negotiating' with the people that they helped put into office (public union money elects a lot of people). How is that not a conflict of interest? Such arrangements eliminate the adversarial relationship that typically exists between the union and management in the private sector. This is what causes the compensation packages to grow to unsustainable levels and allows groups like WEA Trust to come in and overcharge for the benefits they provide.