You elected them to write new laws. They’re letting corporations do it instead

Re:You elected them to write new laws. They’re letting corpo... by tptacek on Thursday April 04, 2019 @07:09PM (#19578013)

I guess I just start from the premise that a bill originating in ALEC is (a) going to be hard-partisan conservative and (b) overwhelmingly likely to serve the interests of an ALEC sponsor corporation; once you know the bill comes from ALEC, you know most of what you need to know, don't you? What do I care who's "lobbying" ALEC?

On the flip side, if Purdue Pharma spends several years and several tens of thousands of dollars lobbying a conservative congressperson, who later amends a health care bill to serve Purdue, what indicator do I have that the amendment they sponsored was "sponsored" by Purdue?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You elected them to write new laws. They’re letting corpo... by dragonwriter on Thursday April 04, 2019 @07:35PM (#19578212)

> overwhelmingly likely to serve the interests of an ALEC sponsor corporation

In a number of cases, corporations have only been publicly identified as having ties with ALEC when they publicly cut ties with ALEC.

Aside from corporations that seek recognition as sponsors or have people in active public roles on ALEC committees, there's no systematic disclosure of ALEC ties. ALEC membership is confidential.

> On the flip side, if Purdue Pharma spends several years and several tens of thousands of dollars lobbying a conservative congressperson, who later amends a health care bill to serve Purdue, what indicator do I have that the amendment they sponsored was "sponsored" by Purdue?

The documentation of the duration and expenditures on lobbying (and any donations), a thing we don't have systematically, with legal penalties for failure to report, with regard to corporate involvement with ALEC.

[ Parent | on HN ]