Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:47, 25 May 2012 editBinksternet (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers496,910 edits →Long Tables, lists of names, instead of narrative ; delete or replace, and if so, with what?: removed redundant header← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 09:44, 5 March 2024 edit undoDreamy Jazz Bot (talk \| contribs)Bots106,824 editsm Replacing Template:Ds/talk notice with Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. BRFA.
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|ap\|long}}{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|gc\|long}}{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|gg\|long}}
	{{WikiProject United States\|class=Start\|importance=mid\|DC=yes\|DC-importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Organizations}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
	{{WikiProject Conservatism}}		{{WikiProject Conservatism \|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Law \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Virginia \|class=B \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Organizations \|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Politics \|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject United States \|importance=mid \|DC=yes \|DC-importance=low \|USGov=yes \|USGov-importance=high}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 6
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 2
			\|algo = old(60d)
			\|archive = Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Archives \|search=yes \|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III \|age=2 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index }}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
			}}

	== ~~few~~ Sources~~, pre-2010~~ ==		== Sources ==
			<!-- ] 01:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC) -->

			{{collapse top}}
	'''Sources needed '''
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/What-Makes-Alec-Smart.html\|title=What Makes Alec Smart?\|date=October 2003\|publisher='']''\|first=Alan\|last=Greenblatt}}. {{done}}
			::More needs to be added from this source. It's incredibly dense and informative. I'll get to the rest in the next couple of days if others haven't already. --] (]) 10:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/ALEC-enjoys-new-wave-influence-criticism.html\|title=ALEC Enjoys A New Wave of Influence and Criticism\|date=December 2011\|publisher='']''\|first=Alan\|last=Greenblatt}}. {{done}}
			::This is a more recent Governing article by Greenblatt. I haven't read it in depth yet but it could provide excellent reliable coverage of some of the recent controversies. --] (]) 18:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/03/alec-funding-crisis-big-donors-trayvon-martin\|title=ALEC facing funding crisis from donor exodus in wake of Trayvon Martin row\|date=December 3, 2013\|publisher='']''\|first=Ed\|last=Pilkington}} {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=20020610&id=PfEyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pwgGAAAAIBAJ&pg=6087,2665669\|title=ALEC's friends bill taxpayers: Biggest industries come to control lobbying council\|date=June 10, 2002\|publisher='']''\|page=A1\|first=Hank\|last=Shaw}} {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.npr.org/2013/12/10/249956329/how-alec-serves-as-a-dating-service-for-politicians-and-corporations\|title=How ALEC Serves As A 'Dating Service' For Politicians And Corporations\|publisher=]\|date=December 10, 2013}} {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/jessica_vanegeren/what-madison-rep-chris-taylor-learned-at-the-alec-conference/article_479f4ad0-0136-11e3-9e5b-0019bb2963f4.html\|title=What Madison Rep. Chris Taylor learned at the ALEC conference\|newspaper='']''\|date=August 10, 2013\|first=Jessica\|last=Vanegeren}} {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/rep-chris-taylor-in-alec-s-underworld-democracy-is-a/article_ba371f6f-f61c-5169-baa9-1b42f355ae5c.html\|title=Rep. Chris Taylor: In ALEC's underworld, democracy is a burden\|newspaper='']''\|date=October 1, 2013\|first=Chris\|last=Taylor}} {{done}}
			::Opinion source. --] (]) 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/04/former-chair-accuses-alec-of-anti-democrat-bias.html\|title=Former Chair Accuses ALEC of Anti-Democrat Bias\|publisher='']''\|date=May 4, 2012\|first=Ben\|last=Jacobs}} {{done}}
			::--] (]) 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-alec-stands-its-ground/2013/12/04/ad593320-5d2c-11e3-bc56-c6ca94801fac_story.html\|title=ALEC stands its ground\|newspaper=]\|date=December 4, 2013\|first=Dana\|last=Milbank}} {{done}}
			::Opinion though some aspects may be cited for facts. --] (]) 06:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
			* {{cite news\|url=http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/222965-martin-case-puts-alec-in-spotlight\|title=Trayvon killing puts American Legislative Exchange Council in the spotlight\|newspaper=]\|date=April 23, 2012\|first=Juan\|last=Williams}} {{done}}
			::Opinion piece. --] (]) 07:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/06/2875525/private-group-carries-sway-in.html\|title=Private conservative group ALEC carries sway in legislature\|newspaper=]\|date=May 6, 2013\|first=John\|last=Frank}} {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/alec_model_bills_used_in_nj_la.html\|title=Some of Christie's biggest bills match model legislation from D.C. group called ALEC\|newspaper=]\|date=April 3, 2012\|first=Salvador\|last=Rizzo}} {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/at_arizona_gathering_alec_teac.html\|title=At Arizona gathering, ALEC teaches lawmakers how to turn conservative ideas into law\|newspaper=]\|date=April 1, 2012\|first=Salvador\|last=Rizzo}} {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/despite_similarities_officials.html\|title=Despite similarities, officials say they did not use model ALEC bills for Christie's education legislation\|newspaper=]\|date=April 1, 2012\|first=Salvador\|last=Rizzo}} {{notdone}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.omaha.com/news/nebraska-state-sen-danielle-conrad-blasts-national-group/article_ee395785-0dba-5812-ae58-938225cf5a29.html\|title=Nebraska State Sen. Danielle Conrad blasts national group\|newspaper=]\|date=December 5, 2013\|first=Paul\|last=Hammel}} {{notdone}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/obama-climate-rule-states-lash-out-107450.html\|title=Some states already lashing at climate rule\|publisher=]\|date=June 4, 2014\|first=Andrew\|last=Restuccia}} {{notdone}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/2011/12/21/gIQA9ccRLP_story.html\|title=Ghostwriter at work for Virginia’s assembly?\|newspaper=]\|date=December 27, 2011\|first=Anita\|last=Kumar}} {{done}}
			* {{cite web\|url=http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2013/12/06-american-legislative-exchange-council-jackman\|title=ALEC’s Influence over Lawmaking in State Legislatures\|publisher=]\|date=December 6, 2013\|first=Molly\|last=Jackman}} {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/05/alec_gains_foothold_in_oregon.html\|title=ALEC gains foothold in Oregon, with one-fourth of legislators as members\|newspaper=]\|date=May 26, 2012\|first=Michelle\|last=Cole}} {{done}}
			* {{cite web\|url=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/exposing-alec-how-conservative-backed-state-laws-are-all-connected/255869/\|title=Exposing ALEC: How Conservative-Backed State Laws Are All Connected\|publisher=]\|date=April 14, 2012\|first=Nancy\|last=Scola}} {{done}}
			* {{cite episode\|url=http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/why-alec-matters-123923523719\|title=Why ALEC matters\|network=]\|date=January 21, 2014\|series=]}} {{done}}
			* {{cite episode\|url=http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/why-alec-is-so-effective-124965955771\|title=Why ALEC is so effective\|network=]\|date=January 22, 2014\|series=]}} {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/opinion/paul-krugman-charlatans-cranks-and-kansas.html\|title=Charlatans, Cranks and Kansas\|newspaper=]\|date=June 29, 2014\|first=Paul\|last=Krugman}} {{notdone}}
			::Opinion piece, of course. --] (]) 06:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/capitol-report/2013/dec/17/brownback-says-perception-of-alec-influe/\|title=Brownback says perception of ALEC influence is 'overblown'\|newspaper=]\|date=December 17, 2013\|first=Scott\|last=Rothschild}} {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.wral.com/mccrory-says-he-is-happy-to-speak-to-controversial-group-of-lawmakers/13779022/\|title=McCrory says he is 'happy' to speak to controversial group of lawmakers\|publisher=]\|date=July 1, 2014\|first=Mark\|last=Binker}} {{notdone}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/alec-the-free-market-group-liberals-love-to-hate-gets-a-new-boss/\|title=ALEC, the free-market group liberals love to hate, gets a new boss\|newspaper=]\|date=July 8, 2014\|first=Niraj\|last=Chokshi}} {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/09/meet-the-new-head-of-alec-the-free-market-group-of-state-legislators/\|title=Meet the new head of ALEC, the free-market group of state legislators\|newspaper=]\|date=July 9, 2014\|first=Niraj\|last=Chokshi}} {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/16/progressive-groups-merge-in-effort-to-counter-koch-backed-alec/\|title=Progressive Groups Merge in Effort to Counter ALEC in State Capitols\|newspaper=]\|date=July 16, 2014\|first=Reid J.\|last=Epstein}} {{not done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/nations-largest-small-business-group-faces-fresh-skepticism-over-new-link-to-alec/2014/08/06/15cdd8a8-1d7f-11e4-ab7b-696c295ddfd1_story.html\|title=Nation’s largest small-business group faces fresh skepticism over new link to ALEC\|newspaper=]\|date=August 7, 2014\|first=J.D.\|last=Harrison}} {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/pssst-wanna-buy-a-law-12012011.html\|title=Pssst ... Wanna Buy a Law?\|newspaper=]\|date=December 1, 2011\|first1=Brendan\|last1=Greeley\|first2=Alison\|last2=Fitzgerald}} (already cited, but expand) {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/05/08/8828/alec-exempted-lobbyist-status-three-separate-states\|title=ALEC exempted from lobbyist status in three separate states\|publisher=]\|date=May 8, 2014\|first=Paul\|last=Abowd}} {{done}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-23/bp-ends-involvement-with-american-legislative-exchange-council\|title=BP Ends Involvement With American Legislative Exchange Council\|newspaper=]\|date=March 23, 2015\|first=Michael B\|last=Marois}} {{done}}
			{{collapse bottom}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0330/Who-s-pushing-the-religious-freedom-legislation-in-states\|title=Who's pushing the 'religious freedom' legislation in states?\|newspaper=]\|date=March 30, 2015\|first=Lisa\|last=Suhay}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-03/alec-is-back-and-ready-to-resume-its-conservative-agenda\|title=ALEC is Back and Ready to Resume its Conservative Agenda\|publisher=]\|date=December 3, 2014\|first=Julie\|last=Bykowicz}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/17/ford-quits-alec-lobby-conservative-environment\|title=Ford becomes latest corporation to sever ties with conservative Alec lobby\|newspaper=]\|date=February 17, 2016\|first=Ed\|last=Pilkington}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/american-electric-power-ditches-alec-membership\|title=American Electric Power quits Alec as it helps states move to clean power\|newspaper=]\|date=December 8, 2015\|first=Oliver\|last=Milman}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/_liberals_and_conservatives_are_teaming_up_to_call_a_new_constitutional.html\|title=The Constitutional Convention 2016?\|publisher=]\|date=January 26, 2016\|first=Ashley\|last=Balcerzak}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2016/jun/22/mississippi-your-alec-showing/\|title=Mississippi, Your ALEC is Showing\|newspaper=]\|date=June 22, 2016\|first=Arielle\|last=Dreher}}
			* {{cite news\|url=https://www.propublica.org/article/conservatives-plot-their-course-on-the-rising-sea-of-red-in-state-capitals\|title=Conservatives Plot Their Course on the Rising ‘Sea of Red’ in State Capitals\|publisher=]\|date=January 6, 2017\|first=Robert\|last=Faturechi}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.pressherald.com/2017/05/02/bill-would-hamstring-maine-towns-trying-to-build-internet-networks/\|title=Bill seeks to restrict Maine towns’ efforts to build high-speed internet networks\|newspaper=]\|date=May 2, 2017\|first=Colin\|last=Woodard}}

			=== ACCE ===
	We need citations for the political breakdown of ALEC membership, otherwise it's completely unsupported. ] 04:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

			* {{cite journal\|url=http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-alec-goes-local.html\|title=ALEC Goes Local\|journal=]\|date=June 2014\|first=Alan\|last=Greenblatt}}
	See http://www.alecwatch.org/ for information on the political breakdown of the ALEC membership, which is predominantly Republican. It has been disheartening to see how much this page has been edited -- by political operatives and/or ALEC's staff -- to remove important information about the group which it may not want the world to know.
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/30/alec-acce-lobby-local-tax-cuts-republicans\|title=Conservative group Alec devises offshoot ACCE to lobby at local levels\|newspaper=]\|date=July 30, 2014\|first=Ed\|last=Pilkington}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/conservative-group-alec-city-local-government\|title=Conservative group Alec trains sights on city and local government\|publisher='']''\|first=Ed\|last=Pilkington\|date=March 6, 2014}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-11/corporate-lobby-alec-aims-at-u-s-city-councils-with-new-group.html\|title=Corporate Lobby Sets Its Sights on Your Garbage Man\|publisher=]\|date=August 10, 2014\|first=Tim\|last=Jones}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/alec-sets-sights-on-local-governments/article_278a9c1d-1f02-516a-b8d2-4d64a5095cd7.html\|title=ALEC sets sights on local governments\|newspaper=]\|date=August 15, 2014\|first=Steven\|last=Elbow}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.salon.com/2014/10/17/alecs_disgusting_new_ploy_how_corporate_americas_trying_to_roll_back_local_liberal_laws/\|title=ALEC’s disgusting new ploy: How corporate America’s trying to roll back local liberal laws\|publisher=]\|date=October 17, 2014\|first=Ellen\|last=Bravo}}
			:* Haven't analyzed reliability yet. --] (]) 18:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
			* {{cite episode\|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIMgfBZrrZ8\|series=]\|title=State Legislatures and ALEC\|network=]\|date=November 2, 2014\|first=John\|last=Oliver}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/foes-of-unions-try-their-luck-in-county-laws.html\|title=Foes of Unions Try Their Luck in County Laws\|newspaper=]\|date=December 18, 2014\|first=Shaila\|last=Dewan}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/13/alabama-among-many-states-moving-to-block-local-wa/\|title=Alabama among many states moving to block local wage laws\|newspaper=]\|date=February 13, 2016\|first=Phillip\|last=Lucas}}

			=== Secrecy ===
	:There's clearly been an attempt to whitewash the article. I've restored the deleted sourced content. ] 06:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2013/08/alec-declares-itself-exempt-public-disclosure-laws-and-challenged\|title=ALEC declares itself exempt from public-disclosure laws, and is challenged\|newspaper=]\|date=August 22, 2013\|first=Beth\|last=Hawkins}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130815-fort-worth-lawmaker-tries-to-block-request-for-information-on-dealings-with-conservative-group.ece\|title=Fort Worth lawmaker tries to block request for information on dealings with conservative group\|newspaper=]\|date=August 15, 2013\|first=David\|last=Barer}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.news-leader.com/article/20131215/NEWS06/312150037/lawmaker-Norr-Springfield-bill-model-legislation\|title=Springfield Democratic lawmaker hopes to send message about conservative group\|newspaper=]\|date=December 14, 2013\|first=Jonathan\|last=Shorman}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/where-do-elite-meet-behind-closed-doors-0\|title=Where Do the Elite Meet? Behind Closed Doors\|publisher=]\|date=May 12, 2014}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/leah-vukmir-agrees-to-turn-over-alec-documents-to-settle/article_3029824a-e97f-5a2f-bbf1-c013e32cda3f.html\|title=
			Leah Vukmir agrees to turn over ALEC documents to settle open records lawsuit\|newspaper=]\|date=March 29, 2014\|first=Matthew\|last=DeFour}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/12/alec-bans-mother-jones-annual-conference\|title=ALEC Boots Mother Jones From Its Annual Conference\|magazine=]\|date=December 6, 2013\|first=Andy\|last=Kroll}}

			=== Education ===
	'''One source doesn't make something true'''

			* {{cite web\|url=http://www.alec.org/task-forces/education/\|title=Education\|publisher=ALEC}}
	The only source that is used on this page is from ALEC Watch which is outdated and inaccurate. A lot of comments talk about how ALEC is made up of mostly Republicans, which is somewhat true (about 2/3 GOP to 1/3 Democrat.) But if fails to mention that ALEC's National Chair is a Democrat, in addition to the last national chair also being a Democrat. Any college student or professional that uses ONE citation on a research article would be laughed at and discredited on the spot. Do more research and get over the fact that there is more positive press about ALEC than negative. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 04:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/03/01/kappan_underwood.html\|title=A Smart ALEC Threatens Public Education\|work=]\|first1=Julie\|last1=Underwood\|first2=Julie F.\|last2=Mead\|date=February 29, 2012}}
			::Opinion source. --] (]) 06:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
			* {{cite web\|url=http://forum.illinois.edu/content/alecs-report-card-receives-failing-marks\|title=ALEC's Report Card Receives Failing Marks\|date=May 9, 2013\|publisher=]\|work=The Forum on the Future of Public Education: Empirical scrutiny of ideological issues}}
			* {{cite web\|url=http://www.progressflorida.org/sites/all/files/alecvkids.pdf\|title=ALEC v. Kids\|publisher=]}}
			* {{cite web\|url=http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/ttr-report-card-alec-lubienski-brewer.pdf\|title=Review of ''Report Card on American Education''\|first1=Christopher\|last1=Lubienski\|first2=T. Jameson\|last2=Brewer\|date=May 2013\|publisher=]}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.minnpost.com/learning-curve/2012/03/alec-and-corporate-fingerprints-are-all-over-national-push-online-learning\|title=ALEC and corporate fingerprints are all over national push for online learning\|newspaper=]\|date=March 26, 2012\|first=Beth\|last=Hawkins}}
			::Questionable reliability. --] (]) 06:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.minnpost.com/learning-curve/2012/02/what-are-mn-attendees-alec-confab-likely-bringing-back-think-tenure-reform\|title=What are MN attendees of ALEC confab likely bringing back? Think tenure reform\|newspaper=]\|date=February 6, 2012\|first=Beth\|last=Hawkins}}
			* {{cite news\|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/alec-koch-brothers-dark-money-anonymous-donation-120784\|title='Dark money': ALEC wants image makeover\|publisher=]\|date=July 30, 2015\|first=Tarini\|last=Parti}}

			{{collapse top\|general discussion about above sources}}
	This page also cite's ALEC's own website... making two citations. If you think that it is important to mention that ALEC's chair is a Dem, then put in the article. --] 15:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
			===Context?===
			In each of the sources above the ] in which they are to be used is critical. Are there specific edits being proposed? – ] (]) 05:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
			:This is just research, a collection of sources that appear useful. Some of these sources may not make it into the article. I generally separate my research and writing tasks; it helps me stay organized, and it better enables other editors to contribute. --] (]) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}

			== External links modified ==
	'''Alecwatch'''

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	The website www.alecwatch.org shows no signs of having been updated since 2002. Is it still a relevant link in this article? Is there a better/more current link available to an opposition position?

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	'''This article looks terrible'''
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205023422/http://www.alec.org/about-alec/ to http://www.alec.org/about-alec/

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	1) 2 of the 4 sources are from highly partisan sites. We should look for more neutral sources.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	2) The article is poorly organized. When I figure out how to make tables and what not I will fix this asap

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 09:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	3) Why is global warming the only issue they advocate on discussed? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			==Recent edits by Rms125a@hotmail.com==
	'''Article Reads Like an Ad'''
			I reverted ]'s revert of my edit (see ) as there was no explanation provided. My edits were perfectly in line with ] and ]. ] 04:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

			:There were a number of things wrong with your edits. For starters, you appear to have removed important, reliably sourced content such as the fact that ALEC's activities are legal. Second, your characterization of various media outlets (including the The New York Times and Bloomberg Businessweek) is unsourced and non-neutral. Third, you messed up the title of one of the sources. Fourth, you broke up some paragraphs in a way that in my view makes the prose read a little more choppily. Finally, the word "reportedly" is non-neutral as it's used as an ]. --] (]) 06:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
	Since IP user 207.155.218.26 began making edits a few days ago, ALEC's page looks more like an advertisement for the organization than an unbiased, factual analysis of its activities. Almost every new source, for example, links directly to the ALEC website. For the sake of objectivity, I think changes need to be made. --] (]) 23:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
	:I would tend to agree. A rewrite is definitely in order. ] <sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;">]</sub> 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

			::Yup. ] (]) 11:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
	I've made some changes. It is still a work in progress, but I think it is better than what existed before. --] (]) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

			== LGBT rights section ==

			{{re\|Marquardtika}} According to ], SPLC is ] for such claims. If you revert me, ] is just around the corner. ] (]) 05:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
	==7/5/07 - Political philosophy and composition==

			Discussion is now taking place at ]. ] (]) 02:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
	I went to Alec's webiste today and saw the word "conservative" but never saw the word "Jeffersonian." I also saw the pictures of five Republicans and no Democrats or independents. In addition to the pictures of five Republicans I saw the names of two Republicans, but no Democrats or Independents. Ergo, the term "conservative" is more appropriate than Jeffersonian (which may be on the website, but not on the mainpage or the "about" page) and it is fair to say that it is primarily composed of Republicans as there is NO evidence whatsoever from their website that they have a single member that is not a Republican. So you can stop arguing that Ocenia has always been at war with Eastasia or whatever it is that some of you have been arguing on this page; it's tough to tell as it has been un-adulterated kool-aid drinking propagandic drivel with no basis in reality. I speak specifically to IPs 12.168.68.11 and 76.189.35.30. Unless you can come up with some justification to for your newspeak, please stop vandalizing this article. --] 03:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	: What in the world are you talking about? None of the recent edits are "propagandic" or vandalism and I resent the implication that the edits are being made in bad faith. They don't espouse an opinion either way on the organization, its members or its goals. I am trying very hard to remain calm and to ] in the face of your adversarial comments. I don't know if you have an agenda here but I will tell you bluntly that I do not other than to make sure that the article is as factual and complete as we can make it. So let's break the edits down specifically:
	:* Political philosophy - Jeffersonian vs Conservative <br> If you look at their descriptions of their political philosophy (which are documented on ), it lines up much more closely with the Misplaced Pages description of ] than with the Misplaced Pages article on ]. I concede that most Americans today consider "Jeffersonian" to be a subset of "conservative". That has not always been the case even in the US and is not the case in most other countries. (In most cultures, a Jeffersonian philosophy is considered radically liberal.) The truth is that they really are very different political philosophies. See the ] for one take on the difference. <br> In my opinion, ALEC uses the word "conservative" on the front page of their website because everyone thinks they know what "conservative" means but almost nobody would recognize "Jeffersonian". They are writing to a mass audience. We at Misplaced Pages have advantages in the ability to hyperlink and cross-connect to more precise descriptions. We are not limited to just "liberal" vs. "conservative". <br> So, after reading their webpage and our political articles, what evidence do you have that their political philosophy is not Jeffersonian and that Conservatism is the better link? Do you have anything other than the opinion expressed in your that you consider them "fascist"?
	:* Membership includes "private sector advocates" <br> I have no idea why you keep reverting that edit. It's documented both on their website and on the opposition blog alecwatch.org. Alecwatch would have you believe that it's a strong negative - that it's a priori evidence of special interest status. In my opinion, it is neither positive or negative but I don't know how you can conclude that adding that clause creates a ''favorable'' bias to the article. May we assume that part of the revert was an oversight?
	:* Membership is "composed primarily of Republicans" <br> As has already been explained in the edit summary, "primarily" is significantly higher than "mostly" but less than "exclusively". That assertion of membership has never been sourced. On the other hand, both your edit summary and the external sources agree that the organization's membership is "bipartisan". I find the description of the organization's membership as "bipartisan" and "primarily Republican" to be incompatible and confusing. The insistence on that clause creates an appearance of bias without any underlying basis to substantiate the claim. The fact that ALEC currently highlights a few Republican members on their webpage is weak evidence for an assertion that their membership is "primarily Republican" and, to the extent that we make any inferences, must be balanced against what is known about their leadership. Their page about their shows <br>National Chair - Dolores Mertz (D)<br>First Vice Chair - Steve Faris (D)<br> Second Vice Chair - L Patrick Engel (was D until 2006 when he switched to R) <br> It's not until you get down to Treasurer that you get to the first long-term Republican on their Executive Board. An organization whose top two leaders are Democratic can't plausibly be described as "primarily Republican" unless we have evidence to support that claim. So again, do you have anything sourcable on current membership statistics? <br> Note: I'm not saying that they are predominantly Democratic either. I'm saying that ''we don't know'' because the organization does not choose to publish their membership lists (or if they do, I haven't been able to find them). Until we do know, the clause needs to be removed as unsourced.
	: I hope that explains the edits a little better and that we can stick to observable facts as we edit this article. ] 20:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

			{{re\|Genericusername57}} See:
	First, I deleted the phrase "public sector advocates" in error. I think it belongs in the article. Also, in regard to the term "primarily Republican", you win. However, your argument that they only use the term Conservative instead of Jeffersonian is because it is more accessible is flawed. ALEC is not an organization which appeals to the general population. Instead it appeals to legislators and "private sector advocates" who are, theoretically, more politically saavy and would comprehend the difference. If they were Jeffersonian, they would say it. --] 20:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	: Thanks for making those changes. I still disagree about "jeffersonian" but want to wait for others to join in the debate. <br>In the meantime, I don't think that a press release about alumni from 2002 is necessarily relevant today. In 2002, the House and Senate were majority-held by Republicans. Since their alumni list only showed current officeholders, you'd expect a majority of Republicans regardless of the proportions within their membership. Any number of factors could have influenced the inclusion of a member on that list. By presenting the alumni list as indicative, you've introduced a selection-bias into the analysis. I also don't know that they deliberately keep the membership lists "secret" - it may just be that we haven't asked or looked in the right place yet. I would prefer that we remove that section until we have something more definitive. ] 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

			{{blockquote\|Much of the Back to Neutral coalition’s work challenges companies’ attempts to expand racial and gender equality, CMD and Hatewatch found. An older nonprofit where Nelson is a board member, the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), spearheads that coalition. They purchase shares in corporations, lobby their board members and urge shareholders to vote out directors who support diversity initiatives.}}
	:::The press release from 2002 is definitely relevant today. If we were quibbling over the term "majority" when the 2002 numbers were 11 to 10 or some similar proportion, I would cede the point immediately. However, a ratio of something like 20:1 is significant, and I doubt that the numbers would change so much in five years that they would enter "quibbling" territory. My post's here may be a bit sporadic and terse in the near future, as I am going to be very very busy in the near future in my real life. --] 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

			If that's not being homophobic, then I don't know what it is. ] (]) 03:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
			:Homophobic is one of those terms we really need in direct quotes. But also the quote seems much broader than homophobia. A summary of that would probably be about "lobbying against corporations' efforts to improve racial and gender diversity". Ok, that's a bit too close of a paraphrase, but something to ''that'' effect. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
			{{re\|Rhododendrites}} About {{tq\|we can say they're involved to the extent the source says they are}}: the source is saying {{tq\|“We’re particularly sensitive about this corporate woke culture,” said Nelson, using a slang term associated with social justice activism. “We have a new coalition ... that is really, really active. ... We are certainly a part of that.”}} ] (]) 13:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
			:Regarding my quote, by that I mean the source justifies saying ALEC is part of the Back to Neutral coalition. The coalition is engaged in these activities. I just mean that it would be a little too much to apply the transitive property to attribute Back to Neutral's activities directly to ALEC (as opposed to Back to Neutral, which ALEC is part of). Does that make sense? — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

			:: was an egregious ] violation which wasn't even verified by the source. I have the content to actually reflect what the source says. ] (]) 15:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
	== Incoherent ==

			:::I'm not some kind of freak who cannot work collaboratively. The rub seems to be among "homophobic", "anti-LGBT", and {{tq\|the quote seems much broader than homophobia}}. So, yeah, "homophobic" isn't mentioned verbatim, it is implied something {{tq\|much broader than homophobia}}. Am I figuring it, or it got from bad to worse (for ALEC c.s.)? The BLP violation got removed so that the article sounds even ''meaner''. You would not believe me, but in my version the charge was milder and more limited. While Nelson is no longer mentioned by name, the charge against her is worse now. By removing her name, the charge was not removed, but it is {{tq\|much broader}}. The BLP violation was thus a purely formal concern. ] (]) 04:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
	What does this sentence mean?

			My ] concerns (and the ] and ] concerns raised by other editors ]) have been addressed by , although I question inclusion of the SPLC opinion per ]. For ALEC, “200 of its model bills become law each year”, so how many of these are LGBT-related bills, and which are on the pro- or anti- side? Participation in a coalition (which itself is not notable) and which has produced no notable model bills or even policy positions of ALEC seems irrelevant to the section titled “Notable policies and model bills”. ] (]) 03:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
	"This resulted in the issuing of a FOIA request by the Wisconsin Republican Party against Cronon; Paul Krugman and the American Historical Association defended Cronon's right to conduct public political research, and decried the apparent attempt at intimidation."

			:Wrong place in the article? Then move the text, don't delete it. It is relevant to know what their broad network of Mitläufer organizations is doing. About laws, I heard there is a Texas law that websites are not allowed to censor Texans. See {{youtube\|KAGdrVJSHgI\|SCOTUS Vacates Appeals Court Order on Texas Social Media Law}}. It is quite clear that if one is a neonazi from Texas, their posts should not be deleted. This is wholly in line with Nelson's aims. She fights against "woke corporations" who censor neonazis, anti-LGBT and racists, i.e. what she calls "this corporate woke culture". About such efforts against the woke Big Tech she stated "We are certainly a part of that." Of course, I don't have ] that ALEC has drafted the Texas social media law, but it certainly seems that their Mitläufer did. It certainly looks like a MAGA law. ] (]) 13:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
	"Issuing a FOIA request ... against Cronon"? Wouldn't an FOIA request be a request FOR something? For what? What information was being requested? Why? Why is it bad to request information? Why would Cronon want to conceal information?

			== Lead section ==
	Also - might be a little more readable by replacing the semicolon with a period.

			Tie to the Koch network should be made explicit in the lead section and not buried deep in the body of the text and falsely presented as unverified claims. There’s literally dozens of books on this subject. ] (]) 01:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
	The topic of this entry is interesting. The quality of the writing is totally discrediting the content. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:Thanks, good suggestion on the principle that the most important items can be gleaned by the reader in the first paragraph. Multiple books on the subject indicates the content is important. It would be helpful if you could list some of those books as a bread crumb path for Wikipedians who may have time to edit the lead. ] (]) 22:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
	:So why not go ahead and reword it? I've done so. ] (]) 15:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

	== Unbalanced Cronon entry ==

	Recent addition regarding Cronon is undue weight, and borders on a coatrack. Hillman Award is wholly off-topic.– ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

	:Don't see why the Hillman award thing is in the article at all, but Cronon is quite relevant, since he seems to have undergone retaliatory intimidation by ALEC allies. ] (]) 08:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
	::The connection between Cronon, ALEC, and the subsequent attempts to obtain Cronon's email are covered extensively by independent, reliable sources, making some mention of the incident clearly appropriate (although it makes sense to limit coverage so that it doesn't overwhelm the entire article). In addition to the sources currently in the article (e.g. the ''New York Times'' opinion piece by ]), sources include:
	::* {{cite news \| work = ] \| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/us/politics/26professor.html \| title = Wisconsin Professor’s E-Mails Are Target of G.O.P. Records Request \| date = March 26, 2011 \| first = A.G. \| last = Sulzberger}} (News)
	::* {{cite news \| work = ] \| title = Conservative group denies it masterminded drive to restrict public employee unions \| url = http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/04/conservative_group_denies_it_m.html \| date = April 3, 2011 \| first = Sabrina \| last = Eaton}} (News)
	::* {{cite news \| work = ] \| first = Anthony \| last = Grafton \| authorlink = Anthony Grafton \| date = March 28, 2011 \| url = http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/03/wisconsin-the-cronon-affair.html \| title = Wisconsin: The Cronon Affair}} (News)
	::* {{cite news \| work = ] \| title = Wisconsin Gets Weirder \| date = March 28, 2011 \| first = Doug \| last = Lederman \| url = http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/28/wisconsin_republicans_seek_e_mails_of_critic_of_governor_s_union_policies}}
	::* {{cite news \| work = ] \| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/opinion/28mon3.html \| title = A Shabby Crusade in Wisconsin \| date = March 25, 2011}} (Editorial)
	::* {{cite web \| work = ] \| first = James \| last = Fallows \| authorlink = James Fallows \| title = 'Have You No Sense of Decency?' The Wm. Cronon Story \| url = http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/have-you-no-sense-of-decency-the-wm-cronon-story/73010/ \| date = March 25, 2011}} (Opinion)
	::* {{cite news \| work= ] \| title = William Cronon vs. Wisconsin Republicans \| url = http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/03/28/william-cronon-vs-wisconsin-republicans/ \| first = Christopher \| last = Shea \| date = March 28, 2011}}
	::* {{cite web \| publisher = ] \| url = http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/03/25/wisconsins_most_dangerous_professor/ \| title = Wisconsin's most dangerous professor \| date = March 25, 2011 \| first = Andrew \| last = Leonard}}
	::* {{cite web \| url = http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/CCED586E-3430-4865-B578-01D8584127B4/0/BiddyMartin.pdf \| format = PDF \| publisher = ] \| first = Gregory \| last = Scholtz \| title = Letter to the Chancellor, University of Wisconsin \| date = March 28, 2011}}

	::Other general sources, not dealing specifically with Cronon but potentially useful for the article, include:
	::* {{cite news \| work = ] \| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/business/04labor.html?pagewanted=2 \| title = Strained States Turning to Laws to Curb Labor Unions \| date = January 3, 2011 \| first = Steven \| last = Greenhouse}}
	::* {{cite news \| work = ] \| url = http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/04/04/04climatewire-conservative-group-drafts-promotes-anti-epa-29249.html \| title = Conservative Group Drafts, Promotes Anti-EPA Bills in State Legislatures \| first = Amanda \| last = Peterka \| date = April 4, 2011}}
	::* {{cite news \| work = ] \| title = State Legislatures Pile Onto Anti-EPA Climate Rule Effort \| first = Christa \| last = Marshall \| date = April 1, 2011 \| url = http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/04/01/01climatewire-state-legislatures-pile-onto-anti-epa-climat-49876.html}}
	::* {{cite news \| work = ] \| first = David \| last = Kirkpatrick \| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/health/policy/29lobby.html \| title = Health Lobby Takes Fight to the States \| date = December 28, 2009}}
	::* {{cite news \| work = ] \| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/business/worldbusiness/28EXXO.html \| title = Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming \| date = May 28, 2003 \| first = Jennifer \| last = Lee}}
	::* {{cite news \| work = ] \| title = Health Vote Is Done, but Partisan Debate Rages On \| first = David \| last = Herszenhorn \| coauthors = Robert Pear \| date = March 22, 2010 \| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/policy/23health.html}}

	::The article, at present, is fairly poorly sourced and heavily reliant on primary sources directly affiliated with ALEC. In order to improve the article, I'd welcome and/or challenge its regular editors to update it by incorporating some or all of the above sources. (I've even formatted them for easy incorporation). If no one steps up, I'll probably return to work on it at some point. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

	OK, yes, Cronon did blog (and has interesting things to say about ALEC), but the FOI request was basically part of the crackdown on PUBLIC employees using STATE resources to do POLITICAL lobbying. The State Public Employees Unions were the primary parties to the fight, and use of Government facilities for politics or lobbying is illegal. The FOI did NOT go after his personal email or home computer. --] (]) 11:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	:Cronon did not do any "lobbying" in the sense of seeking to influence legislators, etc. -- he merely published the results of his research. And many academic employees of universities often use their university e-mail accounts for personal e-mails, and this is often formally allowed... ] (]) 11:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

	:Of course he did, and he sent volumes of emails to legislators and activists lobbying against the budget cuts. Employees of private universities can do what they want, depending on university policy; employees of PUBLIC Universities are PUBLIC employees, and are subject to laws concerning PUBLIC employees. I know that may seem odd from the perspective of academic freedom, but it is pretty much a universal difference. Perfectly happy with the article stating that he wrote an opinion piece on ALEC, that he was accused of using public property for political purposes, and the columns gained notoriety, since they may have (unlike the volumes of email properly investigated) fallen into a grey area of lobbying law.--] (]) 15:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

	'''To get back to the point.''' There is a problem with the way this is written. The Controversy between the Professor (and State Employee) and the State of Wisconsin (his employer) is the major one. ALEC is tangentially related, basically, because his launch of an anti-ALEC website unrelated to his academic research (not sure if it is hosted by the State or not - will try to check) provoked the heavy-handed response. Again, it is a bit tangential, and while it may be OK to leave it as a "Controversy", should be limited to how ALEC was involved. Cronon's anti-ALEC content isn't really part of the controversy AS CONTENT; if it is cited in some other place discussing policy in a NPOV way, fine. Otherwise it is definitely ]--] (]) 19:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

	:No, I think the controversy and its relevance to ALEC are quite clear via the sources listed above. ALEC worked behind the scenes to aid Wisconsin Republicans' efforts to destroy public-employee unions; Cronon blogged about ALEC's involvement; and then the Republicans whom ALEC had collaborated with demanded Cronon's emails, in what many viewed as retaliatory intimidation and an infringement of academic freedom. That's in the sources, and it's not "tangentially" related to ALEC - ALEC is at the center of it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

	The FOI request is the controversy. ALEC did not file the FOI request. ALEC's name came up as a resource for the bill, and the subject of the column. They still did not issue the FOI or have anything to do with it. That is called a tangetial involvement. I also find it a little hypocritical of editors to wail about application of Wisconsin's very sweeping open documents law when it clearly applies to someone you like(which is called transparency - to prevent Government secrecy, a bad thing) who is a public employee, but DEMAND open access to internal processes of a PRIVATE organization you don't like (which is NOT called transparency, but invasion of privacy)--] (]) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

	== resource ==

	by Mark Pocan, October 2011 issue in ]. ] (]) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

	== potential resource ==

	by John Nichols on December 9, 2011 - 8:44am ET, excerpt ... {{Quotation\|] brothers Charles and ] finally got their way in 2011. After their decades of funding the American Legislative Exchange Council, the collaboration between ] and ] state legislators, the project began finally to yield the intended result. For the first time in decades, the United States saw a steady dismantling of the ]s, ], programs and practices put in place to make real the promise of ] ]. That is why, on Saturday, ] groups and their allies will rally outside the New York headquarters of the ] to begin a march for the renewal of ] in America.}}
	See ], ] (]) 02:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

	== "Stand your ground" law ==

	Goethian's edit should be allowed to stand, indeed expanded, not . I just heard of this group for the first time on a CNN broadcast which credited them for the "Stand your ground" law as well as voter identification laws. It is obvious that we should be able to describe the legislation proposed by a group whose purpose is to propose legislation - indeed, I'd like to see a breakdown of all their efforts. ] (]) 21:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

	:This column by Krugman might be useful in expanding it.
	: By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: March 25, 2012
	:Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged).
	:--] (]) 06:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
	::Neither source says that ALEC had anything to do with the Martin incident. Thus it isn't relevant. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 09:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
	:::As usual, you are thrice-wrong. Wrong on the <s>facts</s> source, wrong on policy, and against consensus. ALEC absolutely did have something to do with Martin's (they drafted the law which gave his killer cover), and the source surely does link them, in the headline and in the article body. — ] ] 14:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
	::::Are you sure you wanna go there? The law is ''extremely'' popular in FL (except of course for bussed in lefties) and has resulted in a dramatic drop in crime. When the Martin thing dies down all that will be left in the article is how ''effective'' this law is.– ] <sup>(])</sup> 15:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Then ALEC and its supporters such as yourself should be very proud of this law and its effects as documented by the news media and summarized by my edit. Instead, you go against the <s>facts</s> source, against policy, and against talk page consensus. — ] ] 15:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

	:::::But continuing your off-topic political commentary, I'm sure that this incident will be wonderful for Florida's tourism industry. Nothing is more attractive than racist police departments mopping blood off the sidewalks and declining to prosecute murderers. — ] ] 15:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Breaking news: Zimmerman was attacked. He had a broken nose and a gash on the back of his head. The lone witness stated that Martin jumped on top of Zimmerman and that Martin was the aggressor. The voice on the phone call, screaming for help, ''<u>was Zimmerman's</u>'', not Martin's. Let me reiterate: the law in FL has resulted in a substantial drop in crime and is very popular. <p>That said, I think this falls under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: i.e. events are unfolding too quickly to write encyclopedic content. However, if you want to keep Martin in, per WP:DUE we must include '''sourced police statements''' that this incident is a proper application of the law, that this was a case of self-defense, that this was justifiable homicide, and that the law is working as intended. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::Ignoring your continued off-topic inanity for now, the cited source explains the (quite obvious) relevance of ALEC to the Martin case. — ] ] 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::The idea that Stand-Your-Ground laws have resulted in a drop in crime is at best, although even that is charitable. Crime rates were declining for the 5 years before Florida's law was implemented in 2005, and have continued to decline at the same rate since its implementation. The law had no discernible effect on the trajectory of the crime rate. Assigning credit to the law for a decline which started 5 years before its enactment is politically expedient, if not logical, I suppose. One could argue, with just as much validity, that Hurricane Katrina, the White Sox World Series sweep, or any other 2005 event led to a "substantial drop in crime".<p>And of course, sadly and presciently, in 2007 the National District Attorneys Association - hardly a bunch of soft-on-crime bleeding hearts - raised the concern that "Stand Your Ground" laws were likely to lead to deadly force being used in situations which otherwise would not have escalated, and that such laws would have "a disproportionately negative effect on minorities, persons from lower socioeconomic status, and young adults/juveniles." ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
	{{od}}Discussion at ] is leaning toward downplaying the Stand Your Ground/Zimmerman connection. Zimmerman's attorney is not going to use SYG as a defense. It appears the SYG controversy was a manufacture of the media. If we leave Zimmerman in we need to indicate that the connection is a contrivance of the media in Budapest, Romania. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

	Whether or not the media erred in connecting SYG with the Martin shooting is not the point, it is now rightly or wrongly the subject of greater public debate as a result. Hence, it is a matter of public interest now that ALEC played a role in the crafting of the legislation.] (]) 03:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
	:This section contains embedded violations of ] in regard Zimmerman. I don't see any way to redact it to remove the violations, so, if there is no objection, I'll hide this section. — ] ] 17:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
	:Also, ] is not a reliable source. As that provides the only evidence presented that the SYG law is related to ALEC, it must go until a reliable source can be presented. The ''fact'' that the SYG law has nothing to do with either Zimmerman's defense nor the failure to arrest, is not exactly relevant to inclusion, as the media seems to have jumped on it. — ] ] 17:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
	::There are plenty of sources linking "Stand Your Ground" laws to ALEC, besides Talking Points Memo. There's the ''New York Times'' (). Separately, the ''Times'' describes ALEC as .<p>The relevance is obvious; as the ''Times'' articles point out, the outcry over ALEC's advocacy of these laws in the context of the Martin shooting led to an exodus of member corporations from ALEC, and a resulting decision to narrow ALEC's focus.<p>And yes, the "Stand Your Ground" law has everything to do with Zimmerman's defense; see the Associated Press (via FoxNews): ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::I was in the process of re-commenting; I just removed ] entirely, as its connection is not significant. And, as a law student, I should point out that the ''if'' Zimmerman broke off pursuit, and was returning to his car, then there is no law, proposed or current, which would mean that he would not be entitled to shoot Martin if Zimmerman was being attacked "with deadly force" and could not, "with substantial certainty", retreat to a place of safety, and had no other alternative than to use deadly force. The "SYG" law only removes the duty to retreat, which would not have been physically possible. — ] ] 18:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::AP is wrong. Any self-defense statute, including that before the SYG law was passed, would have protected Zimmerman. It seems to be uninformed "legal" commentators who distinguish between Florida's self-defense statute, and that of other states, when the difference would make no difference. If Zimmerman were still in pursuit of Martin, it would have made a difference, but there is no claim being made that that was the case. I suspect bias by the news media.
	:::However, whether they are wrong or not, it's still reported, and the '''fact''' that the SYG has nothing to do with Zimmerman is irrelevant to whether it should be included in this article. — ] ] 18:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
	::::Your assertion that Talking Points Memo is unreliable is based on what? — ] ] 22:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::::It's a partisan website, albeit a relatively respectable one. I'm not going to say it's categorically verboten as a source, but we should definitely try to find better sources when possible. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

	If "Stand your Ground" is being cited as a "Controversy", then a definition of WHAT the controversy IS is needed. Obviously, the law was extensively and openly debated (no controversy), isn't new (no controversy), was passed by near unanimous (no controversy), BIPARTISAN (no controversy) majorities, and is OVERWHELMINGLY popular in Florida (no controversy). It has been on the books for 7 years. The fact that it has been in the news, and being re-examined by the national press is fine to include, but you also have to include what it is NOT, namely controversial in the usual sense. If you say there is a "Controversy", then you have to say what that controversy IS.--] (]) 15:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	:ALEC did not create Stand Your Ground legislation. It took the Florida bill as enacted as a model to share for other states. The article suggested the opposite. I have corrected that and inserted a ref from UC-Irvine. ] (]) 18:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
	::Also could have added Wash Post and WSJ refs, but why be redundant? One question; since when did Talking Points Memo become RS on anything?] (]) 18:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

	Hi Cap; absolutely correct, Florida introduced, debated, passed the immensely popular and bipartisan Stand Your Ground and THEN ALEC took up the issue to analyze legislative wording for other States and legislators. HOWEVER, while true, the press reported it (incorrectly) as the other way around after the Martin shooting. Perhaps the misreporting, THEN the correct chronology needs to be included. --] (]) 20:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

	== See also ==

	<small>( ''Late-edit clarification: The comments in this section evidently pertain to of a "see also" link to ] followed by thereof, both occurring on 18 April 2012.'' )</small><!-- Note added by User Ohiostandard at 00:19, 20 April 2012 UTC. -->

	] does not apply to See alsos. WP:OR governs content in the body, and lead; the See also is a section in the appendix. See ]. The applicable policy is ].
	*Entries do not have to be '''''readily apparent'''''. (If not readily apparent the entry should be annotated.)
	*The links do not have to be '''''directly related'''''
	*Links that are '''''peripherally relevant''''' are helpful
	The link in See also passes the relevant policy WP:SEEALSO. If there are no objections I'll restore it.– ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

	:Fantastic, then I'm sure that you will agree to my adding a "see also" link to ]. — ] ] 14:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

	::I vote against the link to ]. I doubt someone reading about ALEC would be interested in NWP. Seems like a case of "Oh yeah? Well you liberals do it too!" But, come to think of it, I would vote '''''for''''' links to both NWP & Corporatism. (Lionel, I hope you don't mind my wikilinking your comment.) ] (]) 15:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::Interesting. After reading ALEC one of the first questions which occurred to me was were there any other orgs with a similar mission. It was a pain to find one. The See also makes it easier for the next person. Is there a policy which prohibits adding an org to a See-also with an opposing ideology? If there is such a policy, there are a few thousand articles which need to be brought into compliaince with this policy. We'll start with removing American Civil Rights Union from ACLU, and work our way to Z. I don't see any connection between ALEC and corporatism, not even a "peripheral" one. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

	::::Lionel, I must also !vote to decline a "see also" link to the ] article. I appreciate editors who really dig into investigating a topic, and I'm wholly sympathetic to the desire for balance that I infer from your wish to include the link. But I must also respectfully observe that I think ] actually ''does'' apply in the particular instance under discussion here. Or to say the same thing slightly differently, my own "]" tells me that your association of ALEC with the ''National Women's Party'' article via a ''see also'' link is too great a "reach" by half, so great a reach, as I see it, that the attempt falls foul of the purpose of wp:nor if not necessarily of its explicit wording.  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 02:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

	== Additional public radio source ==

	Hi, all. I arrived at this page after I heard a 19 April 2012 program on public radio about ALEC, and then became curious to learn more. The program was very informative and also seemed reasonably well-balanced re POV: The producers asked ALEC for an offical representative to appear on the program, the organization declined, so the producers found someone willing to speak very persuasively in its favour, anyway. It's 50 minutes long.

	I may or may not stop back in to add content based on the program at some point, but this isn't really my bailiwick, and I'd be just as pleased if anyone else were to go ahead and do so. The well-formed citation below can be copypasted into the article by anyone who wants to add content based on it. I should note, however, that the URL and LAYSUMMARY fields will likely change almost immediately, when the target rolls off to the producer's archive pages. Search for the program when the link breaks for that reason.

	The KCRW description page for the program includes a brief text description that I linked to via the LAYSUMMARY field for the cite. It's not really a ''lay'' summary, as much as it is the ''only'' (written) summary, but the field seemed reasonable to use for that purpose, since theres no other text description. That description, says, in part: "<u>Florida and 24 other states have adopted 'Stand Your Ground' laws thanks to a shadowy organization of state legislators and lobbyists</u>. We hear the pros and cons of the group called ALEC." (emphasis added) That same page also currently displays an image ( unfortunately non-free, from Getty Images, although a fair-use rationale might be attempted by those who know about such things ) of a group or crowd holding up "We are Trayvon Martin" signs in a protest rally outside ALEC's headquarters. Accompanying image description here, in hidden text. <!-- Banner image: Protesters gather outside the American Legislative Exchange Council's headquarters to protest against the laws protecting the 'justifiable homicide' passed in more than half of the US states. Photo by Mladen Antonov/AFP/Getty Images -->

	The program could be usefully cited in this article's section about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws, which could use more sources. There was a fair bit of discussion in the program about how that law became so ubiquitous throughout the states. ALEC is said, in the program, to have been a motive force behind that proliferation.

	I'll also note that the story explicitly states that 104 (iirc) of the 105 (iirc) people who hold governance or leadership roles in the organization are Republicans, and that few of its members are Democrats. A comparison is also made to a different group, a ''publicly'' funded organization whose name I do not now recall, which also facilitates collaboration among state legislative members, but mostly on best practices for procedural/infrastructure matters. In ''that'' organization, the program said, leadership positions alternate between the two political parties every other year. The very strong implication, iirc, seemed to be that ''that'' organization was transparent and democratic - note small "d" - by comparison to ALEC.

	The program also addresses ALEC's efforts at changing voter registration laws, and includes a fair bit of discussion about how those efforts disproportionately exclude minorities from voting. Besides the host, Warren Olney, the show includes a member of ALEC (speaking unofficially), a woman who runs the "ALEC EXPOSED" website at alecexposed.com, and an African-American man who has successfully asked a number of corporations - seven, as I recall - that have both supported ALEC ''and'' made significant PR overtures to African-Americans, to ask those corporations to quit ALEC because of its efforts, as he sees it, to disenfranchise minority voters.

	Oh; the program also talks about ALECs and (iirc) ] push to privatise prisons in the United States, and the model legislation they jointly authored that would ensure that contracts with CCA prisons would have an "occupancy rate" no lower than 95%. I'd have to listen to the program again to be sure I have those details exactly right, however, although I am confident in the 95% minimum occupancy number, at least.

	'''In all, the program appears to offer a pretty rich resource for this article: An almost hour-long reliable-source discussion about the organization.''' My only cavil is that there doesn't seem to be a transcript of the program available, only the audio recording via streaming, podcast, or mp3 download. Here's some otherwise meaningless text to provide an end-of-post home for the cite.<ref>{{Cite episode
	\| title = The American Legislative Exchange Council: Who Is ALEC?
	\| url = http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp120419the_american_legisla
	\| accessdate = 19 April 2012
	\| series = ]
	\| credits = Host: ]
	\| network = ]
	\| station = ]
	\| city = Santa Monica, CA
	\| date = 19 April 2012
	\| minutes =
	\| time =
	\| transcript =
	\| transcripturl =
	\| quote =
	\|laysummary = http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp120419the_american_legisla
	}}</ref><!-- ATTENTION: Links for URL and LAYSUMMARY parameters in the preceding may break as early as 20 April 2012. Please go to the following link to the producer's archives and search for the program title to repair those fields. Archive is at http://www.kcrw.com/archive/index_html/archives_search?do_search=1&SearchableText=&program_id=tp&format=All+Formats&dates_radio=all&fmonth=MM&fday=DD&fyear=YYYY&tmonth=MM&tday=DD&tyear=YYYY&submit.x=40&submit.y=11 -->

	{{reflist\|local=yes}}

	== category ==

	{{tmbox
	\| small =
	\| type = delete
	\| text = The related ''']''' has been nominated for '''deletion, merging, or renaming]''' You are encouraged to join the ''']''' on the ] page. <!-- Generated by Template:Cfdnotice -->
	}} — ] ] 17:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

	== "Controversy" section - WP is NOT for "propaganda, advertising and showcasing" ==

	Most of what has been put in this section is not encyclopedic in nature, it is self-promotion, and use of Misplaced Pages as a noticeboard for advocacy campaigns.

	For instance, the fact that x____ did an article on ALEC is not notable in and of itself, and NOT a controversy. A controversy is incident or issue-based. The former is promotion.

	Protests. Not particularly notable. No or almost no reliable sources, no major coverage, no discussion of issues, and the one marginally reliable source, the Cincinnati alternative newspaper gave a VERY generous estimate of attendance, and had to note that most attendees were "overly suspicious and not that well-informed". This is coming from a sympathetic but independent source. There is a REASON no reliable news sources covered them. They are NOT notable. No doubt whatsoever they happened, and a preliminary google search yields at least 20-30 well-funded online campaigns to get people to go to these. By my count, that means for each social media or online advocacy campaign, there was a yield of 5 actual people. Not impressed. Prove me wrong or it should be blanked.

	Publication of internal docs. OK, agree; this is interesting. Definitely worthy of an entry, but ONE. Publishing that these were leaked, fine, that they are made easily (actually not so much) accessible and are a tool to find out what ALEC is doing (again, not so much, but letting slide), fine. Publishing the docs, lists, and that there was a special edition of commentary, also fine. Publishing them and RE-PUBLISHING and then RE-POSTING every section, opinion piece, sub-list, without any attempt at NPOV balance; totally out of line.

	Boycott campaign. Fine to include, but NPOV requires disclosure of WHO Color of Change is, what both sides of the issues they are complaining about are, and both support AND criticism of the boycott. That is the essence of what NPOV is. Making the entry a poster board for every micro-announcement from involved parties on the "progress" or their pet project is the very definition of what Misplaced Pages IS NOT.
	Color of Change (pro/con), issues raised (pro/con), boycott campaign (pro/con) and result (pro/con IN SUMMARY, NOT DETAIL). THAT is the structure for an NPOV WP controversy entry. --] (]) 19:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

	* I came here from . I don't see a conflict of interest. However, the article has several problems. For example:<br>- '''Controversies section''' - Severing controversies of the ALEC from ALEC's timeline history creates a NPOV imbalances that does not reflect a representative survey of the relevant literature about ALEC. Also, as 209.6.69.227 points out above, the article is about ALEC, and information in the article needs to be about ALEC. The information about others can be put in articles about those others. For example, "National Public Radio, NPR, has aired several programs about ALEC and its influence in the drafting of legislation, most dealing with allegations of lack of transparency" would belong in the NPR article (if it belonged anywhere at all) or in an article about what radio stations air. The info published <u>about</u> ALEC by NPR might belong in this article, but NPR's own actions do not. I suggest taking all the info in the controversies section and moving it into the history section in a chronological order. Then, take a look at what you have and remove the things that are not relevant to ALEC or that do not reflect a representative survey of the relevant literature about ALEC.<br>- '''Publications section''' - The information in the publications section is not publications but instead describes actions/events of ALEC. Such information belongs in the history section in chronological order. If you want to list publications by ALEC, add that information by using ].<br>- '''Organization section''' - The organization section is not about how ALEC is organized. It's a list names. Who cares. If the people are important to ALEC, their name will be in the history section along with what they did regarding ALEC. Those organization tables in the article come directly from ALEC rather than from coverage in reliable sources that are independent ALEC. If a reliable source independent of ALEC didn't care to publish that information, why should Misplaced Pages publish that info in the article text? The minutia in those organization tables do not reflect a representative survey of the relevant literature about ALEC. The article has a template infobox organization at the top that has parameters to add names of people running ALEC. I suggest deleting all the tables in the organization section and revising the history section and the template infobox organization accordingly.<br>- '''History section''' - The present history section also merely list names. Again, who cares. ALEC's history section needs to be revised to be a continuous, systematic chronological narrative of past important, unusual, and interesting events that relate to ALEC.<br>- '''The lead''' - The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. see ]. Instead, the ALEC lead appears to be the body of the article rather than summarize the body of the article. The information in the lead also needs to be written in the body of the article so that the lead may repeat information that is in the body. -- ] (]) 11:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

	Almost all of the Controversy section as written deserves to be blanked, not because there is not content that may need citing, but because none of the entries are written to describe actual controversies (except the inclusion of the ALEC mission statement, which was more of an "oops"). Wrestling with how to properly organize the article, but avoid WP:OR , since so many of the secondary sources are partisan and therefore unreliable. Thinking a better way is to take the leaked docs (which, unfortunately, are the best source for what the original ALEC model languages were) and match them to actual legislation; that might give a better picture of relevance, ie WHAT ALEC has done. If there IS an "ISSUES" section, then could take, not the prior entries, but the content of the NPR shows or actual issues raised as a pro/con entry.--] (]) 16:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

	'''Recent indiscriminate repetition''' of the Lobbying allegations. No doubt that Common Cause has filed an action/request for investigation, but there have been several of these, all rejected, all partisan attacks. That several legitimate (and every non-RS source) news orgs. have reported on the Common Cause allegations do not make them confirmed, and do not make the allegations true or WP:RS. Notable, for now, probably allowable, but is already in the Controversy section. If there are any actual facts that would enhance that, or if people want to add the previous claims, perfectly happy to edit, but just adding the same information to every section verges on spam. --] (]) 19:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

	::Sorry, but the repetition of the "allegations" is by a host of reliable sources leading with ''Businessweek''. The only rejection of the accusation of lobbying is by ALEC itself, a primary source that does not erase the reliable secondary sources. ] (]) 19:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::WP:RS reporting that '''Common Cause''' is making allegations is not the same as making them true. The Source is still ultimately CC.--] (]) 20:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

	== WP is NOT for censorship: 800 model bills ==

	Our ubiquitous IP 209.x friend wants a "single entry", as he puts it, to document the publication of over 800 leaked pieces of model legislation produced by ALEC over a thirty-year period. To allow that would not be far from ], in my opinion. Our readers absolutely have the right to know what was in those model bills, and our own rules certainly permit that, when cited to reliable sources, as is the case with the content he deleted.

	His specific objection is to the use of ten bullet points to call out content that was previously in the article, unbulleted, to describe the topic areas covered by those 800+ model bills. But that's '''just one bullet point for every 80+ model bills'''. No one can tell me with a straight face that they think that's excessive; it would be ridiculous.

	If IP 209.x still objects to the disclosure of the nature of those model bills, then I'd observe that its actually the refs he's objecting to, not the content. I say so, because there's no legitimate basis for an objection to the content itself. ALEC is ''about'' creating model bills; we certainly need to tell our readers what they comprise. If he has counterbalancing refs from reliable sources that specifically state that ALECs model bills in those areas are wholly in the public (rather than private) interest, he's free to add them to whichever bullet point they specifically apply to.  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 17:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

	:Actually, because the material is "leaked", and hence its provenance is uncertain, ''we'' cannnot quote it. We can only quote what reliable sources say about it. I suspect 10 is about all we can get. — ] ] 17:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

	::No one is talking about quoting from the primary sources, although I'll say, in passing, that I doubt RSN would agree with your assessment. But this is the section in question, before IP 209.x deleted the bulleted content:

	<div style="background-color: #EEFFE6; border: 0px solid LightSlateGray; padding: 5px;">

	<BIG>'''Publication of over 800 leaked model bills'''</BIG>

	On July 13, 2011, the ]<ref name="Graves">{{cite news \|last=Graves \|first=Lisa \|date=July 13, 2011 \|url=http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/07/10883/about-alec-exposed/\|title=About ALEC Exposed}}</ref> in cooperation with '']'' published more than 800 pieces of ALEC's model legislation created over a 30-year period, brought to them from a source inside ALEC, by Aliya Rahmanan, one of the organizers of the 2011 Cincinnati protest against group.<ref>{{cite interview \|last=Graves \|first=Lisa \|interviewer=] \|title=ALEC Exposed: State Legislative Bills Drafted by Secretive Corporate-Lawmaker Coalition \|callsign = \|city=] \|date=2011/7/15 \|program=] \|accessdate=23 April 2012 \|url=http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/15/alec_exposed_state_legislative_bills_drafted}}</ref><ref name="RochesterCitizen 6August2011"/><ref name="Nichols">{{cite news\|last=Nichols \|first=John \|date=July 13, 2011 \|url=http://www.thenation.com/article/161978/alec-exposed/\|title=ALEC Exposed}}</ref> The Center for Media and Democracy created a new web project named ''ALEC Exposed''<ref>The Center for Media and Democracy. . Project website. Accessed September 23, 2011.</ref> to host these model bills, which had never before been available to the public. It also created dozens of tools to enable citizens to track ALEC politicians,<ref>SourceWatch. . SourceWatch page. Accessed September 23, 2011.</ref> ALEC corporations,<ref>SourceWatch. . SourceWatch page. Accessed September 23, 2011.</ref> and ALEC bills moving in their states.<ref>The Center for Media and Democracy. . Project website. Accessed September 23, 2011.</ref>

	Simultaneously, ''The Nation'' issued a special edition<ref>The Nation Magazine. . Magazine website. Accessed September 23, 2011.</ref> of its magazine devoted to breaking the story. It featured articles on ALEC's model bills and analysis of the group's:

	* Attempts to influence election legislation toward enacting more restrictive voter ID laws and allowing unlimited corporate contributions;<ref>The Nation Magazine. . Magazine website. Accessed September 23, 2011.</ref>

	* Efforts to restrict states' revenue collection via taxes and fees,<ref name= "TheNation:BusinessDominationInc August2011">Rogers, Joel; Dresser, Laura. . Magazine website. Published in the August 1-8 2011 edition of the print magazine. Accessed 29 April 2012.</ref>

	* Attempts to encourage privatization of public services,<ref name= "TheNation:BusinessDominationInc August2011"/>

	* Efforts to and oppose unionization and the influence of unions;<ref name= "TheNation:BusinessDominationInc August2011"/>

	* Efforts to influence healthcare legislation in a direction favored by corporate and insurance company interests,<ref>The Nation Magazine. . Magazine website. Accessed September 23, 2011.</ref>

	* Attempts to promote various forms of privatization for public schools.<ref>The Nation Magazine.. Magazine website. Accessed September 23, 2011.</ref>

	* Connection to the ]<ref>The Nation Magazine. . Magazine website. Accessed September 23, 2011.</ref>

	* Efforts in favor of the privatization of prisons, longer prison sentences, more punitive sentencing guidelines,<ref name= "TheNation:PrisonLabor August2011">Elk, Mike; Sloan, Bob. . Magazine website. Published in the 1 August 2011 edition of the print magazine. Accessed 29 April 2012.</ref>

	* Efforts toward the relaxation of the rules concerning the use of inmate labor by private industry.<ref name= "TheNation:PrisonLabor August2011"/>

	One of the journalists writing in ''The Nation'', ], subsequently appeared on '']'' to discuss efforts by ALEC and the private prison industry to bring about these changes.<ref>{{cite interview \|last=Elk \|first=Mike \|interviewer= \|title= \|callsign = \|city=] \|date=5 August 2011\|program=] \|accessdate=23 April 2012 \|url=https://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/5/new_expos_tracks_alec_private_prison}}</ref>

	On July 14, 2011, the ''Los Angeles Times'' announced that government watchdog ] would issue a challenge to ALEC's nonprofit status, on the grounds that ALEC "spends most of its resources lobbying, in violation of the rules governing nonprofit organizations."<ref>{{cite news\|last= Hamburger \|first=Tom \|first2= Neela \|last2= Banerjee \|date=14 July 2011 \|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa-states-20110714,0,5030269.story\|title=State legislative bills raise conservative group's profile\|newspaper=Los Angeles Times}}</ref>

	{{Collapse top\|1=<small>'''References for the preceding.'''</small>}}

	;References
	{{reflist\|local=yes}}

	{{Collapse bottom}}

	</div>

	As I said, ALEC is ''about'' model bills: Our readers have the right expect that an article about ALEC will present information about those bills.  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

	::I always find it amusing that some people communicate so aggressively behind the relative anonymity of the web when they wouldn't do so in real life. My excitable IP friend's comments below have conflated the issue of the protests with the release of the 800+ documents, for reasons best known to himself. He might like to observe that I posted about the two matters in two separate sections. If anyone else would like to comment specifically about my view that <u>one bullet point for every 80+ documents is hardly excessive</u>, I'd be pleased to hear that.  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 06:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

	===The argument that because there are 800 documents within a leak there must be 800 WP entries is nonsensical ===
	::Dear Ohio. WP is NOT a noticeboard or a column ("Our readers"? there is a problem if you regard WP as a place for YOUR readers), but an encyclopedia. You have made no logical argument for inclusion of the table of contents of a magazine issue. The average legal filing has a boxful (lets say a thousand) documents in it. If the filing is notable, it is notable on merits, not volume of paper. The leak is the leak, a singular event (and am already giving wide latitude; it isn't TECHNICALLY a controversy, either), most notable in that it provides a RESOURCE hitherto unavailable. Good. A Singular event, a single magazine issue, notable, but not to be reproduced on WP, but summarized. If you now want to USE this resource to expand the History of ALEC, fine. --] (]) 15:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

	:::Our IP 209.x friend has prefaced his preceding remarks with a new heading in apparent retaliation for the section heading I chose in my original talk page post on this topic, after . Just for the record, I'm going to record the heading he placed here, immediately above his preceding comment of 15:32, 4 May 2012 UTC, since he likes to change headings, both his own and others', after they've been created. It's this: ''"The argument that because there are 800 documents within a leak there must be 800 WP entries is nonsensical".''

	:::I'm tempted not to reply to this particular instance of hyperbole on his part, but I will just say that what is ''actually'' "nonsensical" is his attempt to exclude all mention of the content of the model bills generated by ALEC, when generating model bills is, in fact, it's reason for existence and its principal activity. I haven't the least doubt that editors with no POV stake in this article will agree with me on that point.  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 19:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

	===Ummm.... You do know what EDITING is===
	There were about 100 "mostly uninformed" protesters; does that mean it is ridiculous not to have at least 10 bullet points in the soon-to-be-deleted (unless SOMEONE can make a case for NOTABILITY; I'm being really patient), which is only 1 per 10 people?? There is a single '''CONTROVERSY''', so a single topic. You have just said in the rambling previous paragraphs that EVERY document that is leaked is a NEW CONTROVERSY. As suggested above, if the article needs examples of where ALEC model legislation has aided the real legislative process, that's appropriate. It just isn't a CONTROVERSY. Eliminating the irrelevant, sorting into proper categories, making the article read well and appropriately are all called EDITING. --] (]) 01:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

	== Protests ==

	In response to IP 209.x's , he should be aware, that the ''subjects'' of articles have to be notable, the ''contents'' about those subjects do not. Thus his objection above that the protests themselves might not be notable in themselves isn't relevant. I'd need to listen to it again, but if anyone has the time, my recollection was that the 19 April 2012 NPR program I documented in the "Additional public radio source" section, above, also spoke of protests, including (iirc?) one in Washington, D.C. Further, his calculations about the efficiency or lack thereof of online campaigns is interesting original research, but we all know that it can't be admitted, even if accurate.  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 17:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

	Well. That was rambling and nonsensical. Not notable because the protests were minor and had little effect, Not notable because they garnered scant coverage (note; I'm the only one who found an even marginally RS). Now, lack of coverage can mean any number of things, so yes, determining WHY required a little research, and yes, as stated, that ends up, due to non-notability due to irrelevance, requiring a little WP:OR, not to include in the article, but to confirm NON-NOTABLE , hard to do. Non notability confirmed, and shared on the Talk page where it belongs, not on article page. Improving the article by editing.--] (]) 01:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

	:I see IP 209.x with the misleading edit summary, "WP:NOTABLE , WP:UNDUE , WP:RS marginal and WP:SELFSOURCE discusssion on Talk page for weeks, still no arguments yet that this meets any of the criteria". He should actually read the policy pages he links to, e.g. ] on ]. I've reverted this most recent deletion.  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 12:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

	::] is a ''possible'' reason for deletion, but I think it's OK. I've seen bigger protests on ''minor'' local issues, though. And one would need to check the references to see if (1) they are "columns", rather than "articles", and (2) whether the author was participating in the protests. If both occur, then the reference is not reliable for ''anything'' other than the author's opinion. If either, it's questionable whether it might be reliable. — ] ] 15:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

	=="Lobbying"==

	11 May 2012 I added what I thought was a very temperate, uncontroversial, obvious, (if not particularly flattering to ALEC) sentence to the lede

	<div style="background-color: #EEFFE6; border: 0px solid LightSlateGray; padding: 5px;">

	<blockquote>Recently a dispute has arisen as to whether ALEC is a charitable educational organization as it insists, or what one newspaper article called a "stealth business lobbyist"<ref name=stealth>{{cite web \|first=Mike \|last=McIntire \|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/alec-a-tax-exempt-group-mixes-legislators-and-lobbyists.html?pagewanted=all \|title=Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist \|work=] \|date=April 21, 2012 \|accessdate=May 15, 2012}}</ref><ref name=Bloomberg>, ''Bloomberg Businessweek'', May 7-13, 2012</ref> <s>and</s> as advocacy groups have maintained<ref></ref><ref> ataxingmatter April 24, 2012 </ref>.</blockquote>

	''References''
	{{Reflist\|local=yes}} <!--- Please note that this "local" declaration should be used, along with the creation of a "references" area in your talk page section, to (1) display any refs included in the text you've added and, as importantly, (2) to prevent your refs from "bleeding" or "crossing over" into any local references list that may exist in other sections of the talk page. -- Ohiostandard --->

	</div>

	and it has since been deleted and by some beltway person with an IP address of 209.6.69.227

	The complaint against having this information in the lede according to IP 209.x appears to be that ''"Common Cause is the source of the allegation, NOT WP:RS. News reporting ON the Common Cause allegation does not mean it is confirmed by RS, Allegation already in Article,"''

	This is simply not true. There are some quotes from articles on the issue:

	*''New York Times''. Article title: "Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist." From text: "....The records offer a glimpse of how special interests effectively turn ALEC’s lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists, providing them with talking points, signaling how they should vote and collaborating on bills affecting hundreds of issues like school vouchers and tobacco taxes....." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/alec-a-tax-exempt-group-mixes-legislators-and-lobbyists.html

	*''Businessweek Bloomberg''. Article title: "ALEC's Secrets Revealed; Corporations Flee." From text: ".... ALEC has attracted a wide and wealthy range of supporters in part because it’s done its work behind closed doors. Membership lists were secret. The origins of the model bills were secret. Part of ALEC’s mission is to present industry-backed legislation as grass-roots work. If this were to become clear to everyone, there’d be no reason for corporations to use it. ..." http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-03/alecs-secrets-revealed-corporations-flee

	This is not Common Cause or People for the American Way, these are major media publications and they are NOT just reporting Common Causes allegations. --] (]) 22:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

	'''New York Times article on the Common Cause allegations'''
	<blockquote>"The documents — hundreds of pages of minutes of private meetings, member e-mail alerts and correspondence — were obtained by the watchdog group Common Cause and shared with The New York Times. Common Cause, which said it got some of the documents from a whistle-blower and others from public record requests in state legislatures, is using the files to support an Internal Revenue Service complaint asserting that ALEC has abused its tax-exempt status, something ALEC denies."</blockquote>
	That is basically what the article is about, namely, Common Cause's recent allegations. Already in the Controversy section, not a separate issue.

	'''Bloomberg article; mentions the Common Cause allegations, '''does not even focus on Lobbying. Here are ALL the references to Lobbying in the entire article
	<blockquote>"But no 'lobbying' will take place. "
	"ALEC is registered with the IRS as a nonprofit that provides a public service, not as a lobbyist that seeks to influence."
	"Common Cause sent a tax whistleblower complaint to the IRS, claiming ALEC is a lobbying group"
	"and therefore is not a lobbying group."
	"ALEC does not lobby"
	</blockquote>
	That's IT. The idea that you can take away from the Bloomberg piece that Bloomberg is alleging ALEC is Lobbying, or that the New York Times, which is solely reporting on the Common Cause allegation is "proving" or even making allegations in their own voice casts doubt on whether you read or care what you read in the articles. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:''The New York Times'' called ALEC a "stealth business lobbyist". Bloomberg's article is titled . Recently, ''Mother Jones'' called ALEC that "has quietly, and by name, been specifically exempted from rules for lobbyists" in three states, meaning that they ''are'' lobbying but for free. In 2002, Karen Olsson wrote in the widely cited article in ''Mother Jones'', "Ghostwriting the Law", that ALEC is Olsson is widely quoted for this sentence, "ALEC might better be described as one of the nation's most powerful—and least known—corporate lobbies". In 1996, ''Mother Jones'' said ALEC was The Daily Kos showed that The Hill casually put ALEC in the . Huffington Post wrote Right Wing Watch / People for the American Way described ALEC thus: In 1995, the state of Minnesota that ALEC was a lobbying group. Author Deanna Gelak . The ''Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues'' says that "for-profit prison corporations lobbying and writing laws via the Criminal Justice Task Force committee of the American Legislative Exchange Council" on . ALEC is called in ''Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration''. In ''21st Century Revolution'', Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall calls ALEC a . Douglas Long in ''Ecoterrorism'' calls ALEC Byron Eugene Price says ALEC is the reason critics fear a pushing laws to put more people in prison and to privatize prisons. Let's hear from Tamara Piety, the Associate Dean of Faculty Development and Professor of Law at the University of Tulsa: . ] called ALEC a . I am certain we are on solid ground calling ALEC a lobbyist group despite ALEC's denial of same. ] (]) 16:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::The policy-based answer is obvious: we state facts, including facts about opinions. For example: "ALEC has been described as a lobbying organization by independent sources such as the ''New York Times'' etc etc, although ALEC itself denies that it engages in lobbying." Simple, right? We attribute the (well-sourced) viewpoints that ALEC is, and is not, a lobbying organization. Neither is presented as "fact"; both are presented as attributed opinion. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::But what about the category lobbyist? That has to be in black & white. I am arguing for the category. ] (]) 17:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::My default stance on categories is that if there is any nuance or dispute involved, it's better ''not'' to use the category. In the article body, we can explain that ALEC denies lobbying but independent sources view them as lobbyists. But a category is, as you say, black and white. When we use it, we can't cross-reference ALEC's denial (however implausible). So I would actually recommend ''not'' including the "lobbying" category, but I think the issue should be clearly outlined in the article body, where we can present nuance, attribution, citations, etc. Just my 2 cents. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

	::::::Glad to see we have a quorum here. I agree we'd be on eminently solid ground to describe them as a lobbying group, in WP's voice, Binksternet: Thanks for the great refs, btw. Still, Misplaced Pages, like politics, is "the art of the possible", and I see no objection to MastCell's "RS say it ''is'', ALEC says it's ''not''" formula, either. That's certainly more likely to remain stable in the article over the long term, as there would be no defensible or plausible reason for deleting or minimising it. I do have to agree with MastCell about the category, though. It's likewise my opinion that the consensus for inclusion of any given article in a category should be nearly universal, or it shouldn't be added. In any case, I think we're agreed that BoogaLouie's addition to the lead belongs there, as a summary of the "lobbying" section, which should be expanded per MastCell's formula, using Binksternet's sources.

	::::::Does it trouble anyone else, btw, that although ALEC's primary work is in producing model bills, our article says almost nothing substantive as to what those model bills have been about? That's been expunged almost entirely, with a mild assist from one named account, by our ubiquitous IP friend, who claims it's "propaganda" to describe them or the topics they cover, based on RS reports. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 21:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

	:::::::I had intended to do something about the astounding lack of discussion of model bills that have been notable, but instead I got caught up in adding some details regarding the early history of the group. I'm not promising to add paragraphs of model bills that have excited comment in the national press, but I think such paragraphs should be prominent in the article. ] (]) 22:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::Bravo.
	::::::::Mastcell or Ohiostandard or Binksternet: any comment on the sentence in contention at the beginning of the section? --] (]) 00:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

	::::::::: Oh, we're certainly agreed that your addition to the lead belongs there, as a summary of the "lobbying" section, which should be expanded per MastCell's formula, using Binksternet's sources. I actually think your proposed addition to the lead should be expanded, that we should considerably expand what RS say about ALEC's purpose, in the lead, using e.g. the NYT statement you quoted, viz. ''only one facet of a sophisticated operation for shaping public policy''. Such an expansion is certainly needed as a counter to the "we like kittens, puppies, and walks on the beach" and ""government closest to the people" pap by which ALEC attempts to deceive the public, and that's currently quoted in the lead. I'll break out my question re what Binkersternet rightly describes as "the astounding lack of discussion of model bills" to subsequent thread, btw, to avoid derailing or hijacking this one with that topic. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 06:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

	===Reply to allegations of IP 209.x===

	Regarding the statement above by IP 209.x: <BR>

	<div style="background-color: WhiteSmoke; border: 0px solid LightSlateGray; padding: 5px;">
	'''New York Times article on the Common Cause allegations'''
	<blockquote>"The documents — hundreds of pages of minutes of private meetings, member e-mail alerts and correspondence — were obtained by the watchdog group Common Cause and shared with The New York Times. Common Cause, which said it got some of the documents from a whistle-blower and others from public record requests in state legislatures, is using the files to support an Internal Revenue Service complaint asserting that ALEC has abused its tax-exempt status, something ALEC denies."</blockquote>
	:That is basically what the article is about, namely, Common Cause's recent allegations. Already in the Controversy section, not a separate issue.
	</div>

	This is ''HIGHLY'' misleading. It is not until the ''7th paragraph'' of the NY Times article that Common Cause is mentioned. Before that, the article talks about ALEC's trying to stop an Ohio bill that that would make it easier to recover money from businesses that defraud the state, and then <u>the NYT article refers to Common Causes documents thusly</u>:

	:''... But a review of internal ALEC documents shows that this is only one facet of a sophisticated operation for shaping public policy at a state-by-state level. The records offer a glimpse of how special interests effectively turn ALEC’s lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists, providing them with talking points, signaling how they should vote and collaborating on bills affecting hundreds of issues like school vouchers and tobacco taxes.''

	Note the article does ''NOT'' say "Common Cause contends that" special interests effectively turn ALEC’s lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists etc., the AUTHORS say this!

	As for what IP 209.x has to say about the Bloomberg BusinessWeek article:

	:''Bloomberg article; mentions the Common Cause allegations, does not even focus on Lobbying. Here are ALL the references to Lobbying in the entire article ''<BR>
	:''"But no 'lobbying' will take place."''

	Let's look at the <u>full paragraph of the Bloomberg BusinessWeek article</u> in which the sentence ''"But no 'lobbying' will take place."'' actually appears: <BR>
	:''On May 11, 2012, about 20 state legislators from 15 oil- and gas-rich states are scheduled to meet in a hotel conference room in Charlotte. Representatives from major energy companies will be there, too. Oil and gas lobbying groups will give presentations to the lawmakers on fossil fuel prices and the need for modernizing the nation’s power grid. But no “lobbying” will take place. What happens in Charlotte will be called education.''

	This is not about Lobbying??? I put it to you the the claim that IP 209.x made, in saying:<BR>
	:''The idea that you can take away from the Bloomberg piece that Bloomberg is alleging ALEC is Lobbying, or that the New York Times, which is solely reporting on the Common Cause allegation is "proving" or even making allegations in their own voice casts doubt on whether you read or care what you read in the articles.''
	... is a ''gamble'' that readers won't bother to check the articles themselves and see that he is ... there is no basis to his claims. --] (]) 00:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
	::Hmmm. Neither the NYT article or the Bloomberg "article" actually says that ALEC is lobbying as defined in law; as both articles point out, one person's "education" is another person's "lobbying". (Going off to some original research; there is '''no''' difference between informing legislators of the consequences of bills and lobbying for or against those bills. None whatsoever. This makes ] too vague to include any organization which does not state it is lobbying, but that's the way it is.) — ] ] 07:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::You and comrade IP 209.x are grasping at straws. The articles do not say "ALEC is lobbying as defined in law", they describe how ALEC lobbies while avoiding (or trying to avoid) being called lobbyists. --] (]) 15:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

	The article have a plain meaning, and how you come to your varying interpretations escapes me. The assertion that the article states "special interests effectively turn ALEC’s lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists" makes no sense. Lawmakers are lobbying '''THEMSELVES?!?!?'''. The recent allegations of lobbying by Common Cause have been put into the Controversy section, even though it is arguable whether that is undue emphasis. It is a charge that has been made several times, making it a bit of a yawn. Not too hard to find about a dozen time some partisan group has leveled a charge of lobbying that made it into some media article. As with most mud, it takes a bit of searching primary sources to find what happened to all previous claims that actually required the group making the charge to back it up. Made and thrown out as frivolous several times. If you want to list previous allegations, be my guest, but posting and reposting and conflating this all over Misplaced Pages, without adding any actual detail is NOT improving any article.--] (]) 14:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Please give it a rest. You are wasting everyone's time trying to mislead editors and the public. The special interests give ALEC’s lawmaker members talking points, model legislation, etc. and they in turn lobby their fellow laymakers. It does not matter whether some intern at a rightwing interest group thinks it "makes sense". The New York Times and Businessweek are ]. You most definately are not. --] (]) 18:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
	::Sorry, you're absolutely wrong. Legislators cannot "lobby" other legislators (in the same house, anyway). It's logically impossible.
	::The anon is correct; what ALEC is doing is educating ''their member'' legislators, who in turn argue with other legislators. Both the NYT and Bloomberg say that what ALEC is doing is '''not''' lobbying, but is functionally equivalent. ] says that ALEC is lobbying, but we don't know what it is basing its assertion on. If ''you'' want to redefine lobbying as including actions which serve the same purpose (which ''includes'' education, what ] is doing, and asking members of your organization to write to legislators), go ahead. Just don't put it in the "mouth" of Misplaced Pages or of reliable sources. — ] ] 19:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::The "anon"? You make it sound like you just stumbled across him (IP 209.x) and find him compelling. You have been arguing on the same side as IP 209.x for a couple of weeks now. Assuming you are two different people I'll repeat what I said. A ] has stated,
	:::''"The records offer a glimpse of how special interests effectively turn ALEC’s lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists"''
	:::You, Arthur Rubin may declare that when a lawmaker lobbys another lawmaker it's not lobbying, its education, but sorry, Arthur Rubin is not a ]. --] (]) 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

	:::Sorry, Arthur, but it's you who are "absolutely wrong". Lobbyists are ''called'' "lobbyists" because they used to have to hang out in lobbies hoping to chat up a lawmaker as he passed through on the way to a committee meeting or something. Now that the lobbyists and lawmakers have a sekrit club together, and go to hotels for the week-end, perhaps we should more properly call them "bedfellows", but "lobbyists" is the only word in current use. An argument that what goes on at those hotels isn't lobbying, merely because the lobbyists now have the lawmakers coming to them, instead, often at their expense, is just not plausible.

	:::And yes, as BoogaLouie observes, the ''New York Times'' trumps your opinion on this, as do the multiplicity of RS that describe ALEC as lobbying. If you don't like it, write a letter to their editors. Until you get a retraction from the lot of them, we write our articles based on what RS have to say. I'll not be discussing this point further; I think we're approaching RFC/U territory for our IP friend, at least. His goal seems to be to expunge all negative information from this article, regardless of how well sourced. That attempt violates multiple policies, of course, and will not be allowed to continue indefinitely. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

	Sorry, Boog and OS; you do not seem to have a grasp on what '''Lobbying''' means. You are making up definitions, and they do not fit what it is. --] (]) 02:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

	:We go by reliable sources, not shooting from the hip. If reliable sources say the group is lobbying then we tell the reader which sources say so. If the source says lobbying without reservation, without attribution, then we add them to the pile on. ] (]) 03:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

	::Yes, we do. The NYT specifically said is was not lobbying. Bloomberg only said it was not lobbying in a sarcastic way, but they don't really say it is lobbying. Got any other sources? — ] ] 09:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

	:::Arthur needs to tell us where, exactly, the ''New York Times'' "specifically said is <nowiki></nowiki> was not lobbying", referring to ALEC. If he's referring to their article '''', I'd be especially interested to see a supporting quotation, as I just re-read that, and I found no such assertion made by the paper. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 15:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::Well, I read the NYT article as Rubin does, but regardless this accusation from an opposition group should be in the body of the article not the lede. ] (]) 03:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

	:::::Editors need to drop the refrain that this is an "accusation from an opposition group", that's well into "I didn't hear that" territory, given what's been posted above on this talk page. And like Arthur, our Capital friend needs to explain exactly where in the ''New York Times'' says ALEC isn't a lobbying group. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 03:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

	Major difference between ACCUSATIONS, which are always of dubious notability (anyone can make accusations about just about anything), and actual decisions, which, as you obliquely refer to, have taken place. Your Google search dump above proves that MANY liberal activist groups have made accusations, going back to the 1980s, and yet ALEC retains its 501(c)3 because they have all turned out to be frivolous. Any substantive decision, no 501, but as we see, they ARE a 501. A decision is a fact, an accusation is not. A decision may be notable, but since they all just confirm what ALEC was in the first place, only notable in the sense that it has been subject to frivolous attacks for some time. Allegations, though, are NOT usually notable. None of the proponents of adding the Common Cause allegations have been able to say what they are or why they are different from the previous dozen that have been thrown out. Until they do, I don't see why they are in the article at all, but am being patient. --] (]) 04:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Plenty of our sources casually say that ALEC is a lobbying group, without any trace of accusation. Nice try, though. ] (]) 04:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
	::Nice try yourself. These articles are reporting on the accusations, and to some extent merely thinly re-written versions of Common Cause' accusations. These are controversial accusations that either will be upheld or dismissed in court. Either way it belongs in the body of the article, not the lede.] (]) 15:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::Several other points; the NYT article's headline is not dispositive. The article is a lot less sexy and careful about accusations of lobbying. This is not a surprise because headlines are not written by the authors of the stories and are often disconnected from the articles' content. Additionally I see only two RS anywhere on point. Bloomberg and NYT. Neither matches your characterization as casually saying ALEC is a lobbying group. Are you referring to some other sources?] (]) 15:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

	::::Second request: "And like Arthur, our Capital friend needs to explain exactly where in the ''New York Times'' says ALEC isn't a lobbying group." <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 03:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I have now read the NYT article for the 4th time. I have printed it out and gone through it with a highlighter. The only person in the article who says what they are doing is lobbying is the Common Cause spokesman. In the very next paragragh ALEC vigorously disputes the characterization. NYT does not say that the organization is a lobbying organization. However, I may be wrong. I may have missed it. Please show me the quote that you think show that NYT says they are a lobbying organization. I can be convinced, because I have been wrong in the past. ] (]) 17:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::::The title is "Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist." Do you dispute that the "Conservative Nonprofit" in question is ALEC? Are you arguing that "acting" as a lobbyist is not the same as lobbying??? What I find a bit suspicious and cunningly lawyerly-like is that for all the time and band width you three are spending on this, you haven't made yourselves clear; as though you're being careful not to explain what you mean because you know it wouldn't make any sense. You just keep repeating "they don't say ALEC is a lobbying organization." Is the idea to create a mass of talk page verbage so that some harried admin will throw up their hands and say "I can't read all this! they just don't agree!" ?? --] (]) 20:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::Is it too late for me to chime in? It does appear that Common Cause is driving the coverage. I'm hesitent to use WP's voice when it is really Common Cause calling the shots. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 05:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

	Common Cause and the other usual suspects. Many outside calls to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as well, much like this one ]; much partisan advocacy to promote and disseminate info not on ALEC, with NPOV, but on people's pet boycott projects.--] (]) 17:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

	:<small>Point of order: I've asked 209.x on his talk page not to post at left margin by default (and) to comply with ]. --Ohiostandard 10:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)</small>

	:(To BoogaLouie); Titles are '''not''' considered reliable. (In some cases, in technical papers where the title was written by the authors of the article, they might be....but, as an occasional reviewer of peer-reviewed articles, the choice of title is not part of the review process.) They are assigned by editors who have no interest in accuracy; the primary interest is in increasing circulation, and the secondary interest is in not being sued. The articles, themselves, are often considered reliable, but titles (and probably subtitles) are not. — ] ] 17:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
	:I see others have noted this before me. Nonetheless, it's a Misplaced Pages guideline that titles are not reliable sources for anything. — ] ] 17:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

	== Leadership structure tables restored ==

	Hi, all. I've effectively reverted by making . Arthur Rubin evidently thought the tables showing the organisation's leadership were too much, and collapsed them. Lionelt objected, saying doing so was a violation of Manual of Style dictates, and suggested that Arthur should just delete them if he didn't like them. Arthur did so. I think that loses a lot of valuable content, so I restored them, but moved them to the end of the page, to try to address the apparent readability concerns that previous edit summaries and Arthur's previous collapse seem to imply. Again, I think the content is valuable, and it's certainly on-topic. Obviously Arthur, and presumably Lionelt approve of its deletion. So if they want to push its deletion, what do others think? Is it useful and appropriate to include, or not? <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 09:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

	::::<span style="font-size:88%; line-height: 1.33em;">He obviously won't accede himself, but {{Highlight\|can we please have the discussion about the leadership tables here, to avoid rewarding IP 209.x's disruptive behaviour?}} He played games with headings, and since he didn't get his way he's evidently decided to create a new section (see following one, with long title) every time he wants to respond to a point I've raised here. Coming after my politely worded request, without comment, that he comply with ] rather than always posting at flush left, as he did in the preceding section, I think he'd do well to read ]. I'd be grateful, thanks. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 15:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)</span>

	:'''Move''' the tables to ], and ''summarize''. The list of present members and/or supporters is either an arbitrary selection (if not complete) or just too much for this article, and should be in the subarticle (if complete). Some information (in prose, rather than in tables, and with sources) about the leadership and/or ''notable'' supporters should be present in this article, but the lists are just undue ]. — ] ] 15:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

	::Just want to thank you, Arthur, for the respect you evidence by posting here. On the substance, can I ask: Do you not think this is helpful and relevant information? I agree it's a a fair bit to wade through at the top of the article, but a table seems to me the most easily accessible way to ... well, "access" or view the information quickly and easily.

	::Presenting it as narrative text, as you suggest, would seem to me to "bury" the data. To mention just one problem with doing so, it would obscure the fact that this is an almost entirely Republican organisation, at least in its leadership. Surely it provides valuable information to our readers to see that in black and white, apart from the simple data each row contains.

	::Also, re your "''notable'' supporters" comment, I'd just mention that ]. Notability applies to the topic articles are written about, not to the various facts presented within them. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 16:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

	:::::<span style="font-size:88%; line-height: 1.33em;"><u>Point of order</u>: At {{Diff\|American Legislative Exchange Council\|next\|494285549\|15:38, 25 May 2012}} '''IP 209.x just removed the tables under discussion here, in apparent contravention of ]'''. This seems to me to be an attempt to avoid giving ] time to form on this issue, and to attempt to ] to push his preferred outcome by presenting fellow editors with a ''fait_accompli'' while discussion is ongoing. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 16:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)</span>


	Obviously, the article on an organization needs a section on what it is, how it is organized, and KEY people, and possibly KEY former members, and that needs to be near the top. Instead, we have the bulky and distracting tables, and little NPOV narrative. Also a problem, as the tables and the List of Members of the ALEC have been initiated in the middle of various online attack campaigns (one of which is above) trying to "target" people. Tried the compromise of using a collapse template, but have no objection to simply deleting the less important tables. Need a section within the Organization section on the various Task forces, and what they do, plus a narrative on how deliberation takes place within the organization. I would reduce the Board section to present board executives and a few former Chairmen, if notable. Private enterprise Board and State chairs need to be mentioned and where these groups weigh in on the process of making model legislation, but little more. --] (]) 15:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

	:The creation of a new section to discuss this topic, which I raised in the immediately preceding one, coming after very similar behaviour previously on this talk page, strikes me as ] ''viz.'' that he's not going to accept anyone else's talk page headings, or at least mine. '''I'd appreciate it very much if editors would discuss this topic in the section where I raised it, just above, to avoid rewarding this behaviour.''' Thanks, all. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 15:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

	::I removed the redundant header inserted by IP 209. The behavior of 209 appears to be that of ignoring as much of your input as possible. Reprehensible and non-collaborative. ] (]) 17:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

	Hi, Arthur and Lionel; have done the edits, page looks much better. I think through edit summaries we all agree the big bulky tables are a nuisance, and since the info is being listified, any argument that it still needs to dominate the article have disappeared. If we are agreed that the compromise of collapsing does not work and the List is where this article is going to put the information, it is probably a good idea to monitor that page for WP:COATRACK . The organization section probably still needs a narrative about each of the Board's role in the drafting of model legislation or identifying issues that need the attention of the Task Forces. --] (]) 16:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:44, 5 March 2024

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia B‑class Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: District of Columbia / Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Sources

Extended content

Extended content
Greenblatt, Alan (October 2003). "What Makes Alec Smart?". Governing. `{{cite news}}`: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: `\|publisher=` (help). Done More needs to be added from this source. It's incredibly dense and informative. I'll get to the rest in the next couple of days if others haven't already. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Greenblatt, Alan (December 2011). "ALEC Enjoys A New Wave of Influence and Criticism". Governing. `{{cite news}}`: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: `\|publisher=` (help). Done This is a more recent Governing article by Greenblatt. I haven't read it in depth yet but it could provide excellent reliable coverage of some of the recent controversies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Pilkington, Ed (December 3, 2013). "ALEC facing funding crisis from donor exodus in wake of Trayvon Martin row". The Guardian. `{{cite news}}`: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: `\|publisher=` (help) Done Shaw, Hank (June 10, 2002). "ALEC's friends bill taxpayers: Biggest industries come to control lobbying council". The Free Lance-Star. p. A1. `{{cite news}}`: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: `\|publisher=` (help) Done "How ALEC Serves As A 'Dating Service' For Politicians And Corporations". NPR. December 10, 2013. Done Vanegeren, Jessica (August 10, 2013). "What Madison Rep. Chris Taylor learned at the ALEC conference". The Capital Times. `{{cite news}}`: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: `\|newspaper=` (help) Done Taylor, Chris (October 1, 2013). "Rep. Chris Taylor: In ALEC's underworld, democracy is a burden". The Capital Times. `{{cite news}}`: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: `\|newspaper=` (help) Done Opinion source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Jacobs, Ben (May 4, 2012). "Former Chair Accuses ALEC of Anti-Democrat Bias". The Daily Beast. `{{cite news}}`: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: `\|publisher=` (help) Done --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Milbank, Dana (December 4, 2013). "ALEC stands its ground". The Washington Post. Done Opinion though some aspects may be cited for facts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Williams, Juan (April 23, 2012). "Trayvon killing puts American Legislative Exchange Council in the spotlight". The Hill. Done Opinion piece. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Frank, John (May 6, 2013). "Private conservative group ALEC carries sway in legislature". The News & Observer. Done Rizzo, Salvador (April 3, 2012). "Some of Christie's biggest bills match model legislation from D.C. group called ALEC". The Star Ledger. Done Rizzo, Salvador (April 1, 2012). "At Arizona gathering, ALEC teaches lawmakers how to turn conservative ideas into law". The Star Ledger. Done Rizzo, Salvador (April 1, 2012). "Despite similarities, officials say they did not use model ALEC bills for Christie's education legislation". The Star Ledger. Not done Hammel, Paul (December 5, 2013). "Nebraska State Sen. Danielle Conrad blasts national group". Omaha World-Herald. Not done Restuccia, Andrew (June 4, 2014). "Some states already lashing at climate rule". Politico. Not done Kumar, Anita (December 27, 2011). "Ghostwriter at work for Virginia's assembly?". The Washington Post. Done Jackman, Molly (December 6, 2013). "ALEC's Influence over Lawmaking in State Legislatures". Brookings Institution. Done Cole, Michelle (May 26, 2012). "ALEC gains foothold in Oregon, with one-fourth of legislators as members". The Oregonian. Done Scola, Nancy (April 14, 2012). "Exposing ALEC: How Conservative-Backed State Laws Are All Connected". The Atlantic. Done "Why ALEC matters". All In with Chris Hayes. January 21, 2014. MSNBC. Done "Why ALEC is so effective". All In with Chris Hayes. January 22, 2014. MSNBC. Done Krugman, Paul (June 29, 2014). "Charlatans, Cranks and Kansas". The New York Times. Not done Opinion piece, of course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Rothschild, Scott (December 17, 2013). "Brownback says perception of ALEC influence is 'overblown'". Lawrence Journal-World. Done Binker, Mark (July 1, 2014). "McCrory says he is 'happy' to speak to controversial group of lawmakers". WRAL-TV. Not done Chokshi, Niraj (July 8, 2014). "ALEC, the free-market group liberals love to hate, gets a new boss". The Washington Post. Done Chokshi, Niraj (July 9, 2014). "Meet the new head of ALEC, the free-market group of state legislators". The Washington Post. Done Epstein, Reid J. (July 16, 2014). "Progressive Groups Merge in Effort to Counter ALEC in State Capitols". The Wall Street Journal. Not done Harrison, J.D. (August 7, 2014). "Nation's largest small-business group faces fresh skepticism over new link to ALEC". The Washington Post. Done Greeley, Brendan; Fitzgerald, Alison (December 1, 2011). "Pssst ... Wanna Buy a Law?". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. (already cited, but expand) Done Abowd, Paul (May 8, 2014). "ALEC exempted from lobbyist status in three separate states". Center for Public Integrity. Done Marois, Michael B (March 23, 2015). "BP Ends Involvement With American Legislative Exchange Council". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Done

Greenblatt, Alan (October 2003). "What Makes Alec Smart?". Governing. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help). Done

More needs to be added from this source. It's incredibly dense and informative. I'll get to the rest in the next couple of days if others haven't already. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Greenblatt, Alan (December 2011). "ALEC Enjoys A New Wave of Influence and Criticism". Governing. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help). Done

This is a more recent Governing article by Greenblatt. I haven't read it in depth yet but it could provide excellent reliable coverage of some of the recent controversies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Pilkington, Ed (December 3, 2013). "ALEC facing funding crisis from donor exodus in wake of Trayvon Martin row". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Done
Shaw, Hank (June 10, 2002). "ALEC's friends bill taxpayers: Biggest industries come to control lobbying council". The Free Lance-Star. p. A1. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Done
"How ALEC Serves As A 'Dating Service' For Politicians And Corporations". NPR. December 10, 2013. Done
Vanegeren, Jessica (August 10, 2013). "What Madison Rep. Chris Taylor learned at the ALEC conference". The Capital Times. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help) Done
Taylor, Chris (October 1, 2013). "Rep. Chris Taylor: In ALEC's underworld, democracy is a burden". The Capital Times. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help) Done

Opinion source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Jacobs, Ben (May 4, 2012). "Former Chair Accuses ALEC of Anti-Democrat Bias". The Daily Beast. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Done

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Milbank, Dana (December 4, 2013). "ALEC stands its ground". The Washington Post. Done

Opinion though some aspects may be cited for facts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Williams, Juan (April 23, 2012). "Trayvon killing puts American Legislative Exchange Council in the spotlight". The Hill. Done

Opinion piece. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Frank, John (May 6, 2013). "Private conservative group ALEC carries sway in legislature". The News & Observer. Done
Rizzo, Salvador (April 3, 2012). "Some of Christie's biggest bills match model legislation from D.C. group called ALEC". The Star Ledger. Done
Rizzo, Salvador (April 1, 2012). "At Arizona gathering, ALEC teaches lawmakers how to turn conservative ideas into law". The Star Ledger. Done
Rizzo, Salvador (April 1, 2012). "Despite similarities, officials say they did not use model ALEC bills for Christie's education legislation". The Star Ledger. Not done
Hammel, Paul (December 5, 2013). "Nebraska State Sen. Danielle Conrad blasts national group". Omaha World-Herald. Not done
Restuccia, Andrew (June 4, 2014). "Some states already lashing at climate rule". Politico. Not done
Kumar, Anita (December 27, 2011). "Ghostwriter at work for Virginia's assembly?". The Washington Post. Done
Jackman, Molly (December 6, 2013). "ALEC's Influence over Lawmaking in State Legislatures". Brookings Institution. Done
Cole, Michelle (May 26, 2012). "ALEC gains foothold in Oregon, with one-fourth of legislators as members". The Oregonian. Done
Scola, Nancy (April 14, 2012). "Exposing ALEC: How Conservative-Backed State Laws Are All Connected". The Atlantic. Done
"Why ALEC matters". All In with Chris Hayes. January 21, 2014. MSNBC. Done
"Why ALEC is so effective". All In with Chris Hayes. January 22, 2014. MSNBC. Done
Krugman, Paul (June 29, 2014). "Charlatans, Cranks and Kansas". The New York Times. Not done

Opinion piece, of course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Rothschild, Scott (December 17, 2013). "Brownback says perception of ALEC influence is 'overblown'". Lawrence Journal-World. Done
Binker, Mark (July 1, 2014). "McCrory says he is 'happy' to speak to controversial group of lawmakers". WRAL-TV. Not done
Chokshi, Niraj (July 8, 2014). "ALEC, the free-market group liberals love to hate, gets a new boss". The Washington Post. Done
Chokshi, Niraj (July 9, 2014). "Meet the new head of ALEC, the free-market group of state legislators". The Washington Post. Done
Epstein, Reid J. (July 16, 2014). "Progressive Groups Merge in Effort to Counter ALEC in State Capitols". The Wall Street Journal. Not done
Harrison, J.D. (August 7, 2014). "Nation's largest small-business group faces fresh skepticism over new link to ALEC". The Washington Post. Done
Greeley, Brendan; Fitzgerald, Alison (December 1, 2011). "Pssst ... Wanna Buy a Law?". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. (already cited, but expand) Done
Abowd, Paul (May 8, 2014). "ALEC exempted from lobbyist status in three separate states". Center for Public Integrity. Done
Marois, Michael B (March 23, 2015). "BP Ends Involvement With American Legislative Exchange Council". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Done

Suhay, Lisa (March 30, 2015). "Who's pushing the 'religious freedom' legislation in states?". The Christian Science Monitor.
Bykowicz, Julie (December 3, 2014). "ALEC is Back and Ready to Resume its Conservative Agenda". Bloomberg Politics.
Pilkington, Ed (February 17, 2016). "Ford becomes latest corporation to sever ties with conservative Alec lobby". The Guardian.
Milman, Oliver (December 8, 2015). "American Electric Power quits Alec as it helps states move to clean power". The Guardian.
Balcerzak, Ashley (January 26, 2016). "The Constitutional Convention 2016?". Slate.
Dreher, Arielle (June 22, 2016). "Mississippi, Your ALEC is Showing". Jackson Free Press.
Faturechi, Robert (January 6, 2017). "Conservatives Plot Their Course on the Rising 'Sea of Red' in State Capitals". Pro Publica.
Woodard, Colin (May 2, 2017). "Bill seeks to restrict Maine towns' efforts to build high-speed internet networks". Portland Press Herald.

ACCE

Greenblatt, Alan (June 2014). "ALEC Goes Local". Governing.
Pilkington, Ed (July 30, 2014). "Conservative group Alec devises offshoot ACCE to lobby at local levels". The Guardian.
Pilkington, Ed (March 6, 2014). "Conservative group Alec trains sights on city and local government". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Jones, Tim (August 10, 2014). "Corporate Lobby Sets Its Sights on Your Garbage Man". Bloomberg News.
Elbow, Steven (August 15, 2014). "ALEC sets sights on local governments". The Capital Times.
Bravo, Ellen (October 17, 2014). "ALEC's disgusting new ploy: How corporate America's trying to roll back local liberal laws". Salon.

Haven't analyzed reliability yet. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Oliver, John (November 2, 2014). "State Legislatures and ALEC". Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. HBO.
Dewan, Shaila (December 18, 2014). "Foes of Unions Try Their Luck in County Laws". The New York Times.
Lucas, Phillip (February 13, 2016). "Alabama among many states moving to block local wage laws". The Washington Times.

Secrecy

Hawkins, Beth (August 22, 2013). "ALEC declares itself exempt from public-disclosure laws, and is challenged". MinnPost.
Barer, David (August 15, 2013). "Fort Worth lawmaker tries to block request for information on dealings with conservative group". Dallas Morning News.
Shorman, Jonathan (December 14, 2013). "Springfield Democratic lawmaker hopes to send message about conservative group". Springfield News Leader.
"Where Do the Elite Meet? Behind Closed Doors". Associated Press. May 12, 2014.
DeFour, Matthew (March 29, 2014). "Leah Vukmir agrees to turn over ALEC documents to settle open records lawsuit". Wisconsin State Journal.
Kroll, Andy (December 6, 2013). "ALEC Boots Mother Jones From Its Annual Conference". Mother Jones.

Education

"Education". ALEC.
Underwood, Julie; Mead, Julie F. (February 29, 2012). "A Smart ALEC Threatens Public Education". Education Week.

Opinion source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"ALEC's Report Card Receives Failing Marks". The Forum on the Future of Public Education: Empirical scrutiny of ideological issues. University of Illinois. May 9, 2013.
"ALEC v. Kids" (PDF). ProgressNow.
Lubienski, Christopher; Brewer, T. Jameson (May 2013). "Review of Report Card on American Education" (PDF). National Education Policy Center.
Hawkins, Beth (March 26, 2012). "ALEC and corporate fingerprints are all over national push for online learning". MinnPost.

Questionable reliability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hawkins, Beth (February 6, 2012). "What are MN attendees of ALEC confab likely bringing back? Think tenure reform". MinnPost.
Parti, Tarini (July 30, 2015). "'Dark money': ALEC wants image makeover". Politico.

general discussion about above sources
Context? In each of the sources above the context in which they are to be used is critical. Are there specific edits being proposed? – S. Rich (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC) This is just research, a collection of sources that appear useful. Some of these sources may not make it into the article. I generally separate my research and writing tasks; it helps me stay organized, and it better enables other editors to contribute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

general discussion about above sources

Context?

In each of the sources above the context in which they are to be used is critical. Are there specific edits being proposed? – S. Rich (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This is just research, a collection of sources that appear useful. Some of these sources may not make it into the article. I generally separate my research and writing tasks; it helps me stay organized, and it better enables other editors to contribute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Legislative Exchange Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205023422/http://www.alec.org/about-alec/ to http://www.alec.org/about-alec/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits by Rms125a@hotmail.com

I reverted @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's revert of my edit (see diff) as there was no explanation provided. My edits were perfectly in line with MOS and NPOV. Quis separabit? 04:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There were a number of things wrong with your edits. For starters, you appear to have removed important, reliably sourced content such as the fact that ALEC's activities are legal. Second, your characterization of various media outlets (including the The New York Times and Bloomberg Businessweek) is unsourced and non-neutral. Third, you messed up the title of one of the sources. Fourth, you broke up some paragraphs in a way that in my view makes the prose read a little more choppily. Finally, the word "reportedly" is non-neutral as it's used as an expression of doubt. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

LGBT rights section

@Marquardtika: According to WP:SPLC, SPLC is WP:RS for such claims. If you revert me, WP:AE is just around the corner. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion is now taking place at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#SPLC at ALEC. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: See:

Much of the Back to Neutral coalition’s work challenges companies’ attempts to expand racial and gender equality, CMD and Hatewatch found. An older nonprofit where Nelson is a board member, the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), spearheads that coalition. They purchase shares in corporations, lobby their board members and urge shareholders to vote out directors who support diversity initiatives.

If that's not being homophobic, then I don't know what it is. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Homophobic is one of those terms we really need in direct quotes. But also the quote seems much broader than homophobia. A summary of that would probably be about "lobbying against corporations' efforts to improve racial and gender diversity". Ok, that's a bit too close of a paraphrase, but something to that effect. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: About we can say they're involved to the extent the source says they are: the source is saying “We’re particularly sensitive about this corporate woke culture,” said Nelson, using a slang term associated with social justice activism. “We have a new coalition ... that is really, really active. ... We are certainly a part of that.” tgeorgescu (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding my quote, by that I mean the source justifies saying ALEC is part of the Back to Neutral coalition. The coalition is engaged in these activities. I just mean that it would be a little too much to apply the transitive property to attribute Back to Neutral's activities directly to ALEC (as opposed to Back to Neutral, which ALEC is part of). Does that make sense? — Rhododendrites \\ 13:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This was an egregious WP:BLP violation which wasn't even verified by the source. I have changed the content to actually reflect what the source says. Marquardtika (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not some kind of freak who cannot work collaboratively. The rub seems to be among "homophobic", "anti-LGBT", and the quote seems much broader than homophobia. So, yeah, "homophobic" isn't mentioned verbatim, it is implied something much broader than homophobia. Am I figuring it, or it got from bad to worse (for ALEC c.s.)? The BLP violation got removed so that the article sounds even meaner. You would not believe me, but in my version the charge was milder and more limited. While Nelson is no longer mentioned by name, the charge against her is worse now. By removing her name, the charge was not removed, but it is much broader. The BLP violation was thus a purely formal concern. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

My WP:NPOV concerns (and the WP:BLP and WP:OR concerns raised by other editors here) have been addressed by this edit, although I question inclusion of the SPLC opinion per WP:UNDUE. For ALEC, “200 of its model bills become law each year”, so how many of these are LGBT-related bills, and which are on the pro- or anti- side? Participation in a coalition (which itself is not notable) and which has produced no notable model bills or even policy positions of ALEC seems irrelevant to the section titled “Notable policies and model bills”. BBQboffin (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrong place in the article? Then move the text, don't delete it. It is relevant to know what their broad network of Mitläufer organizations is doing. About laws, I heard there is a Texas law that websites are not allowed to censor Texans. See SCOTUS Vacates Appeals Court Order on Texas Social Media Law on YouTube. It is quite clear that if one is a neonazi from Texas, their posts should not be deleted. This is wholly in line with Nelson's aims. She fights against "woke corporations" who censor neonazis, anti-LGBT and racists, i.e. what she calls "this corporate woke culture". About such efforts against the woke Big Tech she stated "We are certainly a part of that." Of course, I don't have WP:RS that ALEC has drafted the Texas social media law, but it certainly seems that their Mitläufer did. It certainly looks like a MAGA law. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead section

Tie to the Koch network should be made explicit in the lead section and not buried deep in the body of the text and falsely presented as unverified claims. There’s literally dozens of books on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, good suggestion on the principle that the most important items can be gleaned by the reader in the first paragraph. Multiple books on the subject indicates the content is important. It would be helpful if you could list some of those books as a bread crumb path for Wikipedians who may have time to edit the lead. Anne9853 (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Categories: