University of Wisconsin Professor Joel Rogers wants to build a lefty alternative to the ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. He recently hit up some of his students for help with the project, while they were waiting for their grades in his class.

This from our first article in an ongoing investigation conducted by the MacIver News Service. Future stories will focus on any official reaction we receive from the University and an indepth look at Rogers’ Center on Wisconsin Strategy.

Joel Rogers Says College Credits May Be Available to Those Who Help Build Liberal Alternative to ALEC

[Madison, Wisc…] One of the University of Wisconsin’s most renowned liberal professors attempted to recruit his students to work on an elaborate private political project while final grades in their class were pending, the MacIver News Service has learned.

At the conclusion of his end-of-the-year email to his UW Law School students, Professor Joel Rogers wrote: “I think I mentioned a little project I’m doing now — which thus far involves professors from such crummy law schools as Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Cornell, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, Virgina [sic] and elsewhere, but thus far, beyond your lonesome, NOBODY from UW — to build a partial counter to ALEC. It’s going to involve a lot of law students. If you’re interested in helping out with that (no money, but possible credit), or know of somebody else who might be, please let me, or even better, “Nate Ela” <nela@cows.org>, a lawyer and now sociology grad student, know. Project description attached.“

Rogers is the Director of the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan, educational, and charitable organization. COWS was founded in 1992 by Rogers, a professor of Law, Political Science, and Sociology at UW-Madison and a longtime commentator on economic development and democratic institutions. COWS is based at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in the Social Science Building.

(more…)

An orchestrated campaign is underway to attack and discredit a prominent free-market organization. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the latest target of the left-wing smear machine, no doubt singled out for its effectiveness in advancing free-market principles and limited government at the state level. The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), a far-left organization founded by anti-capitalist activists, is leading the charge with their “ALEC Exposed” project, which insinuates that through ALEC, corporations are given undue influence over the legislative process. Nothing could be further from the truth, and their attacks on ALEC should be considered an attack on all who support free-market capitalism and limited government.

The Nation magazine is prominently featuring the attack on ALEC in its August 1-8 issue, including a cover that describes ALEC as “the right-wing group subverting our democracy.” The left-wing magazine is putting on a full court press, publishing half a dozen separate attacks on ALEC and their efforts. These attacks are not only baseless, they are a dishonest attempt to pass off what amounts to ideological objections from a far-left viewpoint under the guise of concern for democratic legitimacy.

In the interests of full disclosure, I interned at ALEC in the fall of 2009. I am not currently affiliated with the organization in any way, but I know from first-hand experience what ALEC is all about, and it has nothing to do with the nonsense being generated by CMD and disseminated by The Nation and other liberal outlets.

ALEC is a membership organization that brings the public and private sectors together in the common cause of limited government. Both public and private sector members work together to draft state level model legislation tackling common issues with solutions based upon organizational principles of “free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty,” which members can then introduce in their states if they so choose.

(more…)

Sunday begins National School Choice Week, the annual seven-day period in the middle of winter when kids all over the country dream of either: (1) having the freedom to stay home from school on account of snow, or (2) moving to Florida.

Well, actually, kids dream of those things all the time.  But their parents ought to spend this week dreaming of Florida because the Sunshine State now boasts some of the most forward-looking school choice policies in the country.

In fact, last year a remarkable bipartisan coalition – which included most of Florida’s black and Hispanic state legislators – passed a major expansion of the Sunshine State’s landmark Tax Credit Scholarship Program.  This prompted The Wall Street Journal to marvel at “Florida’s Unheralded School Revolution.”

And last year, not coincidentally, Florida’s student achievement test scores continued to rise, catapulting the Sunshine State into the nation’s Top Five states in K-12 education, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council’s annual rankings.  (Not bad for a state that used to place in the bottom third of annual student achievement rankings.)

While there is much to celebrate in the Sunshine State’s schools, Florida still has its share of education policy problems.  For example, last year Florida’s politically-opportunistic former Governor (Charlie Crist) decided to curry favor with the powerful teachers’ unions by vetoing a merit pay for teachers’ bill that he had previously pledged to sign.

Crist’s political strategy ultimately backfired – he got trounced by Marco Rubio in the U.S. Senate race.  Yet, interestingly, his flip-flop on merit pay would not have even won Crist the 2010 prize for Most Unseemly Behavior by a Floridian in the merit pay debate.

That dubious honor, sadly, would have gone to a government teacher at East Ridge High School in Clermont who sent the Florida Senate President a packet of nearly 100 letters – all of them opposing merit pay for teachers – which his students had written as a class assignment.  In a cover letter, the teacher claimed that he had presented the bill (S.B. 6) to the students with “a neutral connotation.”  And the teacher also expressed “total amazement” that every single one of his students wrote a letter opposing merit pay.

(more…)

By Tom McGillvray, Cary Smith, and Gary MacLaren

As state legislators, we are used to the federal government treating the states like its red-headed stepchild. Washington dictates, and we are expected to follow. Whether it’s transportation, health care, or education, federal money comes with federal strings—and more often than not, the strings outlast the money and the states end up picking up the tab. And the current debate over health care reform is no exception.

We were willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt when he called for more discussion and debate. He certainly seemed willing to reach across the aisle to include his political opponents in his recent health care summit. But, given just how much of any health care reform bill is bound to fall on the shoulders of the states to implement and fund, he should have included us—a point which House Minority Leader John Boehner made in a letter to Rahm Emanuel.

But this new era of “bipartisanship” was short lived indeed. Just ask Congressional leaders like Jon Tester and Max Baucus if they support the so-called nuclear option of passing a health care bill Americans don’t want through a questionable legislative maneuver. If Congress does manage to pass the President’s health care reform proposal it is sure to include a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance.

However, being forced to buy health insurance, or being forced to buy a particular health plan, just doesn’t sit right with independent-minded Montanans, or the rest of Americans judging by recent polls. This is why we plan to introduce the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, a state constitutional amendment that protects individuals, employers, and health care providers from being forced to participate in any health care system and preserves individuals’ right to pay directly for care.

(more…)

For years, employers in the private sector have been moving in the direction of versatile, 401(k) style retirement accounts. However, a vast majority of the 20 million state and local government workers in the U.S. have kept their generous, defined-benefit pension plans.

Despite the lofty promises made by policymakers, public employee retirement plans have been neglected over the years and have become huge liabilities that severely threaten the financial health of many states. If legislators do not properly address the crisis in public pensions, they will make current state budget problems look trivial. In fact, as of 2006, states had accumulated nearly $360 billion in unfunded pension obligations, according to a new 50 state study conducted for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The report entitled “State Pension Funds Fall Off a Cliff,” is co-authored by Dr. Barry Poulson of the University of Colorado and Dr. Arthur P. Hall of the University of Kansas.

Much of the current data regarding liabilities in public employee pensions was taken before the recent economic downturn, and the study’s authors warn the problem is much worse today since stock market losses have not been fully realized in many official government pension statistics. Other estimates with recent data place the unfunded pension liabilities at $1 trillion nationally.

(more…)