By Brendan Fischer on April 23, 2012

Online retail giant Amazon is being criticized for its relationship with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and accounts of its participation in ALEC illustrate how ALEC's corporate members and funders drive the ALEC agenda.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) is asking Amazon to follow the lead of 12 other corporations and drop its association with ALEC. Amazon apparently became an ALEC member in part to oppose new state taxes on online sales, but Amazon's membership dues and sponsorship grants help fund the overall ALEC agenda, which includes bills like "Stand Your Ground / Kill at Will," voter ID, anti-environmental legislation, and more.

In response to growing criticism of ALEC and an exodus of corporate and legislative members, ALEC has published a new set of "Frequently Asked Questions" to present a positive image of the organization. ALEC's claims in those FAQs -- such as how “elected state legislators fully control ALEC’s model legislation process” or how ALEC meetings allow the public and private sectors to "share their views” -- are contrary to what some participants say actually happens in ALEC meetings, including those involving Amazon.

Corporate Members Play Leading Role

One example of how corporations dominate the policy discussion within ALEC comes from a subcommittee of the ALEC Telecommunications and IT Task Force at ALEC's 2011 Annual Meeting in New Orleans. The subcommittee considered a proposal to adopt a sales tax rate on e-commerce on par with the sales tax rate for brick-and-mortar retailers. According to some estimates, increasing this sales tax could raise $24 billion in revenue for cash-strapped states confronting deficits and high unemployment caused by the financial crisis.

Not surprisingly, online retailer Amazon vigorously opposed the proposal. While legislators were present at the meeting, the corporate lobbyists drove the discussion. "Not a single legislator spoke up" during the nearly 40 minute debate over the proposal, said Jeff Wright, a Florida teacher's union member who paid nearly $1000 to attend the conference so he could observe ALEC in action. "The discussion was not an exchange of ideas between the public sector and private sector, but a debate between the corporate members," Wright said.

Amazon sponsored the Annual Meeting at the "Director" level (which cost $10,000 the previous year), as well as having paid membership dues (between $7,000 and $25,000) and additional fees for Task Force membership (between $3,000 and $10,000). Amazon succeeded in getting the proposed internet tax tabled.

Who Drives the ALEC Agenda?

Wright's observations also contradicted ALEC's claims that "elected state legislators fully control ALEC's model legislation process." The new rhetoric stands in stark contrast with the level of involvement of corporate lobbyists in the task force meetings, where the real business of approving model legislation occurs. While the ALEC public sector board has final say on adopting a task force-approved bill, according to ALEC's procedures the model bills are automatically adopted if no one on the board objects within 30 days.

"My impression was that legislators knew that the corporations in the room were the ones that would be funding their election campaigns," so they were not going to take sides in the debate between Amazon and Wal-Mart. "They were not going to weigh in [on the proposal]. They let the corporations battle it out."

Wright said he noticed the same dynamic at the Task Force meeting he attended. The Task Forces are where ALEC's corporate and other members can propose model legislation, and where the Task Force's corporate and legislative members vote as equals to decide whether to adopt it. "If I'm running for reelection, am I going to vote against the proposals of the corporations funding my campaign? I don't think so."

Other reports from Task Force meetings show that even when a majority of legislators support a particular proposal, it can be killed if the corporate members do not.

"Going into the ALEC meeting," Wright said, "I knew that the corporate members participated. But I did not anticipate how much the corporations really are the ones in charge at ALEC."

Brendan Fischer

Brendan Fischer is CMD's General Counsel. He graduated with honors from the University of Wisconsin Law School.

Comments

Anyone wishing to print and circulate the Jindal recall petition (Louisiana), please email deutsch29@aol.com for a file copy and complete directions. Please write "recall petition" in the subject line.

Thank you Brendan Fischer for this article.
I'm glad to hear that PCCC is bugging Amazon about their membership in ALEC agenda, which supports bills like "Stand Your Ground / Kill at Will," voter ID, anti-environmental legislation, and privatizing what's left of our education system.
Hmm. If a legislator thinks to himself or herself: "If I'm running for reelection, am I going to vote against the proposals of the corporations funding my campaign? I don't think so." Well, that says it all, and that is what I was thinking about ALEC. Legislators snooze while corporations and lobbyists write our laws.
Mr. Wright's observations and comments are RIGHT. Corporations are really in charge of ALEC.
Keeping ALEC under public scrutiny is so important. Putting pressure on corporations to leave ALEC is what we have to keep doing.

I've written and chatted twice with Amazon representatives asking if they had any plans to drop out of ALEC. They didn't respond so I went to their website with the intention of closing out my account. I found it interesting that there is no way to close an account online. I guess you have to call them to do that. For a company as tech savvy as they are, you'd think they would include that capability in their online services.

Maybe this is another reason why Amazon is in ALEC:
"Current and former workers at Amazon's warehouse near Allentown, Pa., say they were forced to endure temperatures above 100 degrees inside the sprawling facility and were pushed to work at a pace many could not sustain."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/01/business/la-fi-1001-amazon-allentown-20111001

I also patronize Amazon a lot, and when I saw the reports on working conditions I thought that it was okay to continue to patronize them (because people need any jobs at all) while we (the people) worked to get fair oversight legislation into place. We need to improve working conditions across the industry, so Amazon can compete fairly with other online warehouse employers on a fair and decent playing field.

Instead, I find that Amazon, through ALEC, is conspiring with other retailers to prevent worker health and safety regulations from happening! I have no objection to Amazon lobbying openly to prevent internet taxes. Many people might support that idea on the grounds that economic activity benefits the economy.

My objection isn't that Amazon lobbies, it's that it lobbies in secret for filthy legislation, that the people who actually elect legislators don't want and wouldn't tolerate in daylight!

So I won't patronize Amazon again until they withdraw all participation in ALEC. I'll post that message all over the web, as well as contact them and sign petitions. Amazon executives had better hear it, or face a shareholder suit.