Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council

Sources needed

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

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.

There's clearly been an attempt to whitewash the article. I've restored the deleted sourced content. FeloniousMonk 06:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

One source doesn't make something true

The only source that is used on this page is from ALEC Watch which is outdated and inaccurate.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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonnyboy1544 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

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. --Cjs56 15:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

7/5/07

I went to Alec's webiste today [1] 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. --Cjs56 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 retain the assumption of good faith 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
  If you look at their descriptions of their political philosophy (which are documented on their website), it lines up much more closely with the Wikipedia description of Jeffersonian political philosophy than with the Wikipedia article on Conservatism. 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 Nolan Chart for one take on the difference.
  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 Wikipedia have advantages in the ability to hyperlink and cross-connect to more precise descriptions. We are not limited to just "liberal" vs. "conservative".
  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 edit summary that you consider them "fascist"?
• Membership includes "private sector advocates"
  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"
  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 Executive Board of Directors shows
  National Chair - Dolores Mertz (D)
  First Vice Chair - Steve Faris (D)
  Second Vice Chair - L Patrick Engel (was D until 2006 when he switched to R)
  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?
  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. 12.168.68.11 20:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --Cjs56 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.
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. 12.168.68.11 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --Cjs56 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Alecwatch

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?

This article looks terrible

1) 2 of the 4 sources are from highly partisan sites. We should look for more neutral sources.

2) The article is poorly organized. When I figure out how to make tables and what not I will fix this asap

3) Why is global warming the only issue they advocate on discussed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeagleman (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Reads Like an Ad

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. --Williston K (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. A rewrite is definitely in order. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made some changes. It is still a work in progress, but I think it is better than what existed before. --Williston K (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Incoherent

What does this sentence mean?

"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."

"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?

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

The topic of this entry is interesting. The quality of the writing is totally discrediting the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcolgan001 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So why not go ahead and reword it? I've done so. Rostz (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Recent addition regarding Cronon is undue weight, and borders on a coatrack. Hillman Award is wholly off-topic.– Lionel ^(talk) 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. AnonMoos (talk) 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 Paul Krugman), sources include:

• Sulzberger, A.G. (March 26, 2011). "Wisconsin Professor's E-Mails Are Target of G.O.P. Records Request". New York Times. (News)
• Eaton, Sabrina (April 3, 2011). "Conservative group denies it masterminded drive to restrict public employee unions". Cleveland Plain Dealer. (News)
• Grafton, Anthony (March 28, 2011). "Wisconsin: The Cronon Affair". New Yorker. (News)
• Lederman, Doug (March 28, 2011). "Wisconsin Gets Weirder". Inside Higher Ed.
• "A Shabby Crusade in Wisconsin". New York Times. March 25, 2011. (Editorial)
• Fallows, James (March 25, 2011). "'Have You No Sense of Decency?' The Wm. Cronon Story". Atlantic Monthly. (Opinion)
• Shea, Christopher (March 28, 2011). "William Cronon vs. Wisconsin Republicans". Wall Street Journal.
• Leonard, Andrew (March 25, 2011). "Wisconsin's most dangerous professor". Salon.com.
• Scholtz, Gregory (March 28, 2011). "Letter to the Chancellor, University of Wisconsin" (PDF). American Association of University Professors.

Other general sources, not dealing specifically with Cronon but potentially useful for the article, include:

• Greenhouse, Steven (January 3, 2011). "Strained States Turning to Laws to Curb Labor Unions". New York Times.
• Peterka, Amanda (April 4, 2011). "Conservative Group Drafts, Promotes Anti-EPA Bills in State Legislatures". New York Times.
• Marshall, Christa (April 1, 2011). "State Legislatures Pile Onto Anti-EPA Climate Rule Effort". New York Times.
• Kirkpatrick, David (December 28, 2009). "Health Lobby Takes Fight to the States". New York Times.
• Lee, Jennifer (May 28, 2003). "Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming". New York Times.
• Herszenhorn, David (March 22, 2010). "Health Vote Is Done, but Partisan Debate Rages On". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

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. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

resource

Inside the ALEC Dating Service by Mark Pocan, October 2011 issue in The Progressive. 99.109.126.73 (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)