ALEC Caves: Ditches 'Stand Your Ground', Voter ID Laws

ALEC Retreats Under Pressure, Ends Push For 'Stand Your Ground,' Voter ID Laws

WASHINGTON -- The American Legislative Exchange Council, the controversial corporate-sponsored lobbying group whose push for "stand your ground" gun laws and voter ID legislation ignited grassroots protests, announced Tuesday that it is getting out of the social policy field to focus on core economic issues.

Corporations associated with ALEC had been under siege from public interest and civil rights groups who demanded they cut ties with ALEC, most recently because of its successful push to pass "stand your ground" legislation in multiple states. Florida's version of that law has been cited as a reason why neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was not initially charged in the deadly shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Several companies -- including Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonald's, Kraft and Intuit -- had already distanced themselves from ALEC before Tuesday's surprise announcement.

"We are eliminating the ALEC Public Safety and Elections task force that dealt with non-economic issues, and reinvesting these resources in the task forces that focus on the economy," David Frizzell, an Indiana state representative and current ALEC chairman, said in a statement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 31531.html

Gee, I guess getting hit in their corporate pocketbooks got their attention. Sorry Koch Brothers...Better luck next time. :woo hoo:

I guess signing all those petitions did some good.

But before we celebrate too soon:

Aspects of that agenda concern some members of the progressive community as much or more than ALEC's stands on social policy. Measures to bust unions, remove worker protections, slash corporate taxes and privatize huge swaths of the government "are a huge portion of their agenda," Graves said.

Moreover, on many social issues, ALEC has already achieved what it set out to achieve, Graves pointed out.

"So in some ways, it's just a PR maneuver on their part, to try to stanch the bleeding," she said.

So, we'll be watching to see if they keep some of the more onerous garbage...and if they do, the petitions will start up again...

LadyJazzer wrote:

Aspects of that agenda concern some members of the progressive community as much or more than ALEC's stands on social policy. Measures to bust unions, remove worker protections, slash corporate taxes and privatize huge swaths of the government "are a huge portion of their agenda," Graves said.

So, we'll be watching to see if they keep some of the more onerous garbage...and if they do, the petitions will start up again...

Govt unions should be illegal. I hope they fight for that.
Corporate taxes should be lower, to keep us competitive in the world stage.
Large swaths of govt should be privatized. Govt does very little efficiently. In fact, I'm not sure they do anything efficiently.

I really don't care about the social agenda. The democrats have done a fabulous job about highlighting social stuff that most people don't care about in order to further their devastating lack of any fiscal knowledge.

RenegadeCJ wrote: I really don't care about the social agenda. The democrats have done a fabulous job about highlighting social stuff that most people don't care about in order to further their devastating lack of any fiscal knowledge.

Yeah, like contraception, war on Planned Parenthood, war on abortion services, DOMA, etc. Yeah, the Dems have done a really great job of making those things issues. Actually, it's the GOP/right-wingers that keep pushing those things to cover their devastating plan of screwing the middle and lower classes to give more tax-cuts to people that don't need them.

Why is LJ against make my day laws?

She must be another one of those anti-gun liberals.

LJ dosn't think we should have the right to defend ourselves I guess.

Yeah, I'm such an anti-gun liberal and so against them I keep one by my bed. I'm NOT against "castle laws"...You certainly have a right to protect yourself in your home.

I am AGAINST these "stand your ground laws" because they're a license for morons to play vigilante.

I am against clips that hold more than 10 rounds.

I am against unlicensed assault weapons.

I am FOR laws that limit purchases to one-a-month, per person. That's 12/year for you and another 12/year for each family member. That should be enough to start a war. But should cut down on straw-purchases...

In short, I'm probably against about 90% of the nutty no-limits stuff the NRA keeps pushing.

No one makes clips over 10 rounds, a lot of them are only 8 or 5 rounds.

The more you tighten your fist, the more systems will slip through your fingers.

So, tell me about the 31-shot clips that were used to shoot Giffords? Or are we playing semantics with the word "clips"?

Whatever it is, if it's more than 10, I'm against it.

LJ- Second amendment rights have little to nothing to do with duck hunting.

I'm NOT against "castle laws"...You certainly have a right to protect yourself in your home.

So let me get this straight- you are oK with "castle laws" but the minute you step outside your house - not OK.

Got it. It's OK at home to defend one's self- but out on the street- no way. So if a gang grabs you in 5 points- you should just take what you got comin to ya I guess.

If you see a thug down your street- beating up an old lady- do you just watch it all go down- or what>?

We only have a right to defend ourselves if we happen to be at home?

I see this kind of thing with liberals all the time- totally inconsistent thinking patterns- how can anyone form a consensus when each leftie is all over the map.

LadyJazzer wrote: So, tell me about the 31-shot clips that were used to shoot Giffords? Or are we playing semantics with the word "clips"?

Whatever it is, if it's more than 10, I'm against it.

Sorry. It is an inside joke. A 31 round magazine shot up Giffords. Or that idiot could have just used 3 10 round Glocks. Or extra magazines.

BearMtnHIB wrote: LJ- Second amendment rights have little to nothing to do with duck hunting.

I'm NOT against "castle laws"...You certainly have a right to protect yourself in your home.

So let me get this straight- you are oK with "castle laws" but the minute you step outside your house - not OK.

Got it. It's OK at home to defend one's self- but out on the street- no way. So if a gang grabs you in 5 points- you should just take what you got comin to ya I guess.

If you see a thug down your street- beating up an old lady- do you just watch it all go down- or what>?

We only have a right to defend ourselves if we happen to be at home?

I see this kind of thing with liberals all the time- totally inconsistent thinking patterns- how can anyone form a consensus when each leftie is all over the map.

Yes... You got it straight. Any questions? Even with your bullsh*t hypotheticals...That's right. And all you are getting is THIS Lefty's opinion. But you feel free to try to extrapolate it in your usual "all liberals" generalization.