Exposing Corporate Influence and

Empowering Iowans to Take Action

JANUARY 2015

ABOUT ALEC WATCH

ALEC WATCH was compiled by the staff of Progress Iowa, with assistance from a
number of partner organizations and volunteers. The report relies on and would
not be possible without research from ProgressNow, the Center for Media and
Democracy, Common Cause, People For the American Way, the Iowa Policy
Project, as well as other sources of public information. As information about ALEC
in Iowa becomes available to the public, supplemental reports may be issued to
offer a more complete picture of ALECs influence on our democratic process in
the state legislature and across Iowa.
For additional information and further reading about ALEC, we recommend the
following sources:

ALEC Exposed, produced by Center for Media and

Democracy:http://www.alecexposed.org
Blog for Iowa: All posts about ALEC: http://www.blogforiowa.com/tag/alec/
Internal ALEC documents reported on by the Guardian in 2013, published
at the 40th annual ALEC meeting in 2013:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/841593-alec-docs.html
Progress Report, the blog of Progress Iowa:
http://progressiowa.org/sections/progress-report
Common Causes posted ALEC
documents: http://www.commoncause.org/issues/more-democracyreforms/alec/

NEXT STEPS
The release of ALEC WATCH is the latest step in a long-term effort by Progress
Iowa to expose ALECs influence in Iowa. Every year, as more Iowans learn about
ALEC, more questions arise as to the true nature of their activities in our state.
This report provides a foundation of knowledge about ALEC. Moving forward,
Iowans should use the information contained within this report to assist in
looking for the organizations activities at every level of government.
Iowans who are concerned about the influence of ALEC in the state legislature or their
local government can provide information and tips to Progress Iowa, in our statewide effort to hold ALEC
accountable:

ALEC WATCH Hotline: (515) 428-1556

Via Email: alecwatch@progressiowa.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS
KEY FINDINGS..........................................................................................................4
ALECS TRIUMPHS AND TRIBULATIONS....................................................................5
POTENTIAL ALEC THREATS.......................................................................................6
IOWA ALEC MEMBERS..............................................................................................8
CAMPAIGN DONATIONS FROM ALEC CORPORATIONS.............................................12
ALEC MODEL LEGISLATION IN IOWA.......................................................................13
ALECs Shoot First Bill In Iowa...........................................................................14
ALECs Bill Lowering Construction Standards......................................................17
ALECs Cell Tower Bill In Iowa..............................................................................18
ALECs Anti-Licensing Bill In Iowa.......................................................................23
ALECs Voucher Bill In Iowa.................................................................................28
APPENDIX: PAST DONATIONS FROM ALEC CORPORATE FUNDERS TO ALEC
MEMBERS OR ALUMS.............................................................................................30
GOVERNOR TERRY BRANSTAD............................................................................30
SENATOR JONI ERNST.........................................................................................30
REPRESENTATIVE LINDA UPMEYER......................................................................31
REPRESENTATIVE GREG FORRISTALL..................................................................32
REPRESENTATIVE DAWN PETTENGILL.................................................................32
SENATOR BILL DIX...............................................................................................32

KEY FINDINGS
In 2013, Progress Iowa released the report ALEC Exposed in Iowa with ProgressNow, Center for
Media & Democracy, Common Cause, and People for the American Way, and later
participated in a coalition for the report ALEC v. Kids. This report seeks to update and continue Progress
Iowas multi-year effort to expose ALECs influence in Iowa. Our key findings include:

ALEC appears to be on the decline, but the organization continues to reinvent itself and
adapt. Thanks to transparency efforts across the country, ALECs corporate membership may be
on the decline. Leaked documents and public statements show that 100 corporate members have
left ALEC, forcing a budget crisis for the organization. The corporate exodus has continued
recently, with companies like Google, and eBay leaving. ALEC has responded by discussing
moving to attract new corporate industries, and recently created an effort to influence local
government officials en masse and advance ALECs agenda. The ALEC hotline and statewide
educational effort will empower Iowans to play a more active role in their local government and
stand up to the influence of ALEC.

ALEC distorted its membership figures to the public. Internal ALEC documents reported on in
December of 2013 show that the organization considers all 150 Iowa legislators to be members,
despite the public denial of membership by every Democratic member of the Iowa legislature.
ALECs response to questions regarding membership was lacking, and response from Iowa
leadership was nearly nonexistent. Because of these discrepancies and, ALECs efforts to
influence legislators in Iowa is more opaque than any other state.

In Iowa, Senator Ernst, Governor Branstad, and the state legislators serving in leadership
positions in ALEC have received more than $563,000 in direct campaign donations from
ALEC corporations. Due to the opaqueness of independent spending a complete total will never
be known, but ALEC members spent more than $4.2 million in independent expenditures to
elect Sen. Ernst.

ALEC model bills continue to be introduced in the Iowa legislature. Progress Iowa identified
at least nine bills with ALEC influence from the most recent legislative session. Bills to privatize
education, weaken consumer standards, and the annual iterations of ALECs stand your ground
model were introduced.

ALEC continues to promulgate an aggressive agenda of deregulation and corporate cronyism. ALEC has
shown indications that it will continue to advance its issues in Iowa and across the nation including the
privatization of education, the erosion of consumer protections, rigging the courts, and attacking workers.
Efforts like this report are the only means to track this influential organization.
Iowans who are concerned about the influence of ALEC in the state legislature or their local government
should contact the ALEC watch hotline: (515) 428-1556 or alecwatch@progressiowa.org.

ALECS TRIUMPHS AND TRIBULATIONS

The Iowa statehouse delegation has been a powerhouse in ALEC leadership.
State Representative Linda Upmeyer is ALECs former national chair, State
Representative Dawn Pettengill is the Public Chair of ALECs Commerce,
Insurance and Economic Development Task Force, Senator Ernst is an ALEC
alumna, State Representative Greg Forristall is the former Chair of the Education
Task Force, and Governor Terry Branstad was a founding member of ALEC. All
five have received significant campaign donations from corporations that have
funded ALEC.
Beyond those Iowan elected officials in the upper echelon of ALEC, the
membership status of other Iowan elected officials has raised serious questions.
Progress Iowas 2013 report on ALEC noted that the Iowa House of
Representatives had sought to enroll all House members into ALEC, without
regard to what individual legislators wanted, at taxpayer expense. The
Democratic minority caucus requested to opt out of ALEC membership, and
received no response. And then things got weird. Internal ALEC documents from
August 2013, published by the Guardian, listed every Iowan legislator in both
bodies as members.1 Minority Leader Smith and Majority Leader Gronstal stated
publicly that no Democrats in the Iowa legislature were voluntary members and
questioned how they had become listed as members. ALEC claimed that the
Iowa Legislature joined as a body, and its own future records would reflect this;
their claim proved to be untrue. Legislative records showed that neither body of
the legislature had joined ALEC as a whole in since the legislature had last paid
ALEC in 2011 for individual memberships. 2 As of the release of this report, the
question of whether or when dues have been paid on behalf of Iowa legislators
remains unknown.
Since the Center for Media and Democracy launched its ALEC Exposed project in
2011, ALECs corporate members have been leaving in droves. ALEC documents
published by the Guardian in December 2013 showed that ALEC lost almost 400
legislators in a two-year period, and nearly 60 corporate members. In response,
ALEC created a plan to recruit corporate members back: the Prodigal Son
Project [Sic]. This effort sought to bring back corporations under the belief that
the controversy surrounding ALEC, in particular over its promotion of Stand Your
Ground gun laws and disenfranchising Voter ID legislation, had waned. 3 Thanks
to transparency efforts, ALECs Prodigal Son Project was a failure. Corporations
have continued their exodus from ALEC. In September 2014 alone, Yelp, Yahoo,
and Google left ALEC. Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt criticized ALEC
on NPR, stating: The facts of climate change are not in question anymore.
Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose
1 Des Moines Register, 01/09/14
2 Des Moines Register, 01/15/14
3 ALEC, 08/06/13

it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a
much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people theyre
just, theyre just literally lying.4
As ALEC lost support, their strategy and tactics evolved. While it disbanded its
Public Safety and Elections Task Force in 2012- the task force responsible for
promoting both Stand Your Ground and Voter ID - it has since formed the similar
Justice Performance Project. ALEC founded a 501(c)(4) named the Jeffersonian
Project in order to resume what ALEC had previously done, and state its position
on issues and legislation; when describing their activities, ALEC stated, ALEC
will not lobby, but will communicate its positions like we did in the past, which
may result in registering a few employees as lobbyists. 5 ALEC also considered
expanding its task forces into new industries, primarily based on the prospect of
raising revenue from corporations in those sectors. While ALEC has not yet
established a Gaming or Tribal task force, documents reveal it considered
forming both with chief considerations of the industrys revenue and ability to
finance ALEC.6
And ALEC has established a program to recruit local government officials, the
American City County Exchange. This is extraordinary for an organization that
has promulgated model legislation to preempt local governments on everything
from gun regulations, agricultural and food service regulations, rent controls,
labor, and technology regulations. The ACCE exists to advance ALECs agenda
through local governments; including privatization, deregulation, and attacks on
workers rights.7 The ACCE is simply ALEC expanding into a market it had not
previously reached.

POTENTIAL ALEC THREATS

ALEC, its allies and its members seem to be pushing certain categories of
legislation in Iowa and across the country. The following is what Progress Iowa
sees as the most prominent pieces of the ALEC agenda.
1. Privatization Of Education. Rep. Greg Forristall chaired the ALEC
Education Task force, and over the past few years ALEC legislation
promoting the privatization of education has surfaced and advanced in
Iowa. ALECs Education Savings Account Act was introduced during the
2014 legislature, and ALECs Parent Trigger Act was introduced in 2013. An
education savings act is expected during the 2015 session as well. 8
2. Attacks on Workers Rights. ALEC consistently attempts to limit
workers rights. In 2013, an effort failed to pass a so-called right to work
4 The Guardian, 09/22/14
5 ALEC, 08/06/13
6 The Center for Media and Democracy, 12/04/13
7 Bloomberg, 08/10/14
8 Des Moines Register, 01/25/15

3.

4.

5.

6.

constitutional amendment in Iowa, despite the fact that the policy is

already written in to Iowa law. In 2014, payroll card legislation advanced in
Iowa, threatening to allow corporations to take fees from workers
paychecks. Rep. Dawn Pettengill is the public chair of ALECs Commerce,
Insurance and Economic Development task force, which has passed and
promulgated numerous anti-worker legislation. It is extremely likely that
Iowa will see further anti-worker legislation from ALEC in 2015.
Eroding Consumer Protections. ALEC will pursue a renewed effort to
shorten the statute of repose for construction defects, a legal issue that
jeopardizes quality construction, and accountability for those responsible
for defects. ALEC will keep pushing to erode government standards of
quality in order to further the interests of corporate allies producing
substandard goods.
Tax Cuts For The Rich. Kansas Governor Sam Brownback hired ALEC
economist Art Laffer to design the tax cuts, which have defined the
Brownback administration.9 These tax cuts failed, in nearly every sense.
Kansas saw lower job growth, lower revenue growth, lower wages, worse
credit ratings, even in comparison with California, a state that raised taxes.
10
Yet Laffer and ALEC are undeterred. They have continued to advocate
for other states to travel Kansas path of red ink, regressive taxation, and
unconstitutionally inadequate education funding.11 ALEC members in the
Iowa legislature have advocated for additional income tax cuts, and have
been criticized for coming too close to the Kansas model. 12
Attacking Clean Energy. In 2013, ProgressNow issued a report on
ALECs agenda in opposition to clean energy, most notably the extent to
which ALEC will attack clean energy incentives by any means necessary.
Iowa was the first state in the nation to establish a renewable energy
portfolio standard13, and has various programs to incentivize renewable
power, chiefly wind. ALECs advancement of a dirty energy agenda will not
stop. ALEC is back for 2015 with a new array of bills to attack federal
efforts to combat climate change, even considering entirely abolishing the
EPA.14
Agricultural Deregulation. ALEC has proposed models to prevent
investigations into animal cruelty with ag-gag bills. 15 ALEC has
promulgated a model to loosen regulations on farming wastes. ALEC
supports curtailing local governments ability to regulate pesticides in their
jurisdiction. And recently, ALEC looked at beginning a task force more
closely focused on agriculture.16 The ALEC agenda benefiting corporate
farms over family farms could be devastating.

9 Topeka Capital-Journal, 08/12/12

10 Al Jazeera, 12/01/14
11 New York Times, 12/30/14
12 Des Moines Register, 01/12/15
13 DSIRE, updated 10/31/14
14 Washington Post, 12/07/14
15 ThinkProgress, 03/19/14
16 ALEC, 2013

7. Undermining Health Care. ALEC opposes Obamacare, but the extent it

has endeavored to sabotage the law is surprising. ALEC promulgated two
bills to hamstring navigators, essentially to make it harder for people to
sign up for benefits.17 ALEC also supports legislation that would end
Medicares federally guaranteed benefits, replacing it with a state program
prone to radical transformation. ALEC supports the privatization of health
care including the dismantlement of public institutions, and Governor
Branstad has already proposed hiring privates firms to help run Medicaid. 18
8. Opposing Raising The Minimum Wage. ALEC has sponsored model
legislation opposing the minimum wage, and praises states that do not
have a minimum wage. While Iowa families are struggling, students are
burdened with increasing student loan debt; ALECs grip on power in Iowa
prevented an increase in the minimum wage in 2014, 19 and will likely
continue to stymie progress in Iowa.

17 PRWatch, 12/02/13
18 Des Moines Register, 01/20/15
19 Quad City Times, 03/04/14

IOWA ALEC MEMBERS

ALEC Members or Alumni
Statewide or Federal Officials
Governor Terry Branstad20
o Gov. Branstad was a founding member of ALEC, received their 1996
ALEC Pioneer Award
Senator Joni Ernst21
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack22
Congressman Steve King23
State Senators
Minority Leader, Senator Bill Dix24
o ALEC State Chair
Senator Jerry Behn25
Senator Robert E. Dvorsky26
Senator Michael E. Gronstal27
Senator Dennis Guth28
Senator David Johnson29
Senator Tim L. Kapucian30
Senator Amy Sinclair31
Senator Brad Zaun32
Senator Dan Zumbach33
State Representatives
Representative Dave Deyoe34
20 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005
21 Sen. Ernst Campaign Finance Report 05/19/11
22 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005
23 ALEC.org, accessed 11/13/12
24 ALEC.org, accessed 12/11/12
25 Sen. Behn Campaign Finance Report, 01/13/12
26 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005
27 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005
28 Sen. Guth Campaign Finance Report, 05/08/14
29 Sen. Johnson Campaign Finance Report, 01/19/12
30 ALEC Public Safety Task Force documents, obtained by Common Cause, 06/30/11
31 Sen. Sinclair Campaign Finance Report, 09/30/14
32 Sen. Zaun Campaign Finance Report, 10/20/08
33 Sen. Zumbach Campaign Finance Report, 05/08/14
34 ALEC Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Documents, obtained by Common Cause, 10/27/10

 Representative Greg Forristall35

o Chair of the Education Task Force36
Representative Mary Ann Hanusa37
Representative David Heaton38
Representative Linda Miller39
o ALEC State Chair
Representative Dawn E. Pettengill40
o Chair of the Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task
Force
Representative Thomas R. Sands41
Representative Charles Soderberg42
Representative Linda Upmeyer43
Representative Ralph Watts44
Former Statewide or Federal Officials
Fmr. Congressman Leonard Boswell45
Former State Senators
Senator Jeff Angelo46
Senator Nancy Boettger47
Senator Sandra H. Greiner48
o Former ALEC State Chair
Senator Hubert Houser49
Senator Stewart E. Iverson5051
Senator David Johnson52
35 ALEC Education Task Force Documents, obtained by Common Cause, 07/01/11
36 ALEC.org, accessed 03/09/13
37 ALEC Education Task Force Documents, obtained by Common Cause, 07/01/11
38 ALEC HHS Task Force Documents, obtained by Common Cause, 06/30/11
39 ALEC.org, accessed 12/11/12
40 ALEC Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Documents, obtained by Common Cause, 06/30/11
41 ALEC Tax and Fiscal Policy Tax Force documents, obtained by Common Cause, 03/31/11
42 ALEC Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Documents, obtained by Common Cause, 06/30/11
43 ALEC HHS Task Force Documents, obtained by Common Cause, 06/30/11
44 Rep. Watts Campaign Finance Report 01/19/05
45 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005
46 Sen. Angelo Campaign Finance Report, 01/19/2006
47 Sen. Boettger Campaign Finance Report, 01/14/12
48 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005
49 ALEC Sourcebook, 1995
50 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005
51 ALEC International Relations Task Force Memorandum, obtained by Common Cause, 06/30/11
52 Sen. Johnson Campaign Finance Report, 01/19/10

Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator
Senator

John P. Kibbie53
Mary Kramer54
Jeffrey M. Lamberti55
Larry McKibben56
Andrew J. McKean57
Kim Pearson58
Donald Redfern59
Neal Schuerer60
James A. Seymour61

Former State Representatives

Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative

Richard T. Anderson62
Richard Arnold63
Danny C. Carroll64
Ron J. Corbett65
Mark Davitt66
Betty De Boef67
Dwight Dinkla68
Chuck Gipp69
Geri D. Huser70
Elizabeth Jacobs71
Mark S. Lofgren72
Dolores M. Mertz73

53 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005

54 ALEC Leaders In The States 1999
55 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005
56 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005
57 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2001
58 ALEC Civil Justice Task Force documents, obtained by Common Cause, 06/30/11
59 ALEC.org page archived from 12/08/00
60 Sen. Schuerer Campaign Finance Report, 05/17/04
61 ALEC Civil Justice Task Force documents, obtained by Common Cause, 06/30/11
62 ALEC International Relations Task Force Memorandum, obtained by Common Cause, 06/30/11
63 ALEC Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Documents, obtained by Common Cause, 10/27/10
64 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005
65 ALEC.org page archived from 12/08/00
66 Rep. Davitt Campaign Finance Report 01/20/08
67 ALEC Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Documents, obtained by Common Cause, 10/27/10
68 ALEC Sourcebook, 1995
69 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005
70 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2001
71 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2001
72 ALEC Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Documents, obtained by Common Cause, 06/30/11
73 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005

o Chairman Emeritus74
o 2007 National Chairperson75
o Former ALEC HHS Task Force Chair76
Representative Richard E. Myers77
Representative Pat Murphy78
Representative Steven Olson79
Representative Bob Rafferty80
Representative Christopher C. Rants81
Representative Brian Quirk82
o Dropped his membership, reported 05/16/1283
Representative Brent J. Siegrist84
Representative Steven E. Sukup85
Representative David Schrader 86
Representative Jim Van Fossen87
o ALECs 2001 Legislator of the Year

74 ALEC.org, accessed 03/08/13

75 ALEC.org, accessed 03/09/13
76 ALEC.org page archived from 12/08/00
77 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2001
78 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005
79 ALEC Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Documents, obtained by Common Cause, 10/27/10
80 ALEC Sourcebook, 1995
81 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2005
82 ALEC Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force Documents, obtained by Common Cause, 07/18/11
83 Des Moines Register, 05/16/12
84 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2001
85 ALEC Leaders In The States, 2001
86 ALEC.org page archived from 12/08/00
87 Press Release, ALEC, 2001

CAMPAIGN DONATIONS FROM ALEC CORPORATIONS

SENATOR ERNST
Senator Ernst was an ALEC member. 88 Her election to the United States Senate provided Iowans a
glimpse into the electoral powers of ALEC in support of its members. ALEC corporations, organizations,
and their associated political committees combined to donate more than $94,000 to Sen. Ernsts
campaign. The volume of outside spending supporting Sen. Ernst and opposing Rep. Braley eclipsed
these contributions. While many of the innocuously named outside groups are impossible to decipher,89
and others keep their donors in secret, a few of the Super PACs and other organizations supporting Sen.
Ernst have denoted funding streams. Known ALEC members the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans
for Prosperity, and American Chemistry Council spent more than $4.2 million supporting Sen. Ernst and
opposing Rep. Braley.90 While ostensibly independent, Sen. Ernst went to great lengths to solicit the
support of these organizations.91

2014 CYCLE DIRECT DONATIONS TO SELECT ALEC MEMBERS OR

ALUMNI IN IOWA
The data regarding Sen. Ernst is from the Federal Elections Commission. All other data is via the Iowa
Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board. Corporations who have left ALEC are denoted in Italics, only
donations from before they left ALEC are listed; see SourceWatch.org for the full list of corporations
who have cut ties with ALEC.

Politician
Lifetime Total
1. Senator Joni Ernst
$98,355.00
2. Gov. Terry Branstad $281,568.85
3. Rep. Linda Upmeyer $109,858.09
4. Sen. Bill Dix
$27,300.00
5. Rep. Dawn Pettengill $20,517.44
6. Rep. Greg Forristall $25,844.14

88 Sen. Ernst Campaign Finance Report 05/19/11

89 Globe Gazette, 05/07/14
90 FEC.gov, accessed 12/09/14
91 ThinkProgress, 08/27/14

2014 Total
$89,123.00
$61,068.85
$20,515.00
$17,850.00
$578.54
$250.00

*Excludes campaigns before 2010

(Unopposed in 14)
(Unopposed in 14)
(Unopposed in 14)

ALEC MODEL LEGISLATION IN IOWA

BILL

ALEC MODEL

SOURCE

SSB3173

Advanced Voice Services Availability Act

ALEC Exposed

HF2113

Castle Doctrine Act

ALEC Exposed

SF2224

Castle Doctrine Act

ALEC Exposed

HF52

Castle Doctrine Act

ALEC Exposed

HSB21

Ten Year Statute of Repose Act

ALEC Exposed

HF2329

Wireless Communications Tower Siting Act

ALEC Exposed

SF2332
HF2237
HF46

Occupational Licensing Relief and Job

Creation Act
Occupational Licensing Relief and Job
Creation Act
Occupational Licensing Relief and Job
Creation Act

ALEC Model
ALEC Model
ALEC Model

HF2090

Education Savings Account Act

ALEC Model

SF2154

Education Savings Account Act

ALEC Model

ALECs Shoot First Bill In Iowa

Bill(s)
HF2113
SF2224
HF52

House Sponsors
Shaw, Heartsill,
Alons, sheets,
Dolecheck, Lofgren,
Fisher, Gassman,
Salmon, Shultz,
Gustafson

Senate Sponsors
Guth, Ernst, Anderson,
Bertrand, Whitver, Kapucian,
Zumbach, Bretbach,
Schneider, Behn, Garrett,
Zaun, Chapman, Greiner,
Houser, Sinclair, Boettger,
Segebart, Rozenboom

ALEC Model
Castle Doctrine
Act

ALECs model Castle Doctrine bill, otherwise known as the Stand Your Ground
bill, is perhaps ALECs most infamous model bill. In the spring of 2012, George
Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager who was
returning to his fathers home having been out to buy some candy and a soda.
Police did not initially arrest Zimmerman, apparently invoking Floridas 2005
Stand Your Ground law as an obstacle to arrest or prosecution. More than six
weeks after the incident, following significant local and national outrage,
Zimmerman was finally charged with murder. This incident was indicative of a
trend; research has shown states with such laws have more homicides than
states without such laws.92
As the Center for Media and Democracy documented, the National Rifle
Association helped draft the Florida Stand Your Ground law, which the NRAs
lobbyist then proposed as an ALEC model bill during an ALEC conference in Texas
in 2005.93 ALEC adopted the bill, and since then more than two dozen other
states have passed similar laws.94 The bill benefits the NRA by necessitating and
advancing a culture of guns in the country, and protecting gun owners from legal
prosecution and chilling civil suits.
The bill was a product of ALECs notorious Public Safety and Elections Task Force,
which also promoted the controversial Voter ID legislation, which swept into
states in 2010 and 2011. After increasing public pressure, ALEC claimed to have
disbanded this task force in April 2012, yet its bills and laws live on.
In Iowa, this bill has been introduced numerous times, and continues to be
pushed in Iowas 2014 and 2015 sessions. A comparison of the 2014 iteration is
below.
HF2133
4. A person who is not engaged in illegal activity
92 NPR, 01/02/13
93 Media Matters, 03/27/12
94 PR Watch, 2/27/13

ALECs Model Castle Doctrine Act

3. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful

has no duty to retreat from any place where the

person is lawfully present before using force as
specified in this chapter. A finder of fact shall not
be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as
a factor in determining whether or not a person who
used force reasonably believed that the force was
necessary to prevent injury, loss, or risk to life or
safety.
1. For purposes of this chapter, a person is
presumed to reasonably believe that deadly force is
necessary to avoid injury or risk to ones life or
safety or the life or safety of another in either of the
following circumstances:
a. The person against whom force is used, at the
time the force is used, is doing any of the
following:
(1) Unlawfully entering by force or stealth, or has
unlawfully entered by force or stealth and remains
within the dwelling, place of business or
employment, or occupied vehicle of the person
using force.
(2) Unlawfully removing or is attempting to
unlawfully remove another person against the other
persons will from the dwelling, place of business
or employment, or occupied vehicle of the person
using force.
b. The person using force knows or has reason to
believe that any of the conditions set forth in
paragraph a are occurring or have occurred.
2. The presumption set forth in subsection 1 does
not apply if, at the time force is used, any of the
following circumstances are present:
a. The person using defensive force is engaged in a
criminal offense, is attempting to escape from the
scene of a criminal offense that the person has
committed, or is using the dwelling, place of
business or employment, or occupied vehicle to
further a criminal offense.
b. The person sought to be removed is a child or
grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or
under the lawful guardianship of the person against
whom force is used.
c. The person against whom force is used is a peace
officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a
dwelling, place of business or employment, or
occupied vehicle in the lawful performance of the
peace officers official duties, and the person using
force knows or reasonably should know that the

activity and who is attacked in any other place

where he or she has a right to be has no duty to
retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground
and meet force with force, including deadly force if
he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do
so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself
or herself or another, or to prevent the commission
of a forcible felony.
1. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable
fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm
to himself or herself or another when using
defensive force that is intended or likely to cause
death or great bodily harm to another if:
a. The person against whom the defensive force
was used was in the process of unlawfully and
forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully
entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle,
or if that person had removed or was attempting to
remove another against that persons will from the
dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

b. The person who uses defensive force knew or

had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible
entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or
had occurred.
2. The presumption set forth in Subsection (1) does
not apply if:
c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged
in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling,
residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal
activity; or
b. The person or persons sought to be removed is a
child, grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful
custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the
person against whom the defensive force is used; or
d. The person against whom defensive force is used
is a law enforcement officer, as defined in [insert
appropriate reference to state/commonwealth code,
which defines the term law enforcement officer
or similar], who enters or attempts to enter a
dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance

person who has entered or is attempting to enter is a of his or her official duties and the officer identified
peace officer.
himself or herself in accordance with applicable
law, or the person using force knew or reasonably
should have known that the person entering or
attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
d. The person against whom the force is used has
a. The person against whom the defensive force is
the right to be in, or is a lawful resident of, the
used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of
dwelling, place of business or employment, or
the dwelling residence, or vehicle, such as an
occupied vehicle of the person using force, and a
owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an
protective or no-contact order is not in effect
injunction for protection from domestic violence or
against the person against whom the force is used.
a written pretrial supervision order of no contact
against that person; or
1. As used in this section, criminal prosecution
1. As used in this subsection, the term criminal
means arrest, detention, charging, or prosecution.
prosecution includes arresting, detaining in
custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
2. A person who uses reasonable force pursuant to
2. A person who uses force as permitted in Section
this chapter shall be immune from any criminal
(1) [and other state codes which are
prosecution or civil action for using such force.
affected/amended by this legislation and which
refer to the use of force including deadly force] is
justified in using such force and is immune from
criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of
such force, except when:
a. The person against whom force was used is a law
enforcement officer as defined in [insert
appropriate reference to state/commonwealth code,
which defines the term law enforcement officer
or similar], who was acting in the performance of
his or her duties and the officer identified himself
or herself in accordance with applicable law; or
b. The person using force knew or reasonably
should have known that the person was a law
enforcement officer.
3. A law enforcement agency may use standard
3. A law enforcement agency may use standard
investigating procedures for investigating the use of procedures for investigating the use of force as
force, but the law enforcement agency shall not
described in subsection (2), but the agency may not
arrest a person for using force unless the law
arrest the person for using force unless it
enforcement agency determines there is probable
determines that there is probable cause that the
cause that the force was unlawful under this
force that was used was unlawful.
chapter.
4. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees,
4. The court shall award reasonable attorneys fees,
court costs, compensation for loss of income, and
court costs, compensation for loss of income, and
all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of
any civil action brought by the plaintiff if the court any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court
finds that the defendant is immune from
finds that the defendant is immune from
prosecution as provided in subsection 2.
prosecution as provided in subsection (2).

ALECs Bill Lowering Construction Standards

Bill(s) House Sponsors
HSB21 Committee On Judiciary

Senate
Sponsors
N/A

ALEC Model
Ten-Year Statute of
Repose Act

A statute of repose is an attempt to escape responsibility for corporate products

or practices that injure or kill Iowans. This proposal keeps dangerous
corporations out of court after a set time limit. It would let bad contractors and
dangerous construction companies off the hook if their product was unsafe,
defective or fell apart after just 10 years. This bill would affect apartment
buildings, school construction, improvements to office buildings and other
property like the newly proposed oil pipeline. A leak from a latent construction
defect in the new oil pipeline could mean millions of dollars in property, crop and
environmental damage. This ALEC priority would make it nearly impossible for
anyone to be held responsible.
In the 1980s Governor Robert Ray vetoed a 15-year statute of repose for
construction defects citing concerns for the potential and actual harm to an
innocent victim a construction defect could cause. Then, in 1997, ALECs allies
in the Iowa legislature passed this 15-year statute of repose for defective
construction and Governor Branstad signed it into law.
ALECs current proposal is for a 10-year limit. This is what Iowas largest
corporate construction companies are seeking. The Senate rejected the 10-year
limit last legislative session, but the House introduced the bill in the first week of
this session. ALEC has had its eyes on this bill in Iowa for almost 20 years and its
allies in the Iowa legislature are pushing hard to pass it.
HSB21
b. Nonresidential construction. In addition to
limitations contained elsewhere in this section, an
action arising out of the unsafe or defective
condition of an improvement to nonresidential
construction based on tort and implied warranty
and for contribution and indemnity, and founded on
injury to property, real or personal, or injury to the
person or wrongful death, shall not be brought
more than ten years after the date on which
occurred the act or omission of the defendant
alleged in the action to have been the cause of the
injury or death. However, this subsection does not
bar an action against a person solely in the persons
capacity as an owner, occupant, or operator of an
improvement to real property.

ALEC Model Ten-Year Statute of Repose Act

(A) In any action for:
(1) Personal physical injury, illness, or death;
(2) Mental anguish or emotional harm;
(3) Damage to property, except as such actions are
governed by the Uniform Commercial Code;
(4) Wrongful death;
(6) Other loss deriving from any type of harm
described in subparagraphs 2A.1-5, the plaintiff
must commence a cause of action within 10 years
after:
(c) The date of substantial completion of the
construction that is alleged to have caused the
harm.

ALECs Cell Tower Bill In Iowa

Bill(s)
HF232
9

House Sponsors
Committee On Commerce

Senate
Sponsors
N/A

ALEC Model
Wireless
Communications
Tower Siting Act

ALECs Model Wireless Communications Tower Siting Act is a prime example of the ALECs model of
crony capitalism. ALECs model curtails local government authority to regulate the location of cell phone
towers. The model bill is a laundry list of prohibitions aimed at local governments, intending to make it
easier for the development of cell phone tower structures. Rather than allow for local government control,
the ALEC model seeks to prime the stage for national telecom corporations to run roughshod over local
governments. AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile are ALEC members.95
The original ALEC model bill was passed in December 2006,96 when then-Representative Bill Dix was
the Public Sector Chair of the ALEC Task Force.97 Senator Dix is now the Minority Leader in the Iowa
Senate. The House Commerce Committee introduced an omnibus bill containing a variation on the ALEC
model. A partial comparison is below:
HF2329 As Introduced
1. Accessory equipment means any equipment
serving or being used in conjunction with a wireless
facility or wireless support structure, including
utility or transmission equipment, power supplies,
generators, batteries, cables, equipment, buildings,
cabinets, storage sheds, shelters, and similar
structures.
2. Antenna means communications equipment
that transmits and receives electromagnetic radio
signals used in the provision of all types of wireless
communications services.
3. Applicant means any person engaged in the
business of providing wireless communications
services or the wireless communications
infrastructure required for wireless communications
services who submits an application.
4. Application means a request submitted by an
applicant to an authority to construct a new wireless
support structure, for the substantial modification
of a wireless support structure, or for collocation of
wireless facilities on an existing structure.
5. Authority means a state, county, or municipal
95 Sourcewatch.org, accessed 12/15/14
96 ALEC.org, archived by archive.org, 02/08/07
97 ALEC.org, archived by archive.org, 11/29/06

ALEC Model Wireless Communications Tower

Siting Act

Antenna: Communications equipment that

transmits and receives electromagnetic radio
signals used in the provision of all types of wireless
communications services.

Application: A formal request submitted to the

local authority to construct or modify a Wireless
Support Structure or a wireless facility.
Authority: A municipality, township, county or

governing body, board, agency, office, or

commission authorized by law to make legislative,
quasi-judicial, or administrative decisions relative
to the construction, installation, modification, or
siting of wireless facilities or wireless support
structures. Authority does not include state
courts having jurisdiction over land use, planning,
or zoning decisions made by an authority.
6. Base station means a station at a specific site
authorized to communicate with mobile stations,
generally consisting of radio transceivers, antennas,
coaxial cables, power supplies, and other associated
electronics.
7. Building permit means a permit issued by an
authority prior to the collocation of wireless
facilities on an existing structure, the substantial
modification of a wireless support structure, or the
commencement of construction of any new wireless
support structure, solely to ensure that the work to
be performed by the applicant satisfies the
applicable building code.
8. Collocation means the placement or
installation of wireless facilities on existing
structures, including the placement, replacement, or
modification of wireless facilities within a
previously approved equipment compound.
9. Electrical transmission tower means an
electrical transmission structure used to support
high-voltage overhead power lines. Electrical
transmission tower does not include utility poles.
10. Equipment compound means an area
surrounding or near the base of a wireless support
structure within which is located wireless facilities.
11. Existing structure means a structure that
exists at the time a request for permission to place
wireless facilities on a structure is filed with an
authority, including any structure that is capable of
supporting the attachment of wireless facilities in
compliance with applicable building codes,
including but not limited to towers, buildings, and
water towers, but not including utility poles.
12. Substantial modification means the
mounting of a proposed wireless facility on a
wireless support structure which results in one or
more of the following: a. Increasing the existing
vertical height of the structure by more than ten
percent, or the height of one additional antenna
array with separation from the nearest existing

regional planning commission or any municipal or

county legislative body that has adopted planning
and zoning regulations for all or the majority of
land uses within the jurisdiction.

Building Permit: An official administrative

authorization issued by the local authority prior to
beginning construction of any new or existing
support structure. The issuance of a building
permit is not a mechanism for the approval or
denial of a zoning or land use application.
Collocation: The placement or installation of
wireless facilities, on existing structures, including
towers, buildings, utility poles, and water tanks in a
manner that negates the need to construct a new
free standing support structure such as a tower.

Equipment Enclosure: An enclosed structure,

cabinet, or shelter used to contain radio or other
equipment necessary for the transmission or
reception of wireless communication signals.
Existing Tower: A free standing support structure
constructed prior to the enactment of this statute
that is used to provide wireless services.

antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is

greater. B. Adding an appurtenance to the body
of a wireless support structure that protrudes
horizontally from the edge of the wireless support
structure more than twenty feet, or more than the
width of the wireless support structure at the level
of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except
where necessary to shelter the antenna from
inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the
wireless support structure via cable.
C. Increasing the square footage of the existing
equipment compound by more than two thousand
five hundred square feet.
13. Utility pole means a structure owned or
operated by a public utility, municipality, or electric
membership or cooperative association that is
designed specifically for and used to carry lines,
cables, or wires for telephony, cable television, or
electricity, or to provide lighting.
14. Water tower means a water storage tank, or
a standpipe or an elevated tank situated on a
support structure, originally constructed for use as a
reservoir or facility to store or deliver water.
15. Wireless facility means the set of equipment
and network components, exclusive of the
underlying wireless support structure, including but
not limited to antennas, accessory equipment,
transmitters, receivers, base stations, power
supplies, cabling, and associated equipment,
necessary to provide wireless communications
services.
16. Wireless support structure means a
freestanding structure, such as a monopole or
tower, designed to support wireless facilities.
Wireless support structure does not include
utility poles.
Sec. 24. NEW SECTION. 8C.4 Uniform rules
new wireless support structure applications.
1. An authority may exercise zoning, land use,
planning, and permitting authority within the
authoritys territorial boundaries with regard to the
siting of a new wireless support structure, subject to
the provisions of this chapter and federal law.
2. An applicant that proposes to construct a new
wireless support structure within the jurisdiction of
an authority that has adopted planning and zoning
regulations shall submit the necessary copies and
attachments of the application to the appropriate
authority and comply with applicable local

Utility pole: A structure owned and/or operated by

a public utility, municipality, electric membership
corporation or rural electric cooperative that is
designed specifically for and used to carry lines,
cables, or wires for telephony, cable television, or
electricity or to provide lighting.

Wireless Facility: The set of equipment and

network components, exclusive of the underlying
support structure or tower, including, but not
limited to, antennas, transmitters, receivers base
stations, power supplies cabling and associated
equipment necessary to provide wireless services to
a discrete geographic area.
Wireless Support Structure: Other than a utility
pole, a freestanding structure, such as a monopole
or tower, designed to support wireless facilities.
Section 2: Construction of New Wireless Facilities
and Wireless Support Structures
(1) An authority, as defined, may plan for and
regulate the siting of Wireless Facilities and
Wireless Support Structures in accordance with
locally adopted planning or zoning regulations and
in conformity with this title.
(2) Any person that is engaged in the business of
providing wireless telecommunications services or
the wireless telecommunications infrastructure
required therefore, and that proposes to construct a
Wireless Support Structure within the jurisdiction
of any planning authority that has adopted planning

ordinances concerning land use and the appropriate

permitting processes.

3. All records, including but not limited to

documents and electronic data, in the possession or
custody of authority personnel shall be subject to
applicable open records provisions of chapter 22.
4. An authority, within one hundred fifty calendar
days of receiving an application to construct a new
wireless support structure, shall comply with the
following provisions: a. Review the application
for conformity with applicable local zoning
regulations, building permit requirements, and
consistency with this chapter. An application is
deemed to be complete unless the authority notifies
the applicant in writing, within thirty calendar days
of submission of the application, of the specific
deficiencies in the application which, if cured,
would make the application complete. Upon receipt
of a timely written notice that an application is
deficient, an applicant may take thirty calendar
days from receiving such notice to cure the specific
deficiencies. If the applicant cures the deficiencies
within thirty calendar days, the application shall be
reviewed and processed within one hundred fifty
calendar days from the initial date the application
was received. If the applicant requires a period of
time beyond thirty calendar days to cure the
specific deficiencies, the deadline for review and
processing of the application shall be extended by
the same period of time. B. Make its final
decision to approve or disapprove the application.
C. Advise the applicant in writing of its final
decision.
5. If the authority fails to act on an application to
construct a new wireless support structure within
the review period specified under subsection 4, the
application shall be deemed approved.
6. A party aggrieved by the final action of an
authority, either by its affirmative disapproval of an
application under the provisions of this section or
by its inaction, may bring an action for review in

and zoning regulations in accordance with this title

shall:
(a) Submit the necessary copies and attachments of
the applicants completed application to the
appropriate planning authority to construct a
Wireless Support Structure.
(b) Comply with any local ordinances concerning
land use and the appropriate permitting processes,
subject to the limitations imposed by this chapter.
(3) All records (documents, electronic data, etc.) in
the possession or custody of authority personnel are
subject to the state Public Records Act. Disclosure
of such records should be consistent with the
applicable state law.
(4) After an applicants submission of a completed
application to construct a Wireless Support
Structure, the authority shall, within 75 days
commencing from the date that the application is
deemed complete by the authority or within a date
certain specified in a written agreement between
the authority and the applicant:
(a) Review the completed application in light of its
agreement with the comprehensive plan and locally
adopted zoning regulations;
(b) Make its final decision to approve or disapprove
the application; and
(c) Advise the applicant in writing of its final
decision.

(5) A party aggrieved by the final action of an

authority denying an application under the
provisions of this chapter may bring an action for
review in any court of competent jurisdiction.

any court of competent jurisdiction. In any such

action, the party filing such an action may seek
recovery of reasonable costs and attorney fees.

ALECs Anti-Licensing Bill In Iowa

Bill(s)
SF233
2
HF223
7
HF46

House Sponsors
Pettingill

Senate
Sponsors
Schneider

ALEC Model
The
Occupational
Licensing Relief
and Job Creation
Act

ALECs Occupational Licensing Relief Bill is supposedly an effort to reduce unnecessary occupational
licensing. ALECs model bill allows people to sue the government if they feel an occupational license
prevents them from working; once someone has proven the license requirement prevents them from
working, the State must prove the license is necessary. If someone believes they should be able to be a
doctor, the person can sue the state for licensing doctors. Those holding themselves out to be attorneys,
truck drivers, doctors, pharmacists, dentists, engineers, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, architects,
teachers, would be able to sue, and force the state to spend time and money to defend itself. Licensing
provides a consumer protection, that when you see a nurse; they meet the states standards. The state has
an interest in protecting the public by licensing certain occupations, in order to provide for the publics
safety and interest.
Rep. Pettengill has led the effort for this bill in Iowa, and she is the Public Sector Chair of the ALEC task
force responsible for passing this model bill.98 House File 2237 a nearly perfectly verbatim copy of the
ALEC model, except that it also goes farther by empowering a system of private sub-licensure. Rather
than meeting legally established standards of qualification, Pettengill would allow private companies to
certify or register professionals. The bill does not establish qualifications one would need to be
privately certified or registered, enabling gilded certification. This confusing system would undermine the
consumer protections licensure provides.
HF2237 As Introduced

ALEC Model The Occupational Licensing Relief

and Job Creation Act
Section 1. NEW SECTION. 27.1 Purpose.
Section 1. {Purpose}
The purposes of this chapter are:
This Acts purpose is to:
1. To ensure that an individual may pursue a lawful (A) Ensure that an individual may pursue a lawful
occupation free from unnecessary occupational
occupation free from unnecessary occupational
regulations.
regulations, and
2. To protect against the misuse of occupational
(B) Protect against the misuse of occupational
regulations to reduce competition and increase
regulations to reduce competition and increase
prices to consumers.
prices to consumers.
Sec. 2. NEW SECTION. 27.2 Definitions.
Section 2. {Definitions} The following definitions
For purposes of this chapter, unless the context
apply in this Act:
otherwise requires:
(A) Business license means a permit,
1. Business license means a permit, registration, registration, certification, franchise or other
98 ALEC.org, accessed 12/15/14

certification, franchise, or other approval required

by law for a person to do business in this state.
2. Certification means a voluntary program in
which the government grants nontransferable
recognition to an individual who meets personal
qualifications established by law, which permits the
individual to use certified as a designated title,
but which is not required for an individual to
engage in a lawful occupation for compensation.
Certification by the government does not include
certification by a private certification organization.
3. Government means any agency or other entity
of government of this state or of any of its political
subdivisions.
4. Lawful occupation means a course of conduct,
pursuit, or profession that includes the sale of
goods or services that can be legally sold in this
state, irrespective of whether the individual selling
them is subject to an occupational regulation.
5. Least restrictive means of furthering a
compelling governmental interest, from least to
most restrictive, means the following:
(1) Absence of any occupational regulations.
(2) A provision for private civil action in small
claims or district court to remedy consumer harm.
(3) Inspection requirements.
(4) Bonding or insurance requirements.
(5) Registration requirements.
(6) Certification requirements.
(7) Occupational license requirements.
6. Occupational license means a nontransferable
authorization in law for an individual to engage in a
lawful occupation for compensation based on
meeting personal qualifications established by law,
without which it is illegal for an individual to
engage in the occupation for compensation.
Occupational license does not include
registration or certification.

approval required by law for a sole proprietorship,

partnership or corporate entity to do business.
(B) Certification is a voluntary program in which
the government grants nontransferable recognition
to an individual who meets personal qualifications
established by a legislative body. Upon approval,
the individual may use certified as a designated
title or as part of a designated title. A non-certified
individual may also perform the lawful occupation
for compensation but may not use the title
certified. Certification is not intended to be
synonymous with an occupational license in this
Act or to prohibit the use of private certification.
(E) Government means the government of this
state or any of its political subdivisions.

(F)Lawful occupation means a course of conduct,

pursuit or profession that includes the sale of goods
or services that are not themselves illegal to sell
irrespective of whether the individual selling them
is subject to an occupational regulation.
(G) Least restrictive means of furthering a
compelling governmental interest means, from
least to most restrictive,
(1) Market competition,
(2) A provision for private civil action in smallclaims or district court to remedy consumer harm,
(3) Inspection,
(4) Bonding or insurance,
(5) Registration,
(6) Certification, or
(7) Occupational license.
(H) Occupational license is a nontransferable
authorization in law for an individual to perform a
lawful occupation for compensation based on
meeting personal qualifications established by a
legislative body. It is illegal for an individual who
does not possess an occupational license to perform
the occupation for compensation. Occupational
licensing is the most restrictive form of
occupational regulation.
7. Occupational regulation means a statute,
(I) Occupational regulation means a statute,
ordinance, rule, practice, policy, or other
ordinance, rule, practice, policy or other
requirement in law that an individual possess
requirement in law that an individual possess
certain personal qualifications in order to engage in certain personal qualification to work in a lawful
a lawful occupation. Occupational regulation
occupation. It excludes a business license and
excludes a business license and zoning and land use zoning and land use regulations except to the extent
regulations except to the extent such requirements
those laws regulate an individuals personal
regulate an individuals personal qualifications to
qualifications to perform a lawful occupation.

perform a lawful occupation.

8. Personal qualifications means criteria
established by law related to an individuals
personal background including but not limited to
completion of an approved educational program,
satisfactory performance on an examination, work
experience, criminal history, moral standing, and
completion of continuing education.
9. Registration means a requirement established
by law in which an individual must give notice to
the government in order to engage in a lawful
occupation and to use registered as a designated
title. Such notice may include but is not limited to
the individuals name and address, the individuals
agent for service of process, the location of the
activity to be performed, and a description of the
service the individual provides. Registration may
require a bond or insurance. Registration by the
government does not include certification by a
private registration organization. A registration is
nontransferable.

10. Substantial burden means a requirement in

an occupational regulation that imposes significant
difficulty or cost on an individual seeking to enter
into or continue in a lawful occupation.
Substantial burden means a burden that is more
than incidental.
Sec. 3. NEW SECTION. 27.3 Right to engage in a
lawful occupation remedies.
1. An individual has a right to engage in a lawful
occupation free from any substantial burden
imposed by an occupational regulation unless the
government demonstrates all of the following with
respect to such occupational regulation:
a. The government has a compelling interest in
protecting against present and recognizable harm to
the public health or safety.
b. The occupational regulation is the least
restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest.
2. A. An individual may assert as a defense in any
judicial or administrative proceeding brought by the
government to enforce an occupational regulation
that such occupational regulation violates the
individuals right established in subsection 1.

(J) Personal qualifications are criteria

established by a legislative body related to an
individuals personal background including
completion of an approved educational program,
satisfactory performance on an examination, work
experience, criminal history, moral standing and
completion of continuing education.
(L) Registration means a requirement established
by a legislative body in which an individual gives
notice to the government that may include the
individuals name and address, the individuals
agent for service of process, the location of the
activity to be performed, and a description of the
service the individual provides. Registration
does not include personal qualifications but may
require a bond or insurance. Upon approval, the
individual may use registered as a designated title
or as part of a designated title. A non-registered
individual may not perform the occupation for
compensation or use registered as a designated
title. Registration is not transferable. It is not
intended to be synonymous with an occupational
license in this Act or to prohibit the use of private
registration.
(M) Substantial burden means a requirement in
an occupational regulation that imposes significant
difficulty or cost on an individual seeking to enter
into or continue in a lawful occupation. A
substantial burden is a burden that is more than
incidental.
Section 3. {Right to engage in a lawful occupation}
(A) An individual has a right to engage in a lawful
occupation free from any substantial burden in an
occupational regulation unless the government
demonstrates
(1) It has a compelling interest in protecting against
present and recognizable harm to the public health
or safety, and
(2) The occupational regulation is the least
restrictive means of furthering that compelling
interest.
(B) Defense and Relief
(1) An individual may assert as a defense the right
to engage in a lawful occupation in any judicial or
administrative proceeding brought by the
government to enforce an occupational regulation

b. An individual may bring an action for

declaratory judgment or injunctive or other
equitable relief against the government for an
occupational regulation that violates the
individuals right established in subsection 1. An
individual need not exhaust administrative
remedies to bring such an action.
3. An individual who asserts a defense or brings an
action under subsection 2 has the initial burden of
proof that an occupational regulation substantially
burdens the individuals right to engage in a lawful
occupation.
4. If the individual meets the burden of proof under
subsection 3, the government must demonstrate by
clear and convincing evidence that the government
has a compelling interest in protecting against
present and recognizable harm to the public health
or safety, and that the occupational regulation is the
least restrictive means for furthering that
compelling governmental interest.
5. The presiding officer or court in a proceeding in
which an individual asserts a defense or brings an
action under subsection 2 shall make its own
findings of fact and conclusions of law with no
deference given to any determination by the
government or in statute or rule that an
occupational regulation serves a compelling
governmental interest in protecting against present
and recognizable harm to the public health or safety
or that the occupational regulation is the least
restrictive means of furthering a compelling
governmental interest.
6. An employer may assert a defense or bring an
action under subsection 2 on behalf of an employee
or prospective employee.
Sec. 4. NEW SECTION. 27.4 Private registration
and certification permitted.
An individual may use the words registered or
certified as a designated title or as part of a
designated title if the individual meets the
requirements for registration or certification
established by a private registration or certification
organization. The individual shall not portray such
registration or certification as granted by the
government.
Sec. 5. NEW SECTION. 27.5 Construction.
1. This chapter shall be liberally construed to
protect the right established in section 27.3,

that violates Section 3, Subsection (A).

(2) An individual may bring an action for
declaratory judgment or injunctive or other
equitable relief for a violation of Section 3,
Subsection (A) by the government, without regard
to the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
(4) An individual who asserts a defense or brings an
action under this section has the initial burden of
proof that an occupational regulation substantially
burdens the individuals right to engage in a lawful
occupation.
(5) If the individual meets the burden of proof
under Subsection (4), the government must
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that
the government has a compelling interest in
protecting against present and recognizable harm to
the public health or safety, and the occupational
regulation is the least restrictive means for
furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(C) A court shall make its own findings of fact
and conclusions of law. It shall not grant any
presumption to legislative or administrative
determinations of harm to the public health or
safety, or that the regulation is the least restrictive
means of furthering a compelling governmental
interest.

(6) An employer or potential employer may assert

the right of an employee or potential employee
recognized in Section 3, Subsection (A) by bringing
a defense or action under this subsection.

(C) A court shall liberally construe this Act to

protect the right established in Subsection (A) of

subsection 1.
2. This chapter shall not be construed to create a
right of action against a private party or to require a
private party to do business with an individual who
is not licensed, certified, or registered with the
government.
3. This chapter shall not be construed to create a
right of action against the federal government for
its use of a state occupational regulation in federal
law.

this section.
(D) Nothing in this section shall be construed to
create a right of action against a private party or to
require a private party to do business with an
individual who is not licensed, certified or
registered with the government.
Section 4. {Federal laws use of state occupational
regulations}
(A) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create
a right of action against the federal government for
its use of a state occupational regulation in federal
law.

ALECs Voucher Bill In Iowa

Bill(s)
HF209
0
SF215
4

House
Sponsors
Hagenow,
Highfill,
Cownie

Senate Sponsors
Behn, Johnson, Guth
Segebart, Garrett, Sinclair,
Ernst, Chapman,
Rosenboom, Kapucian,
Chelgren, Zaun, Anderson,
Bertrand, Whitver, Boettger,
Feenstra, Zumbach,
Breitbach, Greiner,
Schneider, Dix, Smith,
Houser

ALEC Model
Education Savings
Account Act

Each year, ALEC renews its attempt to voucherize and privatize education. ALECs Education Task
Force, which Rep. Greg Forristall used to chair,99 created the model Education Savings Account Act,
adopted as model ALEC legislation in December 2013.100 The ALEC Education Savings Account (ESA)
model is nominally different from vouchers; while vouchers pay directly for private school, the ESAs give
the money to parents, who spend it on private schools. The model would drain funding from public
schools and divert the funds to alternative schools. ALEC underscores the bills true purpose as vouchers
by listing a portion of its primary voucher bill at the end of its model. ALEC has gone to enormous
lengths to further their cause of school privatization by any means.101
In Iowa the house version of the bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Hagenow, and in the Senate by
Sen. Behn with 24 sponsors. The bill differed from the ALEC model with regards to the administration of
the ESA program, but kept ALECs mechanics of the ESAs, including similar phrasing.
HF2090, as Introduced
3. A. The department of management shall assign
each pupil an education savings grant in an amount
equal to the statewide average state foundation aid
per pupil in the same school year.
The director of the department of management has
all powers necessary to carry out and effectuate the
purposes, objectives, and provisions of this section
pertaining to the fund, including the power to do all
of the following:
a. Make and enter into contracts necessary for the
administration of the fund.
b. Procure insurance against any loss in connection
with the assets of the fund or require a surety bond.
c. Contract with a private financial management
99 alec.org, accessed 12/16/14
100 alec.org, accessed 12/16/16
101 ProgressNow, 2013

ALECs Model Education Savings Account Act

(B) The state shall deposit into an Education
Savings Account some or all of the state aid that
would otherwise have been provided to the resident
school district for the eligible student had they
enrolled in the resident school district;
(B) The Department will have the authority to
conduct or contract for the auditing of accounts,
and will at a minimum conduct random audits of
accounts on an annual basis. The Department will
have the authority to make any parent of an eligible
student ineligible for the Education Savings
Account program in the event of substantial misuse
of the funds in the account.
(A) The Department will qualify private financial
management firms to manage Education Savings

firm to manage the fund, in collaboration with the

treasurer of state, including providing for the
disbursement of education savings grants in the
form of an electronic debit card or checks that are
payable directly from the pupils account within the
fund.
d. Conduct audits or other review necessary to
properly administer the program.
6. For purposes of this section, qualified
educational expenses includes tuition and fees at a
nonpublic school, textbooks, fees or payments for
educational therapies including tutoring or
cognitive skills training, curriculum fees and
materials for a course of study for a specific subject
matter or grade level, tuition or fees for nonpublic
online education programs, education materials and
services for pupils with disabilities including the
cost of paraprofessionals and assistants who are
trained in accordance with state law, standardized
test fees, fees required by the department not to
exceed for each grant recipient five percent of the
total grant amount in any fiscal year, contributions
to an Iowa education savings plan trust account
under chapter 12D, contributions to a Coverdell
education savings account under 26 U.S.C. 530,
higher education expenses, as defined in
section12D.1, excluding room and board expenses,
and other expenses incurred by the parent or
guardian that are directly related to the education of
the pupil at a nonpublic school, including a
nonpublic school accredited by an independent
accrediting agency approved by the department of
education, or directly1 related to providing
competent private instruction for the pupil under
chapter 299A.
b. A nonpublic school or other entity that accepts
payment from a parent or guardian using funds
from a pupils account in the education savings
grant fund shall not refund, rebate, or share any
portion of such payment with the parent, guardian,
or pupil.

Accounts.

(C) Parents participating in the Education Savings

Account program shall agree to use the funds
deposited in their eligible students accounts for the
following qualifying expenses to educate the
eligible student:
(1) Tuition and fees at a participating school.
(2) Textbooks required by a participating school.
(3) Payment to a licensed or accredited tutor.
(4) Payment for purchase of curriculum.
(5) Tuition or fees for a non-public online learning
program.
(6) Fees for national norm-referenced
examinations, Advanced Placement examinations
or similar courses, and any examinations related to
college or university admission.
(7) Contribution to the eligible students qualified
tuition program established pursuant to 11 USC
Section 529.
(8) Educational services for pupils with disabilities
from a licensed or accredited practitioner or
provider.
(9) Tuition and fees at an eligible postsecondary
institution.
(10) Textbooks required for college or university
courses.
(E) A participating school, private tutor, eligible
postsecondary institution or other educational
provider may not refund, rebate, or share a
students grant with a parent or the student in any
manner. The funds in an Education Saving Account
may only be used for educational purposes.

APPENDIX: PAST DONATIONS FROM ALEC CORPORATE FUNDERS

TO ALEC MEMBERS OR ALUMS
The data regarding Sen. Ernst is from the Federal Elections Commission. All other data is via the Iowa
Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board. The data below may include corporations which have left ALEC,
only donations from before they left ALEC are listed; see SourceWatch.org for the full list of
corporations who have cut ties with ALEC.

GOVERNOR TERRY BRANSTAD

Date
7/2/14
8/14/13
6/25/14
7/19/13
1/11/13
7/7/14
10/21/1
3
11/13/13
10/8/13
9/9/14
10/29/1
3
11/27/13
6/25/14
7/19/13
11/6/13
7/26/13
8/20/14
1/10/14
7/19/13
11/10/14
11/3/14
10/31/1
4

Contributed By
Altria Group, Inc.
Altria Group, Inc.
Bridgepoint Education Inc. PAC
Bridgepoint Education Inc. PAC
Bridgepoint Education Inc. PAC
Centurylink Inc. Emplyees; PAC

State
DC
DC
CA
CA
CA
DC

Amount
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,500.00
$1,000.00
$2,500.00
$250.00

Centurylink Inc. Employees; PAC

Eli Lilly and Company PAC
Pfizer PAC
Union Pacific Fund for Effective Government

DC
IN
NY
DC

$5,000.00
$3,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00

Union Pacific Fund for Effective Government

Wells Fargo and Company Employee PAC
Farmers Employee and Agent PAC of Iowa
Farmers Employee and Agent PAC of Iowa
MidAmerican Energy Company Executive PAC
MidAmerican Energy Company Executive PAC
Iowa Restaurant Association PAC
Iowa Restaurant Association PAC
Iowa Restaurant Association PAC
Lyondell Chemical Company PAC
BNSF RailPAC
National Federation of Independent Business Iowa
SAFE Trust

DC
MN
KS
KS
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
TX
TX

$2,000.00
$5,000.00
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$12,500.00
$15,000.00
$150.00
$250.00
$200.00
$1,000.00
$2,500.00

DC

$218.85

SENATOR JONI ERNST

Receipt
Date
7/31/14
6/20/14
8/8/14

Contributor Name
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. PAC
AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL PAC

Stat
e
DC
DC
DC

Amount
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$2,500.00

9/30/14 AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL PAC

7/31/14 AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE PAC
7/31/14 AT&T INC. FEDERAL PAC
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF
6/30/14 AMERICA PAC
8/13/14 CHEVRON EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
9/30/14 CLOUD PEAK ENERGY RESOURCES LLC EMPLOYEE PAC
6/27/14 DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION PAC
7/15/14 DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION PAC
9/25/14 EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT FUND
6/23/14 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION PAC
6/30/14 KOCH INDUSTRIES INC PAC
10/10/1
4 MARATHON OIL COMPANY EMPLOYEES PAC
8/22/14 MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION EMPLOYEES PAC
10/8/14 MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION EMPLOYEES PAC
9/30/14 NATIONAL RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION PAC
8/8/14 NFIB THE VOICE OF FREE ENTERPRISE INC.
9/30/14 NFIB THE VOICE OF FREE ENTERPRISE INC.
8/8/14 THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY EMPLOYEES PAC
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. GOOD GOVERNMENT
6/11/14 CLUB
10/15/1
4 YELP INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

DC
DC
TX

$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$5,000.00

DC
CA
CO
OK
OK
MO
IN
DC

$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00

TX
MI
MI
DC
DC
DC
MI

$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$5,000.00
$2,500.00
$2,123.00
$2,000.00

DC

$5,000.00

CA

$2,500.00

REPRESENTATIVE LINDA UPMEYER

Date
7/23/14
1/10/14
8/14/13
12/10/1
4
12/16/1
3
6/16/14
8/30/13
9/10/14
7/31/14
7/23/14
9/19/13
9/6/13
7/23/14
10/4/13

Contributed By
Iowa Restaurant Association Political Action Committee
Iowa Restaurant Association Political Action Committee
Iowa Restaurant Association Political Action Committee
Iowa Restaurant Association Political Action Committee
Alliant Energy Iowa Minnesota Governmental Action
Committee
AT&T Inc. Federal Political Action Committee
AT&T Inc. Federal Political Action Committee
Union Pacific Fund for Effective Government
Eli Lilly & Company Political Action Committee
BNSF Railway Company RAILPAC (BNSF RAILPAC)
BNSF Railway Company RAILPAC (BNSF RAILPAC)
Wells Fargo and Company Employee PAC
Pfizer PAC
Pfizer PAC

Stat
e
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
TX
TX
DC
IN
DC
DC
MN
NY
NY

Amount
$250.00
$200.00
$200.00
$250.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$465.00
$500.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00

7/30/14
8/28/13
7/23/14
7/15/13
7/30/14
1/10/13
12/31/1
3
12/10/1
4

Reynolds American Inc. Political Action Committee; RAI PAC

Reynolds American Inc. Political Action Committee; RAI PAC
Altria Group, Inc. Political Action Committee (AltriaPAC)
Altria Group, Inc. Political Action Committee (AltriaPAC)
Koch Industries, Inc PAC
BridgePoint Education, Inc PAC

NC
NC
DC
DC
DC
CA

$1,000.00
$2,500.00
$500.00
$250.00
$1,500.00
$400.00

CenturyLink Employees' PAC

DC

$1,000.00

CenturyLink Employees' PAC

DC

$1,000.00

REPRESENTATIVE GREG FORRISTALL

Date
Contributed By
7/26/14 BNSF Railway Company RAILPAC (BNSF RAILPAC)

Stat
e
DC

Amount
$250.00

REPRESENTATIVE DAWN PETTENGILL

Date

Contributed By
National Federation of Independent Business Iowa SAFE
10/3/14 Trust
11/6/13 Union Pacific Fund for Effective Government

Stat
e
DC
DC

Amount
$78.54
$500.00

SENATOR BILL DIX

Date
Contributed By
7/14/14 Altria Group, Inc. Political Action Committee (AltriaPAC)
AT&T Inc. Federal Political Action Committee (AT&T Federal
6/18/14 P
8/8/14 BNSF Railway Company RAILPAC (BNSF RAILPAC)
11/4/14 BNSF Railway Company RAILPAC (BNSF RAILPAC)
1/11/13 BridgePoint Education, Inc PAC
7/14/14 CenturyLink Employees' PAC
8/2/14 Eli Lilly & Company Political Action Committee
11/14/13 Eli Lilly & Company Political Action Committee
10/17/14 Iowa Restaurant Association Political Action Committee
7/14/14 Iowa Restaurant Association Political Action Committee
1/7/14 Iowa Restaurant Association Political Action Committee
8/8/14 Koch Industries, Inc PAC
10/27/14 National Federation of Independent Business Iowa SAFE Trust
10/16/14 Pfizer PAC
10/28/13 Pfizer PAC

State Amount
DC
$1,000.00
TX
DC
DC
CA
DC
IN
IN
IA
IA
IA
DC
DC
NY
NY

$500.00
$5,000.00
$500.00
$200.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$200.00
$250.00
$200.00
$1,500.00
$5,500.00
$1,000.00
$500.00