Wednesday, September 18, 2013

ALEC; exempt from the law!!! Republicans State Sen. Leah Vukmir; exempt from the law!!! See a pattern?

ALEC is not only the heart and soul of the Republican Party, keeping them alive for its own quest for power, it is now claiming god like status: It’s above the law.
ALEC is claiming that its documents aren't subject to state records laws because they
were stamped with a disclaimer claiming they were exempt and because they were distributed through Internet file sharing sites called “drop boxes.”

Open records advocates insist that whether a record is on paper or in some electronic form doesn’t make it less open to the public, and that ALEC can’t exempt itself from the law.
Knowing ALEC legislation is used and passed by Republican lawmakers, it's mind boggling to think our government is being shaped by an "exempt" shadow government. 

Add to that this down-the-rabbit-hole concept by state AG, J.B. Van Hollen in defending against a lawsuit to turn over ALEC legislative documentation:
WSJ: Van Hollen said Tuesday that he believes in the open records law, but that doesn't mean legislators can be forced into court to make them comply with the statute.
That crazy twist in logic is Van Hollen’s defense against a lawsuit requesting ALEC material from another ALEC foot soldier Republican Sen. Leah Vukmir:
Van Hollen’s state Department of Justice filed a motion in Dane County Circuit Court last week claiming that state Sen. Leah Vukmir, R-Wauwatosa, is immune from lawsuits — including a pending open records suit — while she is in office.
Any perceived impartiality just went out the window with that statement.
The state constitution says lawmakers aren't subject to lawsuits “during the session of the Legislature.” The advocates say that means just during a “floor session” when lawmakers are debating and voting. “It’s hard to believe that the legislative intent (of the constitutional provision) was to say the Legislature should never be subject to civil litigation,” said Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.
But constitutional purists, who believe the framers words put hard limits on government power, always find ways to expand power...using those same words:
“The framers of the Constitution inserted this provision — common among state constitutions — to give temporary protection to lawmakers from civil suits while they are doing the people’s work,” Van Hollen said in a statement. “Whether the framers’ decision to provide this unique protection to legislators was a proper balancing of interests is a debatable question. What is not debatable is my responsibility to defend its application when it is invoked.”
Sen. Vukmir scurried away like your typical Republican rat for cover, completely unable to defend her own actions. Perhaps her constituents can ask her what she’s trying to hide. Could it be an ALEC agenda that’s not quite in sync with the priorities of Wisconsin voters?


  1. I have spent the last several years responding to 'lazy poor people are taking my money' rants by asking people if they believe that the entirely legal practice of protecting granny's estate by getting taxpayers to pay for her nursing home care is welfare. After all, she has the money, it's just tied up by placing the house in a trust or stashing cash with the kids. And it's not something she's 'paid into'. It's not something she necessarily 'deserves'.
    I've never met anyone, when I asked the question(s), who thought that way, and you can see people's eyes change as they figure it out and either are appalled or scramble to think of an excuse why this is ok but food or health care for a poor person is not.
    Looks like Scott and company are about to give Wisconsin an object lesson in welfare reform.

  2. Oops, ended up in the wrong post.