March, 26 2012, 01:15pm EDT
Powerful Corporate Interests Used the American Legislative Exchange Council to Undermine the Affordable Care Act
For the past three years, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and its corporate backers have engineered a sophisticated and coordinated campaign to undermine the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in state houses across the country. Not surprisingly, the corporations behind ALEC include the health care industry and powerful pharmaceutical interests. Notable corporate members include, Wellpoint, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline, and the industry's trade association, PhARMA.
WASHINGTON
For the past three years, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and its corporate backers have engineered a sophisticated and coordinated campaign to undermine the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in state houses across the country. Not surprisingly, the corporations behind ALEC include the health care industry and powerful pharmaceutical interests. Notable corporate members include, Wellpoint, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline, and the industry's trade association, PhARMA.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the ALEC Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act[1], a model bill ALEC boasts has been introduced in 44 states since 2009, has helped drive state-based legislative challenges to the ACA.[2] A December 2010 statement from Christie Herrera, ALEC's Health and Human Services Task Force Director, stated: "ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act is spreading throughout the country and giving the states the leverage they need to bring about challenges to ObamaCare."[3]
ALEC is also involved in state and national legal challenges to the ACA, including cases being argued this week in the United States Supreme Court. ALEC's brief in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case,[4] State of Florida and National Federation of Independent Business v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was cited in the majority opinion that found aspects of the ACA unconstitutional[5]. This case is now pending before the Supreme Court, where ALEC has also filed an amicus brief.[6] While ALEC describes its filings as "submitted on behalf of its legislators," it omits mention that its funding is derived almost entirely from private corporations and foundations, including a large section of the private health care industry.
At ALEC "task force meetings," corporate representatives sit alongside legislators, introducing and voting on ALEC model bills. The Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act was passed by ALEC's Health and Human Services task force in December 2008. Documents reviewed by Common Cause indicate the task force included pharmaceutical giants GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Bayer, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson, along with PhRMA, the industry's trade association; also included were health insurance providers WellPoint, United Health Group, CVS Caremark and Amerigroup, plus non-health related organizations including Reynolds American Inc., Wal-Mart and the Koch brothers-sponsored Heartland Institute.
On its website, ALEC celebrates its success in challenging the ACA in state houses and the courts.[7] But its mischaracterization of the drive as coming from state legislators alone is disingenuous and deserves attention.
Here is a table of states where the ALEC Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act has been introduced, where it has passed, and noting where the bill sponsor is known to be a member of ALEC.
[1] https://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/3/3b/5U2-FREEDOM_OF_CHOICE_IN_HEAL...
[2] https://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/state-laws-and-actions-chal...
[3] https://www.alec.org/2010/12/another-step-toward-victory-for-americans-...
[4] https://www.alec.org/wp-content/uploads/nps2FE.pdf
[5] https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201111021.pdf
[6] https://www.alec.org/SCOTUS-brief
[7] https://www.alec.org/category/press-releases/page/4/
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process.
(202) 833-1200LATEST NEWS
Trump's Unprovoked War on Iran Triggers 10% Spike in Global Oil Prices
"When global energy security can be upended by a single flashpoint, it shows how unstable and risky our dependence on oil and gas is," said one critic.
Mar 02, 2026
President Donald Trump's unprovoked, unconstitutional, and politically unpopular war against Iran is about to cause pains for Americans at the gas pump.
CNBC reported on Monday that Brent crude oil prices surged by 9.3% to a 52-week high of $79.40 per barrel, while US West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices spike by 9% to $73.10 per barrel.
This spike in oil prices is projected to directly lead to an increase in gas prices in the coming days.
Petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan noted in a Monday update on his Substack page that gas prices in the US had already risen by roughly six cents in the last week, and that war with Iran would drive these prices higher.
"Developments surrounding Iran—particularly any threat to regional production or shipping flows—are likely to remain the dominant driver of oil prices," wrote De Haan, "and could keep crude elevated or push it higher if tensions intensify further."
A Sunday research note from Wells Fargo cited by CNBC drew attention to the importance of the Strait of Hormuz, which the Iranian government closed off over the week and which is used to transport roughly 20% of the global supplies of petroleum and liquified natural gas.
According to Wells Fargo, a "prolonged" closure of the strait would result in "an oil shock to $100+ per barrel," which it described as the "worst-case scenario" for global stock markets.
In addition to closing off the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has also been launching attacks on other nations' energy infrastructure.
According to a report from Bloomberg, Saudi Arabia’s largest oil refinery at Ras Tanura had to cease operations on Monday after being struck in a drone attack.
"An attack on major energy infrastructure is a nightmare scenario for global markets," noted Bloomberg, "with maritime traffic through the crucial Strait of Hormuz all but halting."
Olivia Langhoff, managing director at climate justice organization 350.org said that the global economic disruptions being caused by the Iran war shows the folly of continuing to rely on fossil fuels for energy needs.
"When global energy security can be upended by a single flashpoint, it shows how unstable and risky our dependence on oil and gas is," Langhoff said. "Renewable energy provides homegrown power that remains secure and affordable regardless of geopolitical shocks."
The increase in gas prices comes at a time when US voters have been expressing widespread dissatisfaction with the economy under Trump, as polls show voters have been particularly anxious about the prices of groceries and utilities, among other essentials.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Only 25% of Americans Support Trump Attack on Iran: Poll
"If this goes on... this is going to become a political disaster," said one foreign policy expert.
Mar 02, 2026
President Donald Trump's war in Iran is extraordinarily unpopular, according to a poll conducted shortly after the US and Israel carried out massive strikes on the country Saturday.
The survey, conducted by Reuters/Ipsos, found that just 27% of voters approved of the strikes, which have killed at least 555 Iranians as of Monday morning and resulted in retaliation from Iran that has killed at least four US service members, with more casualties expected according to a spokesperson for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Meanwhile, 43% of respondents disapproved of the military action, while 29% said they were not sure.
A majority of Republicans said they approved of the strikes, with 55% expressing support. Still, 13% disapproved, and a noteworthy 31% said they were unsure.
Approval is dismal with nearly everyone else. Only 19% of independents expressed support compared to 44% who disapproved. And though Democratic leaders in Congress have done little to stand in the way of the strikes, their voters are overwhelmingly against them: 74% said they disapproved, while just 7% approved.
The poll reflects a wider skepticism of US military intervention, with 56% of respondents saying the president was too quick to deploy military force in recent months, including in Venezuela, Syria, and Nigeria.
Compared with previous US military interventions in the Middle East, such as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which—at least at their outset—enjoyed broad support from the American public following intense government efforts to drum up support, there has been little effort by the Trump administration to define the purpose of war with Iran.
Trump's justification for launching the war has shifted wildly since he began amassing troops in the region. Trump has most recently said the strikes were intended to stop an "imminent threat" from Iran; meanwhile, the Pentagon has told Congress there was no sign Iran was planning an attack unless the US did so first.
The president previously said his push for war was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, an assertion at odds with his claim that his strikes in June "obliterated" the country's nuclear capabilities.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera that Trump's shifting explanations reek of "desperation."
"It's very clear that Trump has a tremendous difficulty finding a justification for this war of choice that he's embarked on," he said. "The reality is that if this goes on for another week or two, this is going to become a political disaster."
"So now he's suddenly, desperately, using all kinds of justifications: Liberating the Iranian people, Iran is fighting against civilization," Parsi said. "If he actually had a case, he would have stuck to that point and made it clearly. But he doesn't have one."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Call Grows to Impeach Trump, 'The Most Dangerous Man on the Planet'
"Trump’s illegal war on Iran and the rule of law," said one pair of campaigners, "establish an intolerable pattern of egregious abuses of power, directly threatening our constitutional order, our safety, and our way of life."
Mar 02, 2026
After the unprovoked bombing of Iran over the weekend by the United States and Israel—strikes that included the unlawful assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei—the call for US President Donald Trump to be impeached and removed from office has grown as the straightest path to hold the US leader to account for the attacks which policy and human rights experts have condemned as a serious war crime.
With a regional war in the Middle East that was already boiling from Gaza to Lebanon and from Syria to Yemen now exploding in the wake of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, Globe and Mail columnist Debra Thompson on Sunday called Trump "the most dangerous man on the planet."
"Rather than ending wars," Thompson notes, "Trump has initiated military action eight times, carrying out attacks in seven countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, and Venezuela) in 2025." Such a pattern of violence and warmongering should make clear that failure to restrain Trump has only emboldened him.
"The recurring danger in this latest presidential aggression is that there are no guardrails, no constraints, and no post-hoc justification," writes Thomson, "other than that Mr. Trump is the President of the United States and can do whatever he wants."
But American presidents cannot simply do whatever they want. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll out Sunday, less than 25% support the president's aggression against Iran. In the first wave of the US military attack, an Iranian school for girls was bombed, killing over 108 civilians, mostly children.
While some congressional lawmakers are pushing for a vote this week on a War Powers Resolution to curtail US military operations against Iran, others are demanding more robust action from Congress to bring Trump's war-making to an end.
"Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war, as well as to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and fund and regulate the military," declared novelist and political activists Stephen King on Saturday. "Impeach the SOB."
Mike Hersh and Alan Minsky, respectively the communications director and executive director of the Progressive Democrats of America, argued in a Sunday op-ed for Common Dreams that "Trump's illegal, unconstitutional war on Iran is not only a moral and humanitarian disaster, but also a profound constitutional crisis."
According to Hersh and Minsky:
Trump’s illegal war on Iran and the rule of law establish an intolerable pattern of egregious abuses of power, directly threatening our constitutional order, our safety, and our way of life. These intertwined crises cry out for an immediate, decisive response by the Congress and the US public.
Therefore, PDA demands that all members of Congress, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, uphold their oath of office to defend our constitutional republic. The Constitution offers one and only one remedy when President a repeatedly breaks the law and arrogantly refuses to abide by the limits on the power clearly laid out in the Constitution. That remedy is impeachment, followed by removal from office.
Matt Duss, executive vice president for the Center for International Policy, said that US lawmakers, as well as the American people they represent, "must also be ready to hold the president and his administration accountable for this breach of US and international law."
"The failure to hold past presidents liable for war crimes and related violations of our own laws has helped lead to this dangerous moment, with a seemingly unrestrained president endangering millions of lives with impunity," warned Duss. "The forever wars and the imperial presidency must finally come to an end.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular