ALEC TRIES TO
PULL THE PULL ON ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Introduction
In April 2003, the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC) unveiled its model Electronic Government Services
Act. ALEC promotes the bill as a way “to protect against
unfair government competition in the marketplace” and to
provide “oversight of government spending and activity.”(1)
Those opposing the legislation, including environmental
groups, librarians, open government advocates, public interest
groups, and voter education organizations, say the ALEC bill would
reduce public access to a wide range of government information.
The Electronic Government Services Act prohibits government agencies
from providing any “electronic commerce services”
that are also offered by at least two private companies. Agencies
that feel it is in the public interest for the government to provide
an electronic service (including information) also offered by
private companies are required by the Act to justify their reasons,
hold a public comment period, and present detailed findings regarding
the service, including the direct, indirect, and per taxpayer
costs. Even then, the agency’s provision of electronic services
is open to legal challenge by any company doing similar business
within the state.
The legislation was drafted by ALEC’s Telecommunications
and Information Technology Task Force, at least partially in response
to more than 20 states offering online tax preparation services.(2)
Another government activity that bill supporters object
to is a job training program for inmates run by Ohio’s Department
of Rehabilitation and Correction. The bill’s main sponsor
in the Ohio House said the program’s online store for basic
office furniture made by inmate trainees negatively affects private
businesses. In its analysis, the conservative Progress and Freedom
Foundation also maintained that the ALEC bill would improve online
security: “The adoption of digital technologies by our governments
has increased efficiency and lowered costs... [but] information
about identity, activities, assets, and preferences are also more
accessible to the public, more at risk to ‘bad actors’
and, generally, less private.”(3)
Opponents of the ALEC legislation are concerned that it would
make important information – even data developed with taxpayer
money – less accessible, or accessible only for a fee. Specific
areas that might be restricted by what some opponents call the
“make the people pay act” include information about
state parks, such as camping reservation systems; state and local
environmental plans, including land use maps; corporate charters
and other information on companies in the state; neighboring states’
sales tax and other policies; books available at both public libraries
and bookstores; state legislation and judicial opinions; high-speed
internet connections at public libraries; and online fee payments.
ALEC calls these charges “demagoguery.”(2)
The model bill’s summary paragraph clarifies
that “commercial activities should not be confused with
electronic government services such as ordering government publications
or renewing drivers’ licenses.” But vague wording
in the main body of the bill makes no distinctions and contains
no exemptions for any type of government information.
ALEC’s Electronic Government Services Act was introduced
in seven states in 2002; none passed, though the Mississippi House
approved the bill. In 2003, five states introduced the legislation;
again, none became law. In Ohio, ALEC state co-chair and ALEC
“Legislator of the Year, 2002”(4)
Representative Stephen Buehrer, frustrated by his inability to
pass the legislation as a stand-alone bill in 2002 or 2003, attached
the bill language to the two-year state budget act, without any
public debate. Buehrer’s controversial move spurred broad-based
opposition to the measure, including local newspapers, the League
of Women Voters, Ohio Public Interest Research Group, librarians,
People for the American Way, the American Association of Law Libraries,
and Democratic state legislators. Governor Taft also expressed
concern at possible effects of the legislation and at the extensive
approval process required before government agencies could offer
electronic services or information duplicated by businesses.(5)
Neither the Senate budget bill nor the conference committee
version signed by the governor contained Electronic Government
Services Act language.(6)
Although efforts to pass the Electronic Government Services Act
have failed to date, due to robust public opposition, ALEC’s
pro-business and pro-government efficiency rhetoric can be attractive,
especially during a time of tight state budgets. It is important
for state legislators to realize that the Act would, in reality,
negatively impact the state budget and, more importantly, limit
citizens’ ability to access important information.
back to top
Talking Points
- ALEC’s Electronic Government Services Act would privatize
government information and services developed with taxpayers’
money.
- The bill would make important information less accessible,
or accessible only for a fee.
- Public access to a wide range of information could be affected,
including state park reservations; state and local environmental
plans; health, safety, and environmental regulations; state
legislation and judicial opinions; and the corporate charters
of businesses in the state.
- The bill could negatively impact state government, restricting
agencies such as tourism departments from publicizing information,
and requiring agencies to go through a long, onerous process
to obtain permission to offer information or services duplicated
by private businesses.
back to top
Links to Relevant
Bills
Ohio
H
5450 (introduced Jan. 21, 2003; failed joint favorable deadline
Apr. 7, 2003)
Mississippi
S
2637 (introduced Jan. 20, 2003; died in committee Feb. 4,
2003)
Rhode
Island
S
842 (introduced and referred to Financial Services, Technology
and Regulatory Issues Feb. 26, 2003)
back to top
Press Clips
back to top |
