Well, of course there is no way to teach it in civics classes.
There are several items in that article, which I will address........First, Dick has the wrong bill in mind when he is talking about how the eminent domain constitutional amendment died on the last day.....ALFA was the prime promoter of putting the new eminent domain language into the constitution, and it was fought by a variety of other groups, e.g. the League of Municipalities, the Association of County Commissioners, the Power Company and the railroads....What happened on that bill was that the Senate amended the House Bill.....The House then concurred in the Senate amendment (such concurrence requiring only a majority of those present and voting), but failed to muster the requisite 3/5 of the elected members (63) to repass the bill (repassage required, as it was an amendment to a constitutional amendment)....The House produced only 55 affirmative votes on repassage, so the bill died in the House.
Now, Dick is not entirely forthcoming - he was been supported by ALFA for years, and used to lobby the Legislature, back in 1993-1994 on behalf of an ALFA front called "Score 100".....He wined and dined legislators and was a registered lobbyist.....So, this was no "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" story. Dick knew the score long before he ran, and knew the whole process long before he ran.
On the money situation: Yes, it is a mess. The mess largely has come from the age-old stalemate between the business lobbies and the trial lawyers....Ordinary corporations, including small and large businesses, are limited to contributing $500 per candidate per electio cycle (e.g. primary, primary run-off, general election), but law firms can contribute an unlimited amount......So, what does business do? They contribute unlimited amounts to PAC's. Further, they can contribute an amount to a PAC and ask that PAC to then write a check to another PAC - this is PAC-to-PAC transfer and is the major reason it is so difficult to follow the money. Most of these PAC's are created and operated by independent lobbying firms - the contract lobbyists, e.g. the lobbying firm Auburn hired and pays out of Tigers Unlimited (again, so that Auburn doesn't have to disclose how much it pays this lobbying firm). This particular lobbying firm also happens to represent Colonial Bank. So, Colonial Bank can contribute an unlimited amount to any of the 30+ PAC's this lobbying firm has created, then transfer monies from one to the other, to eventually get to the candidate to whom it was intended to go in the first place....This maze confounds reporters who try to follow the money, so it is damned near impossible to determine that "Candidate A" received a $10,000 contribution from the "Better Alabama PAC", when that $10,000 came from - say - Colonial Bank, then was transferred through about 4 PAC's before it finally landed in the Better Alabama PAC, then to the candidate. The candidate is apprised of the origin of the money, but reporters can't follow it and prove it. See?
Business says it will lobby for an end to PAC-to-PAC transfers if law firms are limited in the amount they can give. Trial Lawyers say PAC-to-PAC should be ended.
And, so it goes.......It is trench warfare and won't likely end anytime soon, unless the State Supreme Court (also elected candidates who receive money from both law firms and PAC-to-PAC transfers) rule PAC-to-PAC unconstitutional, on some grounds.........I don't see that happening anytime soon, either - for obvious reasons.
::::>
::::>http://www.wbhm.org/News/2006/lobbyists.html
::::> Montgomery--Dick Brewbaker thought he knew what he was getting
into four years ago when he ran for a seat in the Alabama House of
Representatives. Afterall, he worked for his family's auto dealership -
so he knew how to negotiate - and he was a former high school history
and government teacher. But when Brewbaker won the election and started
work in Montgomery - the real education began.
