I'm never clear on why I'm supposed to be upset about model legislation. It seems like that's how the process should work: interest groups should, in addition to making valence appeals for their particular interests, also take the time to draft specific proposals. Moreover, especially on technical matters, it seems likely that private-sourced model legislation would be a superior starting point than whatever leg' staff would come up with themselves.

Rather than getting all swoony about ALEC, wouldn't it make more sense just to fund more countervailing model legislation? Wouldn't that move the policy debate out of the arena of subjective feels and further into the realm of nuts-and-bolts decisions? Isn't that strictly more transparent than what happens now in bills that aren't based in any way on models?

Or, put it this way: in my lifetime I'm almost certainly going to have no chance of having a hand in any legislation drafted by the staff of any legislator. But I could reasonably hope to spend time getting involved with an organization that drafted and then promoted (cough lobbied for gasp) those bills. Doesn't model legislation ultimately democratize the process?

And, sure, it sucks that the "Asbestos Transparency Act" protects companies that might have asbestos liabilities. But it's not as if legislators can reasonably sign bills based solely on their titles, or that we as citizens don't have an obligation to read proposals when they're published. Or, for that matter, as if the laws that legislators themselves draft don't have egregiously misleading titles.

(Just for what it's worth, there's a progressive alternative to ALEC, SIX: https://stateinnovation.org/).