Exposed
ALEC EXPOSED
Search

GO

By the Center for
Media and Democracy
www.prwatch.org

D I D YOU KNOW? Corporations VOTED to adopt this. Through ALEC, global companies
LOGIN | LOGOUT | HOME | JOIN ALEC | CONTACT

work as “equals” in “unison” with politicians to write laws to govern your life. Big
“ALEC”
has long
been aEVENTS & MEETINGS
ABOUT
MEMBERS
MODEL LEGISLATION
TASK FORCES
INITIATIVES
Business has
“a VOICE and a VOTE,”
accordingALEC
to newly
exposedPUBLICATIONS
documents. DO YOU?
secretive
NEWS collaboration
Did you know the
between Big Business and
NRA--the National
Home
Model Legislation
Public Safety and Elections
“conservative”
politicians.
Model Legislation
BehindCivil
closed
doors, they
Justice
ghostwrite “model” bills to
Commerce,
Insurance,
be introduced
in state
and
Economic
capitols
across
the country.
Development
This agenda--underwritten
by global
corporations-Education
includes major tax
Energy,
Environment,
loopholes
for big
industries
and Agriculture
and the super rich,
proposals
to offshore
Federal
RelationsU.S.
jobs and gut minimum
and Human
wage, Health
and efforts
to
Services
weaken public health,
safety,International
and environmental
Relations
protections. Although many
Public Safety and
of these
bills have become
Elections
law, until now, their origin
has been
unknown.
Tax largely
and Fiscal
Policy
With ALEC EXPOSED, the
CenterTelecommunications
for Media and
and Information
Democracy
hopes more
Technology
Americans will study the
bills to understand the
Print this Page
depth and breadth of how
Text-Only
big corporations
arePage
changing the
legal
rules
Email this Page
and undermining democracy
across the nation.

ALEC’s’Corporate Board
--in recent past or present

• AT&T Services, Inc.
• centerpoint360
• UPS
• Bayer Corporation
• GlaxoSmithKline
• Energy Future Holdings
• Johnson & Johnson
• Coca-Cola Company
• PhRMA
• Kraft Foods, Inc.
• Coca-Cola Co.
• Pfizer Inc.
• Reed Elsevier, Inc.
• DIAGEO
• Peabody Energy
• Intuit, Inc.
• Koch Industries, Inc.
• ExxonMobil
• Verizon
• Reynolds American Inc.
• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
• Salt River Project
• Altria Client Services, Inc.
• American Bail Coalition
• State Farm Insurance
For more on these corporations,
search at www.SourceWatch.org.

Statement of Principles on Federally Mandated Blood Alcohol Levels
(BAC) and Drunk Driving Sanctions

Rifle Association-was the corporate
co-chair in 2011?

The American Legislative Exchange Council finds the following:

Federal Funding and Mandates
Our nation’s system of governance is based on a unique delicate balance between the
federal government and the governments of the states. This balance is founded on the
belief that each is a co-equal branch of government with clearly enumerated and
distinct duties and responsibilities.
State officials have a duty and a vested interest in ensuring their roadways are as safe as
possible for their citizens.
Knowing their states unique characteristics, state lawmakers are in the best position to
set the appropriate safety standards. State lawmakers have a closer relationship then
federal lawmakers with the citizens they represent and are in a position to directly
respond to their concerns.
Federally imposed standards upset the balance between Washington and the states.
Federally imposed standards force a “one-size-fits-all” approach that ignores local needs
and concerns. Federally imposed standards also ignore the valuable experience of
persons most familiar with a state’s needs. The policies of the states are the result of a
deliberative process of state lawmakers, acting on behalf of their citizens.
Federal highway funding is financed through various excise taxes paid by citizens into
the Federal Highway Trust Fund. This funding is complemented by state funding, based
on state excise taxes and fees. Taxpayers and the states deserve the maximum funding
from this Trust Fund. The federal government should not withhold highway funding as a
leverage to force a state to adopt or change its policy.
If states are forced to adopt a federally mandated policy, additional resources should be
committed to the state to cover compliance and administrative costs

Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Levels
Each state, through the deliberative legislative process, has the power set blood alcohol
content (BAC) level at which a driver is considered legally intoxicated. Thirty-four states
currently enforce a 0.10 BAC level and sixteen states enforce a 0.08 BAC level.
State officials, acting on behalf of citizens, are in the best position to determine the
appropriate BAC level for this state. They have the ability to adjust this level as needed.
Any effort that would shift this power to the federal government is a severe violation of
state’s rights and should be terminated.

Focusing Sanctions
When determining the focus of drunk driving sanctions or any other government
regulation policymakers should ensure that the focus of such sanctions impacts the
targeted violators and avoids burdening the law abiding citizen.
A driver with BAC levels of 0.15 or higher is 380 times more likely to be involved in a
crash than a non drinking driver. In 1997, 58 percent of drivers involved in alcohol
related traffic fatalities had BAC levels of 0.15 or higher, significantly higher than any
state’s legal limits.
Each year as many as 40 percent of fatally injured drivers have been previously
convicted of DWI. Of these 80 percent have BAC levels of 0.15 or higher.
It is these “hardcore” drunk drivers that consistently drive with high BAC levels despite
previous convictions that should be the target of drunk driving sanctions. Although the
“hardcore” drunk drivers make up a relatively small group of drivers they continue to
account for a substantial portion of drinking and driving problems.
Sanctions that focus on keeping the “hardcore” drunk driver off the roadways will have
the most significant impact in reducing drunk driving accidents and fatalities.

Legislative Actions
When implementing sanctions to counter the hardcore drunk driver, states should
coordinate existing laws and close existing loopholes. Measures should be taken to form
a comprehensive system that ensures that offenders are charged at the proper level and

assure that separate sanctions are connected and reinforced.
The establishment of a reliable statewide DWI reporting system would ensure that
multiple offenders are not treated as first time offenders, a common error due to the lack
of data.
Adopted by ALEC's Trade & Transportation Task Force March, 1999. Approved by full
ALEC Board of Directors April 22, 1999.

About Us and ALEC EXPOSED. The Center
for Media
and Democracy
reports
on corporate
About
Members
Login
Logout
Events
& Meetingsspin and government
Legislation
Task Forces
ALEC www.PRWatch.org,
Initiatives
Publications
Home
propaganda.! We are located Model
in Madison,
Wisconsin,
and publish
www.SourceWatch.org,
Join ALEC
Contact
News
and now www.ALECexposed.org. For more information
contact:
editor@prwatch.org
or 608-260-9713.