Not sure if this is something that can be used here, but one hopes.
In Dow Chemical Co. v. Allen, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin asserted a researcher’s privilege and refused to divulge all data related to his ongoing studies of a herbicide manufactured by the plaintiff company.... Although the court did not directly acknowledge the researcher’s privilege, it did admit that premature public disclosure could significantly harm a researcher’s career and credibility by precluding peer review and scientific publication. The court also feared that disclosure could set a precedent that would potentially chill scientific research on a larger scale by subjecting scientists to such intrusion.
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
"We are different from previous generations of conservatives... We are no longer working to preserve the status quo. We are radicals, working to overturn the present power structure of this country."posted by drezdn at 8:31 AM on March 25, 2011 [4 favorites]
As Dr. Cronon mentioned, ALEC does not make its members known to the public. However, if his emails need to be released for the public good, I think their membership rosters would be very informative to the public as well.
Luckily, lazy technology makes this possible to an extent. On the ALEC website, they have a “Forgot Password” page, like most sites do. However, the process for resetting a password only requires an email address with no other information, and it gives immediate confirmation as to whether or not that email is registered in the system:
http://www.alec.org//AM/Template.cfm?Section=Login&Template=Security/NoPassword.cfm
Using this page, I was able to verify Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald’s membership in a few seconds using the email address on his state web page (Rep.Fitzgerald@legis.wisconsin.gov).
Open up the shades and let the sunshine in, before they figure out this loophole and close it.
* Section 991.11, WISCONSIN STATUTES 2009−10 : Effective date of acts. “Every act and every portion of an act enacted by the legislature over the governor’s partial veto which does not expressly prescribe the time when it takes effect shall take effect on the day after its date of publication as designated” by the secretary of state [the date of publication may not be more than 10 working days after the date of enactment].I'm not sure what that means, but it seems that like the Capitol Access, they just went ahead and did what they wanted on the "Better to ask forgiveness than permission" doctrine.
† Pursuant to section 35.095 (3) (b), Wis. Stats., the secretary of state designated March 25, 2011, as the date of publication for this act. On March 18, 2011, the Dane County Circuit Court enjoined the secretary of state from publishing 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 until further order of the court. Section 35.095 (3) (a), Wis. Stats., requires the Legislative Reference Bureau to publish every act within 10 working days after its date of enactment.
The bill published by LRB includes the following: "Date of publication: March 25, 2011." This is a knowingly false statement. According to 35.095(1)(b) of Wisc. Code: "'Date of publication' means the date designated by the secretary of state."**The Secretary of State voided the date of publication due to the TRO
“Official publication by the Secretary of State is required for this act to go into effect. The Secretary of State, the only Constitutional officer with the power to publish law, is prohibited by court order from publishing this Act.posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 5:48 PM on March 25, 2011
« Older Interested in CAD but find AutoCAD too expensive? ... | Cruise Missiles: The Million-D... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by oddman at 7:38 AM on March 25, 2011 [5 favorites]