Hi  Senator  Vukmir:       I’m  glad  we  were  able  to  talk  today.  You  can  expect  that  I  will  always  respond   rapidly  to  any  personal  call  from  you.  To  move  this  issue  forward,  please  allow  me   to  recap  our  brief  discussion  today.       You  kindly  advised  me  that  various  people  are  claiming  that  I  am  attacking  other   Article  V  efforts.  I  have  denied  those  claims.  I  have  not  personally  attacked  any   Article  V  organization  or  approach.  Nothing  I  do  or  we  do  is  gratuitous  criticism,   much  less  an  “attack,”  on  any  other  organization.  Our  organization  is  committed   to  researching,  analyzing,  presenting  and  debating  the  merits  of  our  approach  to   Article  V  with  solid  research  and  analysis.  We  have  found  that  this  does  require  a   degree  of  product  differentiation  among  both  state-­‐based  and  congressional   Article  V  efforts  for  a  number  of  reasons,  the  most  obvious  of  which  is  that  fully   appreciating  the  unique  advantages  of  the  compact  approach  to  Article  V  requires   a  comparison  against  the  traditional  or  “legacy”  approaches.  We  will  always  bring   transparency  to  the  risk/reward  profile  of  all  approaches.       Unlike  certain  BBATF  advocates  to  this  day,  and  unlike  Mark  Levin  and  other  COS   advocates  from  time  to  time,  we  have  never  said  to  any  legislator  that  our   approach  should  be  the  only  approach.  Unlike  BBATF  and  COS  advocates  in   hearings  in  which  we  have  jointly  testified,  we  have  always  emphasized  when   asked  in  every  hearing  that  legislators  should  support  all  approaches.  If  you  want   proof  that  we  remain  hopeful  that  common  ground  can  exist,  at  the  request  of   the  Compact  Commission,  you  should  note  that  we  have  offered  in  Wyoming  to   carry  the  BBATF’s  resolution  as  an  additional  section  in  our  Compact  legislation.   This  olive  branch  was  also  similarly  extended  in  WV.  So  far  this  outreach  has  been   met  by  BBATF  advocate  Bill  Fruth  with  a  backhanded  rejection.       That  being  said,  here  are  the  specific  data  points  you  shared  with  me  as   underlying  your  concerns,  and  my  responses:         • First,  you  mentioned  the  cover  email  for  our  recent  policy  brief  on  the  cost   of  different  Article  V  conventions.  The  cover  email  is  a  straightforward   summary  of  the  contents  of  a  policy  brief  authored  by  Geoff  Hersh,  our   Koch  Liberty@Work  intern.  Model  legislation  of  ALEC  is  not  criticized  at  all.   I  would  encourage  you  to  read  the  report  here  to  verify  that  it  is  excellent   policy  work.       • Second,  you  mentioned  an  apology  for  something  that  happened  at  the   federalism  task  force  back  in  July  of  last  year.  To  my  recollection,  that   apology  did  not  relate  to  any  personal  conduct  of  mine.  I  would  appreciate   some  clarity  over  this  issue,  especially  as  the  underlying  organizational   issue  was  settled.       Third,  you  mentioned  that  I  am  being  accused  of  going  to  Washington,  DC   to  attack  the  BBATF.  Actually,  I  am  going  to  DC  at  the  request  of   Congressman  Gosar  and  the  Compact  Commission  to  find  additional   sponsors  for  HCR  26.       To  the  extent  that  the  “attack”  accusation  relates  to  the  cover  email  for  Attorney   Jeff  Kimble’s  “Elephant  in  the  Room”  policy  brief,  please  notice  that  the  related   cover  email  does  not  oppose  the  BBATF;  it  merely  underscores  the  need  to  not   put  all  of  our  eggs  in  the  BBATF  basket.  Notice  also  that  model  legislation  of  ALEC   is  not  being  criticized  at  all.  I  would  encourage  you  to  read  the  report  here.  The   issue  in  Kimble’s  report  is  whether  the  BBATF  can  aggregate  27  applying   resolutions.  Attorney  Kimble’s  research  indicates  that  no  more  than  11  can  be   aggregated  (possibly  as  few  as  9).  The  good  news  for  ALEC  is  that  either  count   includes  the  resolutions  that  mirror  ALEC  model  legislation.  It  is  important  for   ALEC  to  encourage  discussion  and  debate  over  this  aggregation  issue  because  if   more  than  11  applying  resolutions  are  aggregated,  then  the  expressed  limitations   placed  by  states  on  their  resolutions  will  have  to  be  disregarded  by  Congress.  I  am   pretty  sure  that  ALEC  would  not  support  Congress  assuming  the  power  to   disregard  the  states’  wishes  in  this  regard.  But  perhaps  there  is  a  strong  legal   theory  that  can  square  such  a  situation  with  principles  of  federalism  of  which  we   are  unaware,  and  for  that  reason  I  would  recommend  that  we  have  a  debate  over   aggregation  issues  at  the  next  ALEC  task  force  meeting.  If  there  is  no  legal  theory   that  can  justify  the  BBATF’s  position,  I  personally  do  believe  it  would  be  morally   wrong  to  propagate  it—especially  to  the  exclusion  of  other  efforts.       In  connection  with  that  observation,  allow  me  to  expand  on  our  discussion  to   furnish  additional  data  points  for  your  consideration:       • • First,  David  Guldenshuh,  a  leading  advocate  for  the  BBATF  and  COS  wrote  a   very  damaging  piece  against  our  efforts,  which  was  published  in   October/November  2015  by  Heartland  Institute.  As  discussed  in  our   response  here    (which  we  did  not  publish  until  we  had  evidence  of  injury  to   our  efforts  from  the  report),  this  report  was  not  peer  reviewed,  and   advances  a  loaded  assessment  of  the  progress  of  Article  V  efforts,  as  well  as   meritless  criticisms  of  our  approach  as  “too  complex,”  “not  as  far  along,”   and  otherwise  not  as  worthy  of  pursuit  as  other  approaches.  It  also  touts   the  highly  suspect  claim  that  27  applying  resolutions  exist  that  can  be   aggregated  to  trigger  a  call  for  a  BBA-­‐focused  convention  (which  even   Guldenshuh  admitted  in  August  2015  and  again  a  week  ago  was  actually  no   higher  than  24).  This  report  was  reportedly  distributed  by  Heartland  to   legislative  leadership  in  every  state  and  in  Congress.  Similar  messaging  has   been  transmitted  to  the  grassroots  in  several  states  even  where  there  is  no   active  BBATF  bill,  and  used  to  oppose  our  efforts.       Second,  rather  than  engaging  in  public  or  private  debate  over  the  role  of   the  Tenth  Amendment  in  Article  V,  Robert  Natelson  wrote  this  piece   against  applying  Tenth  Amendment  principles  in  the  Article  V  context  on   December  18,  which  is  not  only  mistaken,  it  represents  a  huge  theoretical   threat  to  state  control  over  the  Article  V  process  and  ALEC’s  federalism   agenda  in  the  Article  V  space.       • Third,  we  have  received  evidence  that  the  First  Committee  yahoo  group,   including  ALEC  members,  has  propagated  easily  refuted  criticisms  and   misunderstandings  of  our  compact  approach  to  Article  V  among  key   grassroots  and  policy  leaders;  in  fact,  on  January  15  and  16,  2016,  Robert   Natelson  wrote:       o “the  CFA  approach  was  developed  in  large  part  to  meet  the  JBS  and   EF  objections  in  every  possible  way.  As  I  predicted  at  the  time,  it   hasn't  worked”   o “The  CFA  would  violate  several  of  these  [constitutional]  principles,  so  I   think  the  chance  of  it  getting  past  the  courts  is  almost  nil.  But,  again,   I  don't  think  it  is  going  to  get  even  that  far.”   o “Of  course,  when  asked  specifically  about  the  CFA  approach,  I  let   people  know  about  the  constitutional  problems”   • o “my  guess  is  that  CFA  will  never  approach  the  threshold  of  34.  But  if   they  did,  I  think  the  courts  would  readily  void  their  applications  for   much  the  same  reasons  that  they  voided  term  limits  and  BBA   applications  in  the  1980s  and  1990s”       • Fourth,  consistent  with  Natelson’s  admission  that  he  lets  “people  know   about  the  constitutional  problems”  of  our  approach,  we  have  consistently   encountered  reports  of  advocates  of  the  BBATF  and  ASL  approach  to  Article   V,  including  at  least  one  high  ranking  ALEC  member,  attempting  to  prevent   the  introduction  or  advancement  of  the  compact  approach  to  Article  V  in   favor  of  a  singular  Balanced  Budget  Amendment  or  drafting  convention   approach  in  a  number  of  states  both  last  session  and  this  session.       o Here  is  one  instance  that  I  can  share  with  you  if  desired:  “COS's   leading  advocate  in  the  legislature,  [NAME  OMITTED],  told  me  he   thinks  it's  [CFA]  unconstitutional.  My  impression  was  that  he  was   repeating  what  he'd  been  told,  since  he  didn't  seem  sure  as  to  why   that  would  be”       • Fifth,  we  have  reliable  reports  that  legislative  leadership  will  only  allow  one   Article  V  approach  to  proceed  this  year  in  several  states.   • Sixth,  legislative  or  committee  leadership  have  been  consolidating  all   Article  V  approaches  into  unitary  hearings,  resulting  in  “runaway   convention”  opposition  to  other  approaches  and  collateral  damage  to  our   approach.           All  of  these  on-­‐the-­‐ground  factors  necessitated  a  sustained,  comprehensive   educational  response,  involving  strong  elements  of  product  differentiation,  which   our  excellent  policy  brief  campaign  represents.       But  this  is  not  an  “attack.”  It  is  an  invitation  to  a  debate  and  a  discussion.  We   don’t  want  anyone’s  criticisms  muffled.  We  have  not  come  running  to  ALEC  with   concerns  about  the  foregoing  until  now,  when  it  seems  it  is  unavoidable.  We  have   not  because  we  don’t  see  the  value  in  trying  to  use  networks  to  stifle  criticism  and   debate.  We  want  to  bring  the  debate.  We  are  confident  in  our  product.  We  are   confident  the  Article  V  movement  will  grow  stronger  with  openly  reasoned   criticisms—and  weaker  with  whispering  campaigns.       Likewise,  knowing  you  like  I  do,  I  am  confident  that  your  further  research  into  this   matter  will  reveal  that  we  have  been  incredibly  restrained,  fair  and  objective  in   dealing  with  this  complex  situation.       Very  truly  yours,       ___________________________________   Nick Dranias   President & Executive Director   Office of the President   Compact for America Educational Foundation, Inc.