This Bill Isn’t Anti-Business. It’s Anti-Cheating

Proposing the Alabama Community Accountability, Environmental Integrity, and Equal Opportunity Act of 2026—a Guest Opinion by Alicia Haggermaker

(Link to the proposed Alabama Community Accountability, Environmental Integrity, and Equal Opportunity Act of 2026 is HERE)

Whenever Alabama considers strengthening accountability, the same objections appear on cue.

“This will kill jobs.”

“This will scare away investment.”

“This creates uncertainty.”

“This lets activists weaponize lawsuits.”

“This punishes companies for following the rules.”

None of those claims survive contact with the actual text of the Alabama Community Accountability, Environmental Integrity, and Equal Opportunity Act.

In fact, most of them depend on the public not reading it at all.

Objection #1: “This Will Drive Businesses Out of Alabama”

Let’s be honest about what this really means.

What some interests fear losing isn’t business viability — it’s preferential treatment.

This Act applies universally. It does not target specific industries. It does not impose retroactive punishment. It does not prohibit lawful activity. What it does prohibit is a two-tier system where:

• Large operators absorb fines as a cost of doing business
• Smaller competitors are buried under compliance costs
• Political access substitutes for performance

If a company’s business model only works when:

• Independent science can be ignored
• Cumulative impacts are excluded
• Penalties are cheaper than prevention
• Communities lack standing until damage is irreversible

Then, yes — this bill makes Alabama a less friendly place for that model.

That is not a loss. That is market correction.

Objection #2: “Industry-Funded Science Is Being Unfairly Dismissed”

No. It is being properly weighted.

The Act does not ban industry research. It simply establishes that independent scientific evidence is the controlling standard unless rebutted by clear, transparent, and methodologically independent proof.

This mirrors long-standing principles already used in:

• Toxic tort law
• Environmental litigation
• Pharmaceutical safety analysis
• Federal evidentiary standards

If industry-funded science is sound, reproducible, and transparent — it stands.

If it relies on:

• Selective disclosure
• Proprietary data shielding
• Sponsor-controlled methodologies
• Suppression of contrary findings

Then, it should not override independent evidence.

That is not bias. That is scientific integrity.

Objection #3: “This Creates Endless Lawsuits”

This claim collapses under even minimal scrutiny.

The Act includes:

• Evidentiary thresholds
• Judicial screening for frivolous claims
• Court-approved dismissals
• Sanctions for bad-faith actions
• Sealed filings during investigation
• Proportional remedies tied to proof

What it does change is who gets to act before harm becomes catastrophic.

Right now, communities often lack standing until:

• Cancer rates spike
• Water sources are contaminated
• Property values collapse
• Medical bills pile up

By then, the damage is already externalized.

The Act allows action when credible evidence shows material contribution to cumulative risk — a standard already recognized in environmental and public health jurisprudence.

If your operation is compliant, transparent, and monitored — this provision protects you. If it isn’t, the lawsuits were never the problem.

Objection #4: “This Penalizes Companies That Follow the Rules”

No — it penalizes companies that game the rules.

The Act explicitly includes:

• Good-faith compliance safe harbors
• Conditional compliance pathways for existing facilities
• Prospective application only
• Clear disclosure requirements
• Independent monitoring rather than arbitrary enforcement

What removes protection is:

• Concealment
• Misrepresentation
• Suppression of evidence
• Preferential relationships
• Advance knowledge of risk without mitigation

Following the rules has always meant more than checking boxes. This Act simply makes that explicit.

Objection #5: “This Hurts Economic Development”

Economic development that depends on opacity is not development — it is extraction.

Real development:

• Attracts long-term investment
• Rewards responsible operators
• Builds community trust
• Reduces litigation risk over time
• Prevents catastrophic remediation costs

The Act does something Alabama has struggled with for decades:

• It aligns economic incentives with public protection.

That benefits:

• Local entrepreneurs
• Ethical manufacturers
• Agricultural operators
• Utilities that invest in infrastructure instead of shortcuts
• Communities that want growth without sacrifice zones

Objection #6: “Government Agencies Will Be Paralyzed”

No — agencies will be accountable.

The Act:

• Preserves agency authority
• Requires rulemaking timelines
• Prevents enforcement delays
• Allows judicial review
• Prohibits waiver abuse
• Subjects government entities to the same standards as permit holders

If an approval can’t withstand transparency, evidence, and public scrutiny, it shouldn’t stand.

That is not paralysis. That is constitutional governance.

Why Transparency Is the Real Threat

If there is one provision opponents truly fear, it isn’t penalties or standing.

It’s public dashboards.

Permits. Inspections.

Violations.

Agency communications.

Remediation plans and timelines.

Preferential access and approvals.

All visible.

All archived.

All preserved.

Transparency doesn’t just expose misconduct — it removes plausible deniability.

It ensures enforcement isn’t selective. It prevents rules from changing depending on who is asking. It protects ethical operators from rumor and reputational damage. It creates a clear, documented record of compliance for those doing things right.

And, it ends a quiet but corrosive practice that has distorted Alabama’s regulatory culture for years: trading opacity for convenience.

What often goes unspoken is that transparency doesn’t just benefit the public — it benefits the people inside these systems.

When operations are ethical, documented, and compliant, employees are no longer asked to:

• explain away gaps,
• defend indefensible decisions,
• rely on verbal assurances,
• or carry institutional risk they didn’t create.

Clear records make oversight easier.

Clear standards reduce internal pressure.

Clear documentation protects workers as much as communities.

In truth, transparency doesn’t make jobs harder — it makes honest work easier.

And that may be the most threatening thing of all.

This Bill Restores a Simple Principle

Alabama’s Constitution does not promise freedom from regulation. It promises equal protection, due process, and accountability under the law.

This Act does not expand government power — it disciplines it. It does not punish success — it punishes deception. It does not block growth — it filters out harm.

The question is not whether Alabama should regulate.The question is whether Alabama is willing to enforce equal rules — even when doing so is inconvenient.

This bill answers that question.

A Link to the proposed Alabama Community Accountability, Environmental Integrity, and Equal Opportunity Act of 2026 is HERE.

Alicia Boothe Haggermaker is a lifelong resident of Huntsville, Alabama, and a dedicated advocate for health freedom. For more than a decade, she has worked to educate the public and policymakers on issues of medical choice and public transparency. In January 2020, she organized a delegation of physicians and health freedom advocates to Montgomery, contributing to the initial draft of legislation that became SB267.

Opinions do not reflect the views and opinions of ALPolitics.com. ALPolitics.com makes no claims nor assumes any responsibility for the information and opinions expressed above.