VIEWPOINTS: Just Who’s Pro-Business, Anyway?
What makes a legislator pro-business? Sometimes it depends on who or what you ask. Most surveys done by business groups score Republican lawmakers higher than Democrats. That wasn’t necessarily the case, however, on the Orange County Business Council’s “2002 Legislative Scorecard,” where Democrats often matched their GOP counterparts on benchmark bills dealing with workers’ compensation, infrastructure finance, ocean water quality, community colleges, family leave and construction defects. The results ignited a spirited debate among three OC legislators in letters to the Business Council. Here are their slightly edited comments.
Oct. 28, 2002
Dear OCBC Board Member:
As you know, a healthy business community is a vital necessity for a vibrant and strong economy in California. This past legislative session, we watched as anti-business bill after anti-business bill was authored and passed by the Democrat-controlled Legislature. This session proved to be one of the worst and most destructive legislative cycles for the business community in years.
For these very reasons, now more than ever, it is incumbent upon the business community to keep accountable all legislators and the votes they cast on these measures. As we reviewed the Orange County Business Council Legislative Scorecard for 2002, we were very surprised with the legislation you chose to rate, especially when you compare your scorecard with other leading business groups in the county and state.
It appears the Orange County Business Council legislative ratings differ significantly from the rest of the business community, such as the Small Business Association, California Manufacturing & Technology Association, and the California Taxpayers’ Association. On your scorecard, for example, State Sen. Joe Dunn was in line with OCBC on four out of six votes, whereas on the California Chamber of Commerce scorecard, Sen. Dunn was in line on two bills out of 18. Dunn voted against the California Chamber recommendations on 15 bills, such as the Paid Leave Act, expansion of CEQA and the Frivolous Lawsuit Enhancement Act.
We would respectfully request the opportunity to address your board members at your upcoming meeting on Nov. 14.
Sincerely,
Dick Ackerman, State Senator
John Campbell, State Assemblyman
Jan. 9, 2003
Dear Board Members:
I read with a chuckle the Oct. 28 letter you received from Sen. Dick Ackerman and Assemblyman John Campbell, challenging the credibility of OCBC’s 2002 Legislative Scorecard.
Unfortunately, Dick and John’s letter reflects a limited understanding of the debate over what constitutes a “pro-business” legislator. OCBC, often attacked from the left and right, has chartered an independent course on this question and has refused simply to accept the often inconsistent positions held by the statewide Chamber of Commerce and other self-proclaimed “business” groups. In doing so, OCBC at times has angered everyone,a true sign it is doing the right thing! Allow me to explain with two examples.
In 1999, a bill embracing the eight-hour day was passed by the Legislature on a partisan vote and signed into law by Governor Davis. To conservative Republicans, such as Dick and John, this was an anti-business vote because it not only interfered with a business owner’s right to run a business as he or she saw fit, it also imposed unnecessary costs on California businesses trying to compete in a global economy.
To many Democrats, the eight-hour day bill was not only honest and fair to employees, but a reasonable burden to impose because it struck a balance between additional costs and quality of life for employees. With the eight-hour day, most workers can maintain a reasonable level of family time and thus be more productive employees. More productive employees translate to higher profits even with the additional costs to businesses of adhering to the eight-hour day requirement.
So which position was more “pro-business”? The Chamber and OCBC concluded it was a “job-killer” bill. Dick and John won that issue on legislative scorecards by business groups.
However, let’s turn to another issue important to business. Almost every CEO survey shows that the “high cost of housing” is one of the greatest challenges facing California businesses today. For example, a manufacturer in Orange County knows that its assembly workers are likely to live in Riverside County because they cannot afford a home in Orange County. These same employees must commute one to two hours each way per day. That commute, in turn, lowers the productivity of these employees.
To address this housing problem, Sen. John Burton introduced a 2002 housing bond for $2.1 billion. The bond act was passed by the voters of California on Nov. 5. Unfortunately, it was placed on the ballot on a mostly partisan vote in the Legislature, including “no” votes by both Dick and John. Both the Chamber and OCBC supported the housing bond.
In addition, I introduced SB 910 in the 2001-02 session. This bill imposed financial penalties on cities that habitually refuse to zone for their fair share burden of affordable housing in California. The building community has steadfastly maintained that the single biggest obstacle it faces in using private sector dollars to build more homes in California is the recalcitrance of local elected officials. SB 910 was supported enthusiastically by the Chamber and OCBC. Dick voted “no,” and I assume John would have done the same if the bill had reached the Assembly floor.
So, who is more “pro-business”? The answer is that many of us are in different ways. For someone to argue that his pro-business view is more correct than someone else’s is simply the product of unadulterated arrogance. In fact, wise public policy makers know that the political process is usually not about picking between correct and incorrect solutions to community problems, but more about picking between a variety of correct solutions.
I am concerned that Dick and John’s letter was written more out of a partisan agenda than a true concern about a “pro-business” scorecard. Perhaps OCBC should simply let them pick the bills on next year’s scorecard and we’ll simply call it “The Dick and John Partisan Legislative Scorecard.”
Short of that, OCBC should remain true to its independent judgment that always has been the product of a board made up of educated professionals of all political stripes.
Very truly yours,
Joseph L. Dunn
Senator, 34th District
Feb. 6, 2003
Mr. Garrett Gin
Vice President
Merrill Lynch
Dear Mr. Garrett Gin,
If you were to ask your membership if they would rather have workers’ compensation reform to reduce the costs and waste in the system, or a housing bond, what do you think they would say? If you asked them to choose between tort reform and the elimination of such frivolous lawsuit generations as AB2752 (Alquist), which tried to expand workplace retaliation claims, or SB688 (Burton), that doubled the current statute of limitations on personal injury claims, or a housing bond, what do you think they would choose? How about the eight-hour workday and so-called family leave, or the housing bond? Maybe windfall profits taxes and project labor agreements instead of the housing bond? How about the prevailing wages versus wait a minute, the housing bond required payment of a prevailing wage thereby increasing the cost of “low-income housing” by 30%.
Bushels of people are being put out of work and out of business in this state because of the many polices supported by Sen. Joe Dunn and his Democratic colleagues. All housing is much harder to afford when you don’t have a job.
The concept detailed in Sen. Dunn’s recent letter that somehow the 11% of the Chamber of Commerce’s bills he supported outweigh the 89% that he opposed is patently absurd. But nice try anyway, Joe.
I remain respectfully,
Assemblyman John Campbell
