
I'm attending a panel discussion on employer sanctions this afternoon. The panel will be moderated by Paul Bender and the panelists will be: Mary O'Grady, State Solicitor General; Julie Pace, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll; Tim LaSota, Maricopa County Attorney's Office; Paul Eckstein, Perkins Coie Brown & Bain.
I'm curious to see if the debate touches on the origin of the bill. The media still refuse to admit that Governor Napolitano called for employer sanctions legislation as part of her State of the State address; Democratic Senator Bill Brotherton sponsored the first successful employer sanctions amendment; Rep. Steve Gallardo fought to keep the Brotherton amendment on the bill; the House Hispanic Caucus called sanctions their top priority, and Napolitano vetoed a bill that lacked sanctions--calling it "amnesty for employers."
The legislature eventually responded to Napolitano's call and passed the sanctions bill by a two thirds vote. That history is well known, but we still have distortions like this from last week's Capitol Times. Discussing the relationship between Legislative Democrats and business, the Cap Times opines.
The opportunity to dramatically change the relationship with businesses, though, didn’t present itself until lawmakers debated — and ultimately approved — a Republican-backed law last year that allows the suspension and revocation of licenses belonging to businesses that hire illegal immigrants.
That sentence is wrong on two accounts. First, it distorts the origin of the Sanctions bill, then it blames the Sanctions bill for the rocky relationship between some Republicans and the business community.
The history of the bill is well documented, the media simply chose to ignore it. While the decline of business influence seems to be a phenomena that they don't understand.
It's not really that the influence of the business community has shifted to the Democrats as much as it has simply decreased overall. Sure the Cap Times can point to one Democratic businessman in each house--and indeed DeSimone and Cheuvront both understand business issues--but that's not much of a shift.
The real story is that public financing has virtually eliminated the influence of the business community. I've often written that prior to Clean Elections, candidates had to be acceptable to the party activists as well as to the business community. The activists provided the organization and ground troops, the business community provided the financing.
Now, the party activists are not only necessary, but they are also sufficient to ensure a candidate's viability. And the business lobbyists? Redundant. It would be nice to have business community support, but they don't move actual votes and now they can't write checks.
So when Democrats proposed an Employee Sanctions bill that was supported by three quarters of the electorate, Republicans jumped on board. After all, they had nothing to lose.
Eliminating the business community from the equation has served to make the legislature much more extreme. Bob Burns, for example, is now considered a voice of moderation in the Senate.
The business community has responded by increasing its influence with the grass roots. That's why the Arizona Chamber hired its Director from the State Republican Party. They needed someone who knew how to swing votes without being able to write checks. It's a recognition of the new reality.
Eventually, the media will recognize it as well.
(Update: Several of the commenters think I'm wrong on my history of the Employer Sanctions bill. Before you accuse me of being ignorant, read my "Queen's Gambit Accepted" post and tell me where I'm wrong.)
Recent Comments