Republish
Commentary: Most of California’s business-opposed ‘job killer’ bills are stalled out
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.

Commentary: Most of California’s business-opposed ‘job killer’ bills are stalled out
Share this:
California’s Capitol is under perpetual siege by lobbyists for hundreds of specific interest groups, each with an agenda of bills it wants enacted or killed.
After each legislative session, many of those groups produce scorecards for their members, not only reporting how well their agendas fared, but how the 120 legislators voted on those agendas.
Those scorecards, however, can never chart the mysterious ways in which bills sometimes vanish without telltale votes. And that’s particularly true of the bills that fuel the perennial clash between business groups, led by the California Chamber of Commerce, and liberal groups such as unions, consumer advocates, personal injury attorneys and environmentalists.
The latter have ambitious agendas that usually involve higher taxes, more regulation, more employee benefits and/or more opportunities for litigation.
For nearly two decades, CalChamber has published an annual list of what it calls “job killers” – the bills it finds to be the most onerous, which also tend to be their rivals’ highest priorities.
Despite Democratic control of the Legislature, and usually of the governorship, the chamber, et al, have been remarkably successful, burying about 90 percent of measures on their hit lists.
Overwhelmingly, the targeted bills have died without formal votes. Their authors, or legislative leaders, simply decide to allow them to wither on the vine. And that pattern seems to be holding true so far in the 2017 legislative session.
The chamber put 25 bills on its “job killer” list this year and with the session about three-fourths completed, 15 of them are stalled out, most likely permanently. Most of the survivors will probably suffer the same fate, especially several for new taxes that would need two-thirds legislative votes.
Only two of the 15 died on actual votes, one in an Assembly committee and one on the Senate floor. Two were amended to remove their “job killer” epithets and the others are in limbo, at least for the rest of this year’s session.
Interestingly, one of those stalled in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which would give part-time workers first call on new work by their employers, is carried by the committee’s chair, San Diego Democrat Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, who has been one of the few legislators able to win on bills targeted by CalChamber.
Interestingly, too, several of the bills on this year’s list are being carried by Democratic legislators whom the chamber and other business groups backed when they competed for their seats against more liberal Democratic foes.
The most spectacular casualty is Senate Bill 562, which would create a state-run “single-payer” health care system. The bill, carried by Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, sailed through the Senate in June, but Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon declared it “woefully incomplete” because it lacked financing and dead for the year.
Ever since, Rendon has been under fire from the California Nurses Association and other single-payer groups, which accuse him of being a corporate toady.
The most important survivor, at least so far, is Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León’s measure (SB 49) which would require all California environmental regulations to be at least as strict as federal regulations were before Donald Trump became president.
It’s a cornerstone of efforts by de León and others to counteract the impacts of the Trump presidency but the chamber contends that it would create regulatory uncertainty for business and invite “costly litigation” by allowing private attorneys to enforce the new rules.
Dan WaltersOpinion Columnist
Dan Walters is one of most decorated and widely syndicated columnists in California history, authoring a column four times a week that offers his view and analysis of the state’s political, economic,... More by Dan Walters