Republish
California businesses and left-leaning groups clash on the ballot and in court
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.
California businesses and left-leaning groups clash on the ballot and in court
Share this:
The state Capitol’s longest running political conflict — going at least a half-century and still counting — pits business interests against a quartet of left-leaning groups.
Specifics vary, but the four group types — unions, environmentalists, personal injury attorneys and consumer activists — propose legislative measures, regulations or ballot measures that would impose new costs, mandates or regulations on business.
In response, affected corporate interests devise strategies they hope will kill or neutralize the proposals.
For more than 25 years, the scorecard for such legislative clashes was a list of “job killer” bills issued annually by the California Chamber of Commerce, roughly encompassing their opponents’ highest priority proposals.
Now the chamber pursues an “affordability agenda” of bills it opposes or favors. That list reflects the voting public’s obsession with living costs, confirmed in a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California.
The perpetual game between business and leftist groups is being played vigorously this year in all arenas — the Legislature, regulatory agencies and the courts — with a prime example being the effort to compel major California businesses to file reports on their direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases.
Three years ago, the Legislature passed two measures, Senate Bill 253 and Senate Bill 261, authorizing the California Air Resources Board to require such emissions reports. Business groups strenuously opposed them and after enactment sued, a legal clash currently sitting in the federal Court of Appeals.
Nevertheless, the air resources board recently issued an initial set of regulations for implementing the two bills.
“The world needs climate leadership right now, and California is doubling down,” state Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat and author of SB 253, said in a statement. “We have no choice but to keep making progress to prevent climate-driven wildfires and other disasters ravaging our state.”
READ NEXT
California’s long-running saga over local tax measures might return to the ballot
California Business Roundtable President Rob Lapsley responded: “If you drive to work, order groceries, receive a package, take your kids to school, go to a ballgame, or visit a hospital —congratulations. In the eyes of California regulators, you’re part of an ‘indirect source’ of emissions.”
He added the designation is “quickly becoming one of the most sweeping ways for California to expand government control over the economy — while quietly driving up the cost of living for everyone.”
Another clash is over taxation in several forms, arising from the state’s chronic budget deficits, financial squeezes in local governments and reductions in federal aid.
Unions and their allies want the Legislature to close what they term “loopholes” in corporate income taxes, particularly one dealing with taxing international corporations. They are also behind two proposed ballot measures, one that would impose a one-time tax on the assets of billionaires and another that would extend an income tax surcharge on high-income taxpayers that is due to expire in 2030.
Meanwhile, Lapsley’s organization and anti-tax increase groups are sponsoring their own ballot measure to overturn a state Supreme Court decision that local taxes proposed via initiative need only simple majority voter approval. That decision has led to a flurry of local sales and parcel tax measures.
“We are organized, united, and ready to take this directly to voters in November,” Lapsley said. “Californians want affordability, transparency, and respect for their vote. We look forward to a robust campaign that makes the case for protecting taxpayers and keeping the cost of living in check.”
The coalition had proposed a similar measure for the 2024 ballot, but the Supreme Court blocked it from the ballot due to one provision requiring voter approval of taxes enacted by the Legislature. The court said it violated the state constitution.
Eight months from now, after the Legislature has adjourned and voters have spoken, we’ll know who won this year’s version of the game. Then it will begin all over again.
READ NEXT
Silicon Valley flexes financial muscle in governor’s race and wealth tax battle
Would California voters actually support a wealth tax on billionaires?
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