Opinion |CA business and left-wing groups clash at the polls and in court


from Dan WaltersCalMatters

"A
AFSCME union members and file clerks protest outside Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office in Sacramento on Oct. 22, 2025. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

This comment was originally posted by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

The state Capitol’s longest-running political conflict — at least half a century and counting — pits business interests against a quartet of leftist groups.

The specifics vary, but all four types of groups — labor unions, environmentalists, personal injury lawyers and consumer activists — are proposing legislation, regulations or ballot measures that would impose new costs, mandates or regulations on businesses.

In response, vested corporate interests are devising strategies that hope to kill or neutralize the proposals.

For more than 25 years, the scoreboard for such legislative clashes was a list of “job killer” bills. issued annually by the California Chamber of Commerce, roughly covering their opponents’ highest priority proposals.

The chamber is now pursuing “accessibility program” of bills he opposes or supports. This list reflects the voting public’s obsession with the cost of living, confirmed in recent poll from the Public Policy Institute of California.

The ongoing game between business and left-wing groups has been played vigorously this year in all arenas — the legislature, regulatory agencies, and the courts — with the effort to force big businesses in California to report their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions a prime example.

Three years ago, the Legislature passed two measures, Senate Bill 253 and Senate Bill 261authorizing the California Air Resources Board to require such emissions reports. Business groups staunchly opposed them and sued after their passage, legal conflict is currently sitting in the Federal Court of Appeal.

However, the Air Resources Board recently issued an initial set of regulations for the implementation of the two bills.

“The world needs climate leadership right now, and California is doubling down,” state senator Scott WienerSan Francisco Democrat and author of SB 253, said in a statement. “We have no choice but to continue making progress to prevent climate-driven wildfires and other disasters from ravaging our state.”

California Business Roundtable President Rob Lapsley responded: “If you drive to work, order groceries, get a package, take your kids to school, go to a ball game or visit a hospital – congratulations. In the eyes of California regulators, you are part of an ‘indirect source’ of emissions.”

He added that the designation “is quickly becoming one of the broadest ways for California to expand government control over the economy — while quietly raising the cost of living for everyone.”

Another clash is over taxation in several forms arising from the state chronic budget deficitfinancial difficulties in local authorities and reducing federal aid.

Unions and their allies want the Legislature to close what they call “loopholes” in corporate income taxes, particularly one that deals with taxation of international corporations. They are also behind two proposed ballot measures, one that would require a a one-time tax on billionaires’ assets and another who would extend income tax surcharge for high-income taxpayers, which is set to expire in 2020.

Meanwhile, Lapsley’s organization and anti-tax increase groups are sponsoring their own ballot measure to overturn a state Supreme Court ruling that local initiative taxes need only a simple majority of voters. That decision led to a wave of local sales and shipping tax measures.

“We are organized, united and ready to take this directly to the voters in November,” Lapsley said. “Californians want accessibility, transparency and respect for their vote. We look forward to a robust campaign that protects taxpayers and keeps the cost of living under control.”

The Coalition had proposed a similar measure for the 2024 election, but The Supreme Court blocked it from the vote because of a provision requiring voter approval of taxes introduced by the Legislature. The court said this violated the state constitution.

Eight months from now, after the legislature is over and the voters have spoken, we’ll find out who won this year’s version of the game. Then everything will start all over again.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *