InsideSources

The Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity (AFP) just announced an ad campaign lampooning 2020 presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren’s tech antitrust plan, begging senators not to make antitrust a “political issue.”

“If we use antitrust law to punish successful competitors, we eliminate incentives for innovation. Government should not be empowered to pick winners and losers in the marketplace,” said AFP Senior Tech Policy Analyst Billy Easley upon the ads’ launch. “To prevent a politicization of an important process, antitrust decisions should be made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice — not by political leaders campaigning for elected office. We want to remind lawmakers on both sides of the aisle that antitrust law exists to protect consumers, not to be used as a political weapon.”

But history and economics — and traditional free-market thought — aren’t on AFP’s side.

Antitrust has always been a “political process” — the president picks who heads the Department of Justice (DOJ), after all, and Warren is not the first presidential candidate to draw attention to an industry’s anticompetitive practices. President Theodore Roosevelt campaigned on antitrust issues (then called “trust busting”), and President Donald Trump regularly comments on what he calls the tech industry’s “antitrust situation.”

Jeff Hauser, director of the Revolving Door Project, a project of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which seeks to “increase scrutiny on executive branch appointments and ensure that political appointees are focused on serving the public interest rather than personal or professional advancement,” wrote in an op-ed that, “American antitrust law is built upon the timeless insight that the ability of dominant corporations’ to sustain dominance unfairly threatens our economic and political liberty. Since unfettered corporations can entrench themselves unfairly, competition regulators should block both mergers and corporate practices that allow already powerful corporations to stifle would-be competitors.”

Congress passed the Sherman Act in 1890 and the Federal Trade Commission Act (creating the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC) and the Clayton Act in 1914 to stop big companies from forming anticompetitive mergers and establishing anticompetitive monopolies or oligopolies in various industries.

The infamous 1911 Standard Oil of New Jersey v. United States case prompted the latter two laws, because the Sherman Act did not adequately address Standard Oil’s anticompetitive practices.

Standard Oil, started by John D. Rockefeller, routinely underpriced suppliers who did business with oil competitors, and negotiated price fixing agreements with oil refiners and railroads shipping the oil. In doing so, Standard Oil prevented other entrepreneurs and innovators from entering and competing in the oil market.

Progressives and conservatives agree such behavior is anticompetitive, anti-consumer and anti-free market. In U.S. economic history, both left- and right-leaning administrations brought antitrust litigation against big business, from Taft to Reagan to Clinton.

Today, both left- and right-leaning economists identify monopolistic tendencies and anticompetitive practices within the tech industry, especially with Amazon, which employs anticompetitive practices similar to that of Standard Oil.

A range of economists and law professors told Senate Democrats and Republicans that antitrust enforcement against Big Tech may be a legitimate way to deal with some of the tech industry’s problems, although there is still some debate over how to measure market power and price within the tech industry, and how to define “consumer benefit” and “consumer harm.”

Hauser notes in his op-ed that where the tech industry is concerned, “America’s cops on the competition beat have grown lazy. They are not enforcing antitrust laws passed during the first Gilded Age to level a playing field tilted by powerful corporations for their own benefit; that’s why America is stuck in a second Gilded Age of economic inequality. These officials have been lulled to sleep by decades of corporate-funded pseudo-economics.”

Some economists argue that economic inequality often correlates with market concentration, although it isn’t clear whether antitrust enforcement causes economic inequality to decrease.

Elizabeth Warren tweeted a response to AFP last week: “Oh look — the Koch brothers don’t like my ideas. Apparently they’re horrified about any effort to try and rein in the economic and political power of giant corporations. I’m shocked.”

Follow Kate on Twitter

A coalition of conservative groups issued a letter to congressional lawmakers Thursday in support of a bill that has been highly criticized by the unions it would impact.

The Employee Rights Act would primarily change union elections and how dues payments can be taken. Those in support argue the bill would enhance worker rights, while critics contest it’s designed to hurt unions. Americans for Prosperity is now leading a coalition letter of other conservative groups in support of the measure.

The bill is essentially a bundle of policies that unions loathe. It mandates secret ballot elections, places limits on automatic payment deductions, increases protections on employee information, and criminalizes union violence. It would also mandate that unions hold reauthorization votes to remain in a workplace.

“This legislation would allow American workers an unencumbered opportunity to make their voice heard on whether they wish to belong to a union,” the letter stated. “[It] would ensure unions remain accountable to workers by requiring periodic recertification referendums after significant workforce turnover, asking workers if they wish to remain represented by their current union.”

Secret ballot elections are intended to limit intimidation and coercion by making all votes anonymous. Unions can use a method called card check to bypass secret ballots. Unions instead collect signatures that they can use to pressure employers into accepting them. It’s an unregulated process that potentially opens the door to fraud. The bill would also require secret ballot elections for strike authorizations, as well.

The measure also changes union elections in others ways besides secret ballots. It would require unions to win a majority of all workers instead of just a majority of workers who voted. Unions will also have to win a reauthorization vote once half of the original unionized employees have left.

“This bill also contains several other commonsense reforms, such as allowing workers to opt out of having their personal information shared with a union, and strengthening worker protections by forbidding unions from using intimidation, threats, and violence to coerce workers,” the letter stated.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative research nonprofit, found in a 2016 report that just six percent of unionized workers nationwide actually voted for their union. The other unionized workers either voted against their union, or their workplace was already being represented when they were first employed. Heritage Action for America, an advocacy arm of the group, signed onto the letter.

The coalition letter includes 45 total conservative groups that support the policy. The Center for Union Facts, the Center for Worker Freedom, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, and Generation Opportunity are some of the organizations that signed onto the letter in support of the bill.

Labor unions and other critics argue the bill merely serves as an underhanded way to hurt unions. The Communications Workers of America (CWA) expressed several concerns during a congressional hearing June 14. The union primarily notes the bill would hurt workers by limiting the ability of their union to protect them.

“ERA prohibits employers from voluntarily recognizing a union based on a showing of majority support from the employees,” CWA general counsel Guerino Calemine said at the hearing. “It is the preferred way of organizing because it minimizes the strife of the election process, and voluntary recognition usually comes by way of agreements that also require the employer to be neutral or provide the union with actual access to the voters in the workplace.”

Calemine adds the bill would further limit union rights by requiring employees to give written consent annually on how dues can be used. The bill would indeed require unions to get permission for political expenses. Unions can currently deduct those expenses automatically from dues unless an employee goes through an opt-out process.

“A proposal that would subvert democracy and stifle working people’s voices,” is how Texas AFL-CIO President John Patrick described the bill in March 2016. “The Employee Rights Act would require working people who want to form a union to obtain not just a majority of those who vote in a union election, but a majority of all possible voters, whether they vote or not.”

The Economic Policy Institute, a progressive research nonprofit, argued the bill would make it unreasonably difficult for unions to win elections by putting too many requirements on them. It adds the measure rigs union elections against labor organizations.

The bill also seeks to protect workers against union coercion and violent threats. It would levy fines against unions that try to block a decertification vote while also criminalizing union threats and violence. Union critics have contested they’ve been allowed to intimidate workers through violence because of a federal loophole.

Republican Rep. Phil Roe reintroduced the measure May 25. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price originally attempted to pass the bill in 2015 when he was still in Congress. The earlier version failed to get passed the committees and never saw a floor vote.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

Kentucky counties opened a new battlefront in recent years by enacting their own local version of right-to-work. Now new states have begun to explore the policy.

Kentucky was successful primarily due to strong coalition building among national and local advocates. National supporters are now looking to assist local initiatives that are beginning to sprout up in other states. A recent appeals court decision essentially opened the floodgates for the policy to spread elsewhere.

The local version of the policy allows localities to enact right-to-work when a statewide law is unlikely. Supporters believe the policy allows localities to remain competitive while also upholding worker freedom. Americans for Prosperity (AFP) assisted with the local initiative early on and is now looking elsewhere.

“It’s a way to extend worker freedom to as many people as possible, as fast as possible, at a time when it may not be realistic in a lot of states,” AFP policy director Akash Chougule told InsideSources. “The second thing that we’re encouraged by, that we’re taking seriously, and there is an upside to it, is that effect in Kentucky, where it becomes a statewide issue.”

Warren became the first county in the country to enact a local right-to-work ordinance back in December 2014. An Illinois village already passed its own version of the ordinance, which is now pending in the courts. Delaware, Maine, Minnesota, and Ohio have also started to explore the concept.

“Obviously, it’s not going to be replicated perfectly elsewhere, but there are enough third party groups and politicians in other states that see the value in this,” Center for Worker Freedom Executive Director Matt Patterson told InsideSources. “I am very confident we can form successful coalitions in other states, and that’s what we’re in the process of doing.”

National and local advocates can also coordinate more effectively through building coalitions. National supporters can provide local advocates with expertise and resources. Local advocates are more familiar with the local laws and the people living there.

“That’s the process we’re in now, helping to form coalitions locally and in other places,” Patterson said. “In Kentucky, we were proud to be part of a pretty broad coalition. We had AFP, the Bluegrass Institute, local chambers were crucial, the state chamber, Protect My Check, and also the support of politicians.”

Kentucky senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul endorsed the policy early on. They argued the local ordinances allow counties to remain competitive, in an op-ed for the Bowling Green Daily News. Chougule notes each organization had their own talents they can utilize in the fight.

“We’re basically the muscle behind these fights, that’s how we look at ourselves,” Chougule said. “Our grassroots infrastructure gives us an unparalleled ability to do what we did in Kentucky, which is to knock on tens of thousands of doors, make hundreds of thousands of phone calls, educating people about what the issue is.”

The American City County Exchange (ACCE), in contrast, works more on the legislative side. ACCE is a division of the American Legislative Exchange Council. The conservative nonprofit drafts model legislation for a range of issues, including right-to-work.

“The policy that was adopted throughout Kentucky was based on our model policy that we developed,” ACCE Director Jon Russell told InsideSources. “We were happy that the sixth circuit held up our model policy, obviously there were a couple areas that got struck down so we’ll be putting out new model policy, hopefully in July during our conference.”

Right-to-work outlaws mandatory union dues or fees as a condition of employment. States typically decide whether to enact the policy making the local version a new legal frontier. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals essentially gave the all-clear to other states when it upheld the policy during a union lawsuit.

“The first and most important thing was the sixth circuit decision,” Patterson said. “I would say there’s been an appetite for this across the country  for awhile, but a lot of people just wanted to wait until the court weighed in before they moved.”

The United Auto Workers Local 3047 filed the lawsuit with the intent of making all the ordinances void. The lawsuit contested that only states have the authority under federal law to enact right-to-work. The court countered that federal law does not specifically forbid localities from enacting right to work. How states delegate their authority is actually what matters.

“Each state takes a different approach based on how the constitution delegates its power to local governments,” Russell said. “Based on the power and the type of ordinance that might get passed, the way in which we approach this is different. What worked well in Kentucky isn’t going to necessarily work well in Illinois.”

The Kentucky counties were able to pass the law because the state has what is known as a home rule statute. The statute allows counties to pass their own economic development laws so long as it doesn’t interfere with existing state law. Many other states have home rule statutes, or similar policies, that delegate certain powers to localities.

“I think the federal statute is relatively clear, and the legal challenges just don’t hold water,” Chougule said. “They have every right to give localities the power the federal government invested in them. The federal government is in no position to say the state can pass a right-to-work law, but its localities cannot.”

Lincolnshire, Illinois, enacted its own version of the policy, which is currently pending in the courts. Local unions filed a lawsuit against the local ordinance. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly ruled that only states have the power to enact such laws, but an appeal is likely.

“If Lincolnshire is successful at the circuit court, then you have two separate circuit courts that have ruled in favor of local right-to-work,” Chougule said. “But if the seventh circuit rules against them then you have a split decision at which point it would go to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Chougule believes they would have a good chance of winning if the policy actually made it to the highest court. He adds Lincolnshire really jumped on the issue early on. The village passed its local ordinance in 2015, way before the appeal court decision.

“You have Illinois which already had one town pass a local ordinance,” Patterson said. “That’s being litigated right now. Illinois is surrounded by right-to-work. There is a lot of pressure on local governments, especially in the border counties and towns, to have something like this to stay competitive.”

Russell notes the fights really have to come from the ground up. Local advocates have to be the driving force behind the local initiatives or it falls apart. The national organizations can then help support the local fights. Gov. Bruce Rauner tried to impose local right-to-work zones, but it didn’t go anywhere.

“It really has to come from the ground up,” Russell said. “It has to be a locally embraced and locally driven ordinance for it to succeed.”

Patterson adds its also important that the state has the right political landscape. State lawmakers could easily pass a law that forbids localities from enacting the policy. Republican control or a split legislature are ideal because the state would be less likely to block the local ordinances.

“You have to have some local leader or town council or county executive somewhere saying that’s a tool I want to use,” Patterson said. “The second ingredient is whether it’s possible in that state, and there are a couple of things that might make it impossible.”

Democrats and labor unions tend to be highly opposed to right-to-work laws. They contest the policy is merely an underhanded way of hurting unions. The local ordinances have also been facing fierce opposition from the left. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan called the local right-to-work zones illegal.

Congressional Republicans also introduced a measure that would make right-to-work a national law. Republicans hold a congressional majority, making its passage a possibility. President Donald Trump has already noted his support for right-to-work laws.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

It’s official. New Hampshire is ranked the 2nd best state in the country. Well, according to U.S. News & World Report, which released Tuesday the findings of its “Best State” rankings.

To some, the rankings are looked at as a symbol of the progress the Granite State has made. For others, it’s seen as a waste of time and not reflective of what’s actually going on in the state.

That’s true, at least, for Louisiana, which came in last place, and whose governor told The Boston Globe that the list used statistics and indicators from before his term. A spokesman for Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat who took office in 2016 after years with Republicans in charge, said the ranking system could be helpful in guiding public policy, but it “lacks critical information.”

New Hampshire’s southern neighbor, Massachusetts, took the title as “best state” and state officials, on both sides of the aisle applauded the news.

Regardless if states agree with the rankings or not, it’s true that they do shape the public policy discussion and highlight issue areas where the state could improve.

Even Gov. Chris Sununu told reporters that the number 2 ranking “helps immensely” as he works to court new businesses from out-of-state.

“Though we have much work to do to ensure that our state continues to grow and thrive, this announcement is something that Granite Staters can be particularly proud of today,” he said in a press release. “It will also serve as useful information to those considering moving their home or business to New Hampshire.”

The survey was conducted by evaluating states across 68 metrics and tens of thousands of data points provided by McKinsey & Company’s Leading States Index. The seven different categories — healthcare, education, infrastructure, crime and corrections, opportunity, economy, and government — were weighted based on a national “citizen experience” survey asking people to prioritize each area in their state and their levels of satisfaction with government services. The combined ranking in each category determined a state’s order.

For New Hampshire, the state ranked 4th in healthcare, 3rd in education, 12th in infrastructure, 13th in crime and corrections, 1st in opportunity, 13th in economy, and 30th in government.

As with any good news in the state, the second place ranking quickly became a battle over who should get credit for it. Can Sununu, who has been in office for only two months, tout it on his resume? Should former Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan receive the praise? Or how about the Republican-controlled Legislature which passes the bills and laws impacting these rankings?

New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley said the state’s high ranking reflects the accomplishments of Hassan, who is now the freshman senator from the Granite State.

“Thanks to Senator Maggie Hassan’s steady leadership in the Governor’s office over the last four years, New Hampshire has been recognized as the number one state in the nation for economic opportunity and the number two-ranked state overall,” Buckley said in a statement.

“As Governor, Senator Hassan worked across party lines to balance two fiscally responsible budgets that protected critical economic priorities for our people and to pass and reauthorize our Medicaid expansion program that has strengthened the health and financial security of more than 50,000 hard-working Granite Staters,” he added. “She also froze in-state tuition at our universities and reduced tuition at community colleges, and cut taxes for our small businesses that are the backbone of our economy.”

Democratic politicians also said Hassan’s leadership deserves the credit for the high ranking. Sen. David Watters, D-Dover, said “Maggie Hassan made this happen.”

@Maggie_Hassan made this happen. In Concord, we must first do no harm to a thriving NH economy. @NHDems #nhpolitics https://t.co/IUtDmI2qYn

— David Watters (@SenDavidWatters) February 28, 2017

However, others said it doesn’t matter who is responsible for the high ranking. It should be on what the state needs to do in order to improve, said Greg Moore, state director for the New Hampshire chapter of the Americans for Prosperity.

Overrated: worrying about who's responsible for NH being #2 in state rankings. Underrated: worrying about why NH isn't #1. #nhpolitics

— Greg Moore (@GregMooreNH) March 1, 2017

For example, even where the state received high rankings, there are still some troubling statistics within those numbers. New Hampshire ranked 3rd for education. It came in first place for “Pre-K to 12” education, for its strong test scores and college readiness. Yet, it came in 39th for higher education due to high college costs and amount of student debt at graduation.

Sununu admitted to the high cost of tuition for the public university system. In his budget that he revealed in February, he didn’t increase funding for it either, but he revealed a plan that he believes will help solve the problem.

“I’ve put forth a plan for a $5 million scholarship program in the state, not to help 10 or 20 or 100 students, but over 8,000 students, [who] can really grab on to these funds and not just use them for our university system, but they can use it for community colleges, career schools, private schools,” he told NH1 News. “Whatever pathway they think will best provide them the tools to enter the workforce. We’re making those changes today and again I think we’ll see a lot of growth in those rankings as we move forward.”

Moore also said the state should focus on the business tax rate as a way to stimulate economic growth and encourage businesses to expand to New Hampshire. In the rankings, New Hampshire ranked near the bottom for GDP growth (32nd place). He pointed to the fact that the Granite State has a higher business profits tax rate (8.2 percent) than Massachusetts (8 percent). He is supportive of further reducing that rate.

“It certainly is fair to point out that that legislative leaders pushed for the tax cuts strongly, and that then-Gov. Hassan vetoed the budget over them, but thankfully we were able to make them a reality,” he told NH Journal. “If we want to be more competitive than Massachusetts, we need to continue to expand on the successful business tax relief efforts we’ve had to this point.”

By looking at the low rankings in the different categories for New Hampshire, lawmakers can figure out what they need to discuss to take the title of “Best State” away from the Bay State.

Although, New Hampshire is already technically the “Best State” since Massachusetts is a Commonwealth…if you want to be technical.

As a Mass ex-pat, I would point out that MA is not a state, it is a commonwealth, for what it's worth. Thus, NH best state. #nhpolitics https://t.co/uBKICQ4xVW

— Greg Moore (@GregMooreNH) February 28, 2017

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

 

Congressional Republicans have proposed a border tax to make up for lost revenue from lowering overall rates in their tax reform plan. As libertarians have lined up in opposition to border tax, some American business leaders say it will create a fairer trade system.

Republicans are currently considering a plan with the aim of overhauling the tax code. Their goal is to create a more competitive system that spurs economic growth by simplifying the tax code and lowering rates. The border adjustment tax is included as a provision in the plan to make up for lost revenue by increasing taxes on imported goods.

The border adjustment tax is a value added tax levied on imported goods. Companies are currently taxed on their worldwide profits at 35 percent. The plan would essentially prioritize domestic production by lowering the tax rate for exports while increasing the rate for imports.

It is viewed by some as a more efficient system that incentives domestic production against an international tax system that works against American exporters. This is the result of most countries having a value added tax on consumption and the U.S. having a high corporate rate.

The American Made Coalition defended the border tax Tuesday by hosting a conference call. Supporters noted during the call that the lower corporate tax rate will eliminate incentives for companies to shift operations overseas.

“Those are the benefits, but what about the border adjustments?” Brian Reardon, a former economic assistant to President George W. Bush, said during the call. “They raise the revenue necessary to offset the lower tax rates and other provisions that are in the plan.”

President Donald Trump and others also see border taxes as a way to keep companies in the country. The border adjustment tax would ultimately make it more costly for companies that import goods. Americans for Prosperity (AFP) warns that companies might instead increase the cost of goods to make up for the lost revenue.

“We’re encouraged by some elements about what’s being discussed so far,” AFP President Tim Phillips told reporters during a call Thursday. “There is an area, though, we’ve become deeply concerned about, and that’s this border adjustment tax.”

Phillips claims the border adjustment tax would be disastrous for consumers. AFP’s Brent Gardner added during the call that the better option to make up for lost revenue is to lower spending. He argues lawmakers should look at their tax plan as a way of decreasing the size of government overall.

“We think the better option there is to look at ways to cut spending,” Gardner said. “We believe very strongly that lowering the overall rates for this, you’re going to see increased economic activity which will generate additional revenue.”

S&P Global President Doug Peterson countered the claim by arguing consumers are already impacted by a high tax rate. Companies already pay a lot of taxes which ultimately impact the costs of goods. The plan could shift that burden by lowering corporate tax rates while increasing taxes on imported goods.

“High taxes are already a cost to consumers,” Peterson said. “If you’re going to be lowering the tax rate overall, there’s going to be massive benefits from that. This is a shift from where the taxes are paid.”

The AFP considers its opposition to the border adjustment tax to be a top priority. It has launched a digital campaign and is helping to mobilize grassroots opposition. Its ultimate goal is to kill the border adjustment tax by convincing enough lawmakers to oppose it.

Trump promised during the campaign that he would work to lower rates while also simplifying the tax code. The Republican overhaul plan mirrors many of those ideas, and while Trump has not yet taken a definitive stand on border adjustment, the policy seems to support Trump’s goal of increased domestic production.

The tax code hasn’t been overhauled or updated in any significant way since the 1980s.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

Yet again, the House voted Thursday to kill a right-to-work bill. Since the early 1980s, the New Hampshire House has rejected right to work 35 times and despite Republican control of the State House, they still couldn’t get it done this year.

The bill, which would have prevented unions from requiring nonmembers to pay the cost of representing them, failed by a 200-177 vote, with 32 Republicans joining every Democrat to oppose the bill. Fifteen Republicans and four Democrats did not vote. After the bill was voted down, the House brought up a measure, which passed, stating the right-to-work issue could not be brought up again until the next legislative session in 2019.

So why did it fail again? The Democrats argue that right-to-work is union busting, creates a “free rider” problem, and is wrong for the Granite State. If it had passed, New Hampshire would have been the first state in the northeast to have a right-to-work law on the books. However, the politics of the vote reveals confrontational rhetoric, deep wounds within the Republican Party, and the blame game of who’s at fault for letting it fail.

 

“STRONG-ARMING” VOTES

Gov. Chris Sununu made it clear throughout his campaign that he wanted to see right-to-work pass in New Hampshire. He even mentioned it in his inauguration speech in January, saying how the law would be an important economic benefit for the state and would encourage businesses to come here.

Before the vote, the governor said he was not “banging the walls” trying to get House Republicans to vote a certain way. However, behind closed doors, he reportedly told the House Republican caucus on Thursday that “you’re either with us or against us.”

“You’re either a Republican or a Democrat,” and he invited opponents of right-to-work to “go leave and vote with the Democrats.”

High-ranking supporters of the bill also told lawmakers that if they won’t vote in favor of the bill, then figure out a way not to vote against, meaning stay home or abstain.

Rep. Matthew Scruton, R-Rochester, said he was encouraged by his colleagues to stay home because “the roads were slick.”

“I did not listen to that advice,” he told the Fosters Daily Democrat. “This bill was being pushed by several out-of-state special interest groups and was not going to help New Hampshire workers.”

State Republican Party Chairman Jeanie Forrester also displayed some of her strength in her newly elected position at a Wednesday press conference, where she said “for those folks who support the governor,” they will be rewarded in the next election cycle with campaign funds.

Even for outside groups, like the state chapter of Americans for Prosperity, said they wouldn’t support lawmakers who broke their pledge. During each election, the group asks all legislators to sign a five-part pledge, which includes support for right-to-work.

Reps. David Miltz, of Derry, and Rio Tilton, of Seabrook, signed the pledge, but voted against the bill Thursday.

“Have I mentioned that we don’t treat pledge breakers well,” AFP state director Greg Moore told the Union Leader. “If we don’t do something when you break a pledge, the pledge doesn’t mean a whole lot, right?”

This pressure from House leadership, the governor’s office, state party, and outside groups might not have convinced “on-the fence” Republicans who are current or former union members, or know people who are in a union. Rep. Tim Josephson, D-Canaan, said strong-arming the House Republican caucus into voting in favor of something they don’t agree with alienates them.

When you tell your caucus "you're w/us or against us" you alienate those who actually rep THE PEOPLE. #nhpolitics https://t.co/BgpOoaWfpc

— Tim Josephson (@TimJosephsonNH) February 16, 2017

For some lawmakers, they are concerned about how their vote might play in their home district come election time next year or if they choose to run for local office.

That happened to House Speaker Shawn Jasper in 2012. He lost an election to serve as Hudson selectman, even though he served on the board for years and was the incumbent chair. He blamed his loss on his support for right to work, which failed by one vote in the House in 2011.

 

THE JASPER BLAME GAME

Jasper’s role in the vote is also being questioned by the more zealous right-to-work lawmakers. Some say he didn’t try hard enough to convince people to vote for it and are blaming him for the bill’s failure. Jasper is pushing back saying that’s not true, he supports right-to-work, but it was always going to be a tough sell in the House. Jasper was also endorsed this past election by the SEIU Local 1984, State Employees Association. That endorsement probably didn’t help his cause either.

The speaker barely won his gavel for a second term after defeating a fervent right-to-work supporter in Rep. Laurie Sanborn, R-Bedford. After the December vote, Jasper said he recognized that his party was fractured, but he hoped to move forward and work with all Republicans.

“I think we’d all like to move beyond the issues of the past,” he told reporters at the time. “I’m certainly going to be working with the people who were not in favor of me being re-elected.”

To prove he stood with the governor, Jasper stepped down from the speaker’s podium, went to his seat, and cast a vote in favor of right-to-work. After the vote, he echoed a similar message as he did in December.

“What I’m trying to do, and not everyone appreciates this, is to avoid tearing my caucus apart,” he said.

Despite his sentiments, some Republicans still think his support his disingenuous. Some say he “stacked” the House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee with anti-right-to-work Republicans.

“There has been an ongoing attempt by a number of Right-to-Work supporters, who facing the possibility that SB 11 will be defeated in the House on Thursday, are attempting to portray me as the reason for such a defeat, alleging that I had ‘stacked’ the Labor Committee,” Jasper said in an email to House Republicans on Wednesday before the vote. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

At the press conference with Forrester, Jasper pushed back against making right-to-work a “litmus test.”

“I’ve said all along that this is a difficult issue,” he said. “I don’t think this is an issue that should define a good Republican versus a bad Republican. I would not characterize anyone who votes against this as a bad Republican.”

Jasper was then criticized by former NHGOP Chairman Jennifer Horn on Facebook, saying he sent “a clear and consistent message against this legislation.”

“Speaker Jasper has failed the governor and he has failed our party,” she said. “Worst of all, he has failed New Hampshire.

Jasper quickly shot back, saying “her comments shows a lack of understanding of the legislative process and a lack of understanding of the individuality of House members. Republicans are not just mind-numbed robots who do what they are told.”

 

LACK OF UNIFIED CAUCUS OR MESSAGE

Jasper is right in that the New Hampshire Republican Party is fractured and this right-to-work bill further exposed the wounds that have yet to be bandaged. Among the 32 Republicans who voted against the legislation, several of them were from Jasper’s leadership team.

Twenty of the 32 Republicans were from Rockingham County and out of 10 representatives from Derry’s delegation, seven of them opposed it.

The vote also split former allies, including President Donald Trump supporters. Rep. Fred Doucette, R-Salem, a former co-chair of Trump’s campaign and a member of the labor committee, voted against right-to-work. Doucette is also a former union member and said many of his constituents are also union members.

Rep. Al Baldasaro, R-Londonderry, chair of Trump’s state campaign veterans’ coalition, supported the bill, saying “union members in the Republican Party failed us.”

House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff told WMUR that the GOP leadership “is trying to paint it as being Democrat versus Republican, but it is bipartisan. I don’t think it plays well to tell Republicans who disagree with this that they will be ostracized by the party going forward. I’ve always told my caucus they are free to vote their consciences.”

It remains to be seen how Jasper and the House leadership plan to unify the Republican caucus, but if another controversial vote comes up, expect to see some divide in the party again.

Rep. Sean Morrison, R-Epping, also voted against the bill and said the right-to-work fight was more of “a matter of message than substance.”

“I too believe this is about freedom … freedom of businesses to conduct themselves as they see fit, and freedom from overreach by government in private business matters,” he told the Union Leader. So let’s lower energy costs, lower business taxes, less red tape and less government interference in employee/employer relationships, as we should in the Live Free or Die state.”

Sununu said he was “deeply disappointed” in the result of the vote, but isn’t going to let this failure define his term.

“It is clear that some House members did not understand this opportunity to unleash the untapped potential of our economy,” he said in a statement. “I know that we can continue to work collaboratively on initiatives that will drive new business into the state. Right-to-work, though important, is just one piece of a broader effort to promote economic development, signaling to our nation’s business community that New Hampshire is open for business.”

 

WHAT COMES NEXT?

Expect to see a push on further cutting business taxes in the state. Former state Rep. Joe Sweeney also hopes that becomes a focus of the administration.

#NHHouse should accelerate business tax cuts to appeal for new businesses to move here. Need to make up for #RTW failure. #nhpolitics

— Joe Sweeney (@JoeSweeneyNH) February 16, 2017

There’s also a national right-to-work bill that has been introduced in Congress. If that passes and Trump signs it, New Hampshire will have to comply with it. It has a possibility of making it through, since Republicans hold majorities in the House and Senate, but it’s almost certain that Democrats would filibuster the bill if it reaches the Senate floor.

It’ll also be important to keep an eye on the 32 House Republicans that voted against right-to-work next year if they seek reelection. Will the NHGOP find someone to challenge those representatives in a primary fight? Will they see any funds from the party for reelection?

However, don’t expect right-to-work to be gone for good. If the GOP can hold on to the State House in 2018, it can push the legislation again.

“It’s always been a heavy lift,” Moore told the Union Leader. “This cause can succeed but only if you make it a prolonged message which galvanizes the support for free enterprise that is out there across this state. We’re bowed but not beaten.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.