February 10, 2009 08:39 PM UTC

Debunking The "Business Community" Myth

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

In a Denver Post article about union money spent on the 2008 election, we find this oft-repeated myth:

Bennet and others may be under pressure from labor, but they can’t afford to appear anti-business, said Donald Beachler, a political science professor at Ithaca College.

“Business has other candidates to go to. Labor has really nowhere to go but to the Democrats,” he said.

Really? Who is that? Where are these fantastic “business-only” candidates that are defeating Democrats at every step?

Look, we’re not trying to advocate for or against business interests here, but this idea that Democrats have to be careful not to anger the business gods is really getting out of hand. News articles often speak of “the business community” as though it were some sort of organized, focused political force, when this is far from reality.

The truth is that the “business community” needs Democrats a lot more than Democrats need the “business community.” Democrats have proved that they can win elections with or without them.

In Colorado, the “business community” that is often discussed is really just the NFIB, CACI (the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry) and the various local Realtors’ Associations — all of which are little more than Republican organizations in this state. CACI, for example, is as “non-partisan” as many labor unions. This “business community” would only really support a Democrat in a competitive election if they had no other choice. In this regard, Democrats worried about support from the “business community” are just chasing their tails.

For example, Gov. Bill Ritter’s obsession with placating the “business community” in everything he does has really begun to erode his base. But in 2010, this “business community” isn’t going to support him for re-election anyway. They’re going to back the Republican candidate unless that candidate is completely worthless. Business interests only backed Ritter in 2006 when it was clear that Republican Bob Beauprez’s campaign had cratered.

Here’s another example: Remember all the coverage when Ritter vetoed the infamous “Labor Peace Act” in early 2007 despite unanimous approval from Democrats in the legislature? Ritter vetoed the bill so he wouldn’t anger the “business community,” but he’s still getting blamed for it to this day. In the end, Ritter angered both labor unions and the “business community” just by letting the bill get to the point where he felt compelled to veto it. From a purely political standpoint, he would have been better off just signing the bill.

Meanwhile, in 2008 voters in Colorado overwhelmingly rejected ballot measures put forth by the so-called “business community,” including “Right to Work.” Many business groups, such as the South Metro Chamber of Commerce, actually opposed “Right to Work” anyway. And polling in Colorado has shown that the average voter is not opposed to labor unions in general. Voters don’t see labor as the bogeyman that CACI and other groups try to paint it as.

In fact, you could make the case that in this economic environment, it is the “business community” that people are really angry with. It seems like every other week that we read about corporations continuing to hand out huge bonuses or perks even after pleading for bailout money.

Again, our point here isn’t to attack the “business community,” but merely to point out the fallacy that Democrats must always placate this group that isn’t going to support them in an election anyway–and isn’t all that beloved by the average voter. Democrats have won recent elections not because they were supported by business interests, but in spite of the opposition from them. The “business community” spent millions of dollars in the 2008 cycle on TV ads attacking Democrat Mark Udall for supporting the Employee Free Choice Act. Udall ended up beating Republican Bob Schaffer by double digits.

So why, again, do Democrats need to be careful not to anger the “business community?”