FEIGENBAUM: Freshmen legislators' green is showing

Ed Feigenbaum
February 26, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Action: House of Representatives Democrats walked out Tuesday to prevent the adoption of a House committee report paving the way for a far-reaching (but not absolute) right-to-work measure—added to the committee calendar at effectively the last minute of the last possible day.

Reaction: Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels called the Statehouse media into his office, not to castigate or condemn House Democrats’ actions, but rather to calmly and cautiously cajole them back to work.

He would not sic the Indiana State Police on wayward Democrats—some of whom were then-rumored to be seeking sanctuary in Illinois and Kentucky, states overseen by Democratic governors—and just appealed to their consciences to conduct business.

Some national Republicans looking for red-meat political rhetoric from Daniels as they begin to choose sides in the 2012 Republican presidential sweepstakes may have been disappointed in that, but they were probably even more disappointed in his refusal to stand on principle in favor of a right-to-work law.

Instead, echoing his recent Conservative Political Action Conference speech in which he suggested that “Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers,” Daniels reminded reporters of his earlier fears that waving the right-to-work flag in front of Democrats during this session would likely prove counterproductive, and that it should best be vetted in front of the public in a campaign context where the issue was a principal campaign plank on both sides of the partisan political ledger.

However, despite the strong Republican majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly, the governor has not always found strict adherence to his legislative and fiscal preferences.

While some of the major so-called “wedge” issues—changes in abortion policy and definitions of when life begins, a same-sex marriage ban constitutional amendment and charter-school expansion—were passed by one or both chambers over surprisingly little Democratic opposition, and even school vouchers didn’t seem as offensive to the legislative minority as they had hinted, there was a firewall.

Perhaps lulled into a belief that the lack of a Democratic firestorm on the other controversial issues meant Dems were resigned to their fate, or simply holding back their heavy artillery for the redistricting or budget bills, Republicans waited until late in the game to call for a right-to-work hearing, and pushed it through after what can be characterized as unusually brief testimony for such a controversial matter.

While Monday’s floor proceedings were conducted professionally with occasional flashes of good humor, Democrats apparently decided that the Right-to-Work principle was a core principle, and a strong display at the Statehouse of human bumper stickers with the union label—“Wisconsin lite”—offered them further encouragement.

As the session was unfolding in January, Assistant House Democratic Leader Scott Pelath, D–Michigan City, hinted that his colleagues—on both sides of the aisle—would truly do battle on “what they value most.” Tuesday night, Democrats said they had grievances with almost one dozen bills on a “radical” Republican “reform” agenda, and not just one area. Instead of “anti-child and anti-worker” measures, they wanted more public school aid and income-boosting initiatives.

When the dust eventually settles, expect the freshman bloc to listen more closely to their more-seasoned legislative and executive branch leaders and avoid overreaching. They had already racked up an impressive record of success as the first half of the session was preparing to draw to a quiet close. An Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund fix and and extension of the use of vote centers were approved by both chambers. Major school reforms—and significant funding changes—were on their way through, together with abortion restrictions, easing of gun-control laws, corporate tax cuts, and the marriage amendment. You don’t have to back the bills to be impressed by the activity.

Republicans were likely to add to that litany a budget that improved upon the governor’s submission, and new legislative maps favoring their party as a whole.

But the “new kids in the bloc” failed to heed their elders, and got a bit greedy too quickly, goading Democrats into the only recourse open to them. With Democrats in Ohio and Wisconsin acting largely the same way as their Hoosier compatriots (over less substance), Indiana Democrats aren’t as chastened as freshmen Republicans hoped.

This is a key lesson for the freshmen going forward.•


Feigenbaum publishes Indiana Legislative Insight. His column appears weekly while the Indiana General Assembly is in session. He can be reached at edf@ingrouponline.com.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.