Today the Board of Directors of the California Chamber of Commerce is meeting to discuss, among other things, whether or not the Chamber will take an official position on Proposition 93. As is often talked about here on the FlashReport, Proposition 93 is what we call the "Fabian Nunez 
Career Politician Extension Act" as this measure was crafted by Nunez, and placed on the ballot by him, as a pretty naked attempt to preserve and consolidate his political power, as Assembly Speaker, for another six years.
Some members of the Chamber’s Board may actually want to roll up their sleeves and get into the policy matter of the initiative. But before they do so, they may want to consider the politics of the situation…
The Chamber, under the very able and capable leadership of Allan Zaramberg, came out pretty publicly and strongly saying that it would support a change in the state’s legislative term limits as part of a negotiated deal that would include a fair redistricting plan. The idea behind the Chamber’s position was sound — in order to have a decent shot at passing a plan that would limit unfair gerrymandering in the future, such a plan would need to be tied directly to a term-limits deal, so that Democrat politicians like Senate President Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, and perhaps more importantly the public employee unions, would have a tremendous incentive to support the passage of both, tied together, on the ballot.
Well, at some point in the midst of negotiations, Fabian Nunez took his proverbial marbles and went to play on his own. He walked away from the Chamber and its allies, who were in good faith trying to negotiate a term-limits reform/redistricting package, an unilaterally qualified his own solo measure — one that he knew would preserve his own political career.
So I guess the real question is this? What is the response by the Chamber when they are "dissed" so publicly by Nunez?
That, in my opinion, is THE question. Because it goes to the heart of the matter – the credibility of the Chamber. Yes, there is an underlying policy matter about term-limits. But it is no longer the primary issue facing the California Chamber of Commerce.
In Sacramento, political capital is extremely important. It is the cache that you use to try to achieve your goals. Whether you have to use your capitol to make commitments, or sometimes to make threats, it is the single most valuable commodity that you have in "the big game" in Sacramento.
I can tell you that there is a general assumption by most that the Chamber will oppose Proposition 93, because of what I described above. You see, the Chamber’s reputation is one of being a fair player, but also a firm one, and a fair one. Nunez has treated them like chumps in this matter… A vote to oppose Proposition 93 by the Chamber Board would empower the group for many important battles to come, not the least of which is the water storage bond issue, on which the Chamber wants to lead the way to a positive solution.
Again, I think we all understand that there may be several points of view amongst Chamber Board Members about term-limits, and many may, in fact, believe that the restructuring of terms under the Nunez proposal is better than the status quo. If things had been played different, that policy concern might actually be on the top of the decision-making food chain. But for better or worse, the Chamber’s political negotiators didn’t stake out a position solely on term-limits. They said, "give us fair redistricting, and we’ll give you term limits reform."
The question is whether the Chamber meant it. I guess we’ll find out today…
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.