{"id":13710,"date":"2011-07-22T01:42:29","date_gmt":"2011-07-22T01:42:29","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2011-07-22T01:42:29","modified_gmt":"2011-07-22T01:42:29","slug":"commuter-benefits-how-a-bill-with-bipartisan-support-turned-into-a-partisan-fight","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/2011\/07\/22\/commuter-benefits-how-a-bill-with-bipartisan-support-turned-into-a-partisan-fight\/","title":{"rendered":"Commuter Benefits: How a bill with bipartisan support turned into a partisan fight"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>(Cross-posted from <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ecovote.org\/news\" title=\"Groundswell\">Groundswell<\/a>, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.) <\/p>\n<div class=\"body\">\n<p> \tAt the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV), we often know early on what bills will be contentious in the  legislature. We plan ahead and work on securing votes of legislators who  are on the fence. But at other times, good bills seem to be sailing  through. This was the case with <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ecovote.org\/sites\/default\/files\/JointCommuteBenFactSheet.pdf\">SB 582<\/a>, which would establish a commuter benefit pilot program. Unfortunately though, the key word here is &#8220;was&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p> \tThe pilot program would allow metropolitan planning organizations (MPO)  and local air districts to jointly adopt a regional commute benefit  requirement. Employers in these regions would have the following  options:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> \t\tGive employees the option to pay for their transit, vanpooling or  bicycling expenses with pre-tax dollars, as currently allowed by federal  law;<\/li>\n<li> \t\tOffer employees a transit or vanpool subsidy up to $75 per month;<\/li>\n<li> \t\tProvide employees with a free shuttle or vanpool operated by or for the employer.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p> \tWhat&#39;s great about commuter benefits is that they benefit both  employees and employers, especially if employers choose the first  option. As someone who has participated in commuter benefit programs as  an employee and administered a program for a non-profit I used to work  for, I can attest that allowing employees to pay for transit expenses  with pre-tax dollars saves money for employers and employees.<\/p>\n<p> \tSounds pretty non-controversial, right?<\/p>\n<p> \tWell, it was at first. Republican Senator Bill Emmerson introduced the  bill early this year and it quickly earned bi-partisan support. The  Senate passed the bill in May with a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.leginfo.ca.gov\/pub\/11-12\/bill\/sen\/sb_0551-0600\/sb_582_vote_20110531_0205PM_sen_floor.html\">36-2 vote<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p> \tSB 582 continued to sail along in the Assembly. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.leginfo.ca.gov\/pub\/11-12\/bill\/sen\/sb_0551-0600\/sb_582_cfa_20110623_132635_asm_comm.html\">As late as June 20th, there was no registered opposition to the bill<\/a>,  which made sense to us since the bill doesn&#39;t cost the state or  employers any funds and helps reduce traffic congestion, air pollution  and greenhouse gasses related to transportation.<\/p>\n<p> \tBut at the last moment, as the bill was headed to the Assembly floor,  the California Chamber of Commerce and California Taxpayers Association  came out against the bill. Yes, the Chamber, which is supposed to  support business interests, and the Taxpayers Association, which is  supposed to support taxpayer interests, came out against a bill that  would save businesses money and cost nothing to taxpayers!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p> \tOpposition by these groups entirely changed the dynamic in the  Assembly. All of a sudden many legislators back off of supporting the  bill. Senator Emmerson, while still supporting the bill, pulled out from  being the bill&#39;s author, and Senator Leland Yee stepped in to sponsor  the bill.<\/p>\n<p> \tOur friends at <a href=\"http:\/\/transformca.org\/\">TransForm<\/a> started  reaching out to swing assemblymembers to secure their support on the  bill and we offered to help by generating calls into the swing  districts. Here&#39;s what our Member Action Campaign Associate Bekah  Barnett wrote about our part in this campaign:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"rteindent1\"> \tPart of my role at CLCV is to manage the Membership Action Campaigns  Program. This is when we determine which representatives are going to be  the key swing votes on an issue, and then we call CLCV members in their  districts and pass them through directly to leave a message for their  representative. Recently, we were asked to help out with the passage of  SB 582, with only one day to make calls before the vote. We were able to  get 8 pass through calls to Joan Buchanan and 9 to Dr. Richard Pan. The  next day, when the vote came up, they both voted in favor of the bill!  That&rsquo;s a 100% success rate! It feels great to be able to contribute to  the passage of a bill that would so favorably impact people and the  environment, especially when it&rsquo;s a program that I have personally  benefitted from and know would make a big difference for the state.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p> \tBecause of our work and the work of several other environmental groups  in the few days leading up to the vote, the Assembly passed the bill  with a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.leginfo.ca.gov\/pub\/11-12\/bill\/sen\/sb_0551-0600\/sb_582_vote_20110711_1241PM_asm_floor.html\">narrow margin of 47-28 votes<\/a>. The vote was split entirely along party lines, despite the bipartisan support the bill had enjoyed in the Senate.<\/p>\n<p> \tClearly, the opposition of the Chamber and Taxpayers Association had  scared many assemblymembers &#8211; particularly Republicans &#8211; from voting for  this win-win bill. This influence was made even clearer when the bill  returned to the Senate for a concurrence vote (since the bill had been  slightly amended in the Assembly). The 36-2 vote in May turned into a  24-14 vote in July, and it split entirely along party lines, except for  Senator Emmerson, who maintained his support for the bill.<\/p>\n<p> \tThe fate of SB 582 rests with Governor Jerry Brown, as the bill now sits on his desk awaiting a signature. <strong>If  you want to see more commuter benefit programs &#8211; that save money for  employers and employees and improve our air quality &#8211; implemented in  California, call the Governor and urge him to sign SB 582: (916)  445-2841.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>(Cross-posted from <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ecovote.org\/news\" title=\"Groundswell\">Groundswell<\/a>, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.) <\/p>\n<div class=\"body\">\n<p> \tAt the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV), we often know early on what bills will be contentious in the  legislature. We plan ahead and work on securing votes of legislators who  are on the fence. But at other times, good bills seem to be sailing  through. This was the case with <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ecovote.org\/sites\/default\/files\/JointCommuteBenFactSheet.pdf\">SB 582<\/a>, which would establish a commuter benefit pilot program. Unfortunately though, the key word here is &#8220;was&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p> \tThe pilot program would allow metropolitan planning organizations (MPO)  and local air districts to jointly adopt a regional commute benefit  requirement. Employers in these regions would have the following  options:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> \t\tGive employees the option to pay for their transit, vanpooling or  bicycling expenses with pre-tax dollars, as currently allowed by federal  law;<\/li>\n<li> \t\tOffer employees a transit or vanpool subsidy up to $75 per month;<\/li>\n<li> \t\tProvide employees with a free shuttle or vanpool operated by or for the employer.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p> \tWhat&#39;s great about commuter benefits is that they benefit both  employees and employers, especially if employers choose the first  option. As someone who has participated in commuter benefit programs as  an employee and administered a program for a non-profit I used to work  for, I can attest that allowing employees to pay for transit expenses  with pre-tax dollars saves money for employers and employees.<\/p>\n<p> \tSounds pretty non-controversial, right?<\/p>\n<p> \tWell, it was at first. Republican Senator Bill Emmerson introduced the  bill early this year and it quickly earned bi-partisan support. The  Senate passed the bill in May with a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.leginfo.ca.gov\/pub\/11-12\/bill\/sen\/sb_0551-0600\/sb_582_vote_20110531_0205PM_sen_floor.html\">36-2 vote<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p> \tSB 582 continued to sail along in the Assembly. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.leginfo.ca.gov\/pub\/11-12\/bill\/sen\/sb_0551-0600\/sb_582_cfa_20110623_132635_asm_comm.html\">As late as June 20th, there was no registered opposition to the bill<\/a>,  which made sense to us since the bill doesn&#39;t cost the state or  employers any funds and helps reduce traffic congestion, air pollution  and greenhouse gasses related to transportation.<\/p>\n<p> \tBut at the last moment, as the bill was headed to the Assembly floor,  the California Chamber of Commerce and California Taxpayers Association  came out against the bill. Yes, the Chamber, which is supposed to  support business interests, and the Taxpayers Association, which is  supposed to support taxpayer interests, came out against a bill that  would save businesses money and cost nothing to taxpayers!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1544,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[86],"tags":[8691,5072,10035,10033,316,10034],"class_list":["post-13710","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-86","tag-8691","tag-5072","tag-10035","tag-10033","tag-316","tag-10034"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6Pvhz-3z8","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13710","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1544"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13710"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13710\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13710"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13710"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/calitics.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13710"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}