9 - Evaluating Proposals for Sponsored Legislation IBP
Evaluating
Proposals for Sponsored Legislation
Updated September 2007Legislative
Common Interest Development
Housing Opportunity
Manufactured Housing
Land Use and Environmental
Property Management
Real Estate Finance
TaxationThe following is for study only and has NOT been approved
by Legislative Committee, Policy Committees, Executive Committee, or the
Boardof Directors.
Issue:
What strategic questions should
C.A.R. consider in evaluating proposals for sponsored legislation?
Action:
Optional
Options:
Not applicable
Status/Summary:
In addition to acting upon the bills of others, C.A.R. sponsors its own
legislation. Early in the 1990s, C.A.R. Directors began to be more
aggressive in approving sponsored legislation, accepting the risk of
unsuccessful legislation as the price of possible gains. C.A.R. sponsored
legislation increased from around 5-12 proposals per year to an all time high
of 20 in the 1996 legislative year. Most recently, especially in
risk management and local government issues, theDirectorate has been more
aggressive and more willing to sponsor legislation with a calculated
risk.
In June 1996, the Board of Directors created a Legislative Priority
Group. This group, drawn from C.A.R. Leadership and the chairs of policy
committees is essentially a check on sponsorship decisions whose enthusiasm may
outstrip available political capital. To the credit of C.A.R. policy
committees, the Priority Group has never denied sponsorship to a proposal
approved by the directors.
Discussion:
In comparison to other lobbying entities, C.A.R. has historically sponsored a
relatively large number of bills each year. In the zero sum game of
governmental advocacy, this emphasis on proactive legislation necessarily comes
at the expense of reactive or defensive legislative
activity. C.A.R. has not historically "prioritized"
legislation in terms of ranking one above or below another, but instead has
pursued all of its sponsored bills "all out." C.A.R.'s prioritization has
historically meant determining which of many worthy proposals become sponsored
legislation in a given year. Set out below is a discussion of some of the
considerations relevant to whether or not to propose legislation forsponsorship
by C.A.R.
Sponsoring legislation expends political "capital", reducing the ability to
react to legislation of others. Given the dramatic turnover of membership in
the legislature as the result of term limits, the consolidation of legislative
power in one party, reactive ability is increasingly important. In response,
C.A.R. has reduced the number of sponsored bills and increased reliance on
so-called "targets of opportunity" presented in legislation of others.
Unanticipated Challenges - In the words of the late Gilda Radner, "It's always
something". In each legislative session it seems that some
major, but unanticipated reactive (opposition) challenge emerges. High
profile opposition issues have ranged from mortgage bankers attempting to
restructure the real estate lending license regulation; to homeowners
insurance and earthquake insurance; to DRE changes, tax changes and property
management. In 2008 these issues will carry over, along with transaction
liability, rent control, land use, and political reform.
Member Mobilization Implications - C.A.R.'s legislative prowess has
historically been based upon the ability, or perceived ability, to mobilize its
membership on a particular issue. Any strategic decision regarding
sponsored bills must take into account the allocation of member mobilization
resources as well. For example, in 2006 the anti-NIMBY attorney fees bill
by itself consumed substantial amounts of mobilization resources and political
capital at every stage of passage. In brief, opponents fought "tooth and
nail" at every vote. If C.A.R. sponsors a bill, will the rank and
file volunteers turn out to support it? Or willtheir enthusiasm be exhausted by
multiple demands on their time?
Factors to Consider
What is C.A.R.'s top priority? Even if the proposal is a well thought out,
desirable change, the legislation may not be as important to REALTORS® as other
competing proposals.
What is C.A.R.'s real goal? Is there a major policy goal to be achieved
in the proposed legislation? Bills that are put in just to posture in the
capitol may needlessly expend resources and erode C.A.R.'s credibility with the
legislature. How significant is the proposed change to the real estate
industry and the everyday activities of REALTORS®?
Does the political "cost" justify the improvement that might be gained by the
bill? Cost comes in two ways. Sponsored legislation necessarily
comes at the expense of reactive efforts and other proactive activities.
Secondly, whether described as "chits," "bullets," or "trips to the well;" any
lobbying entity's abilityto marshal votes declines with the number of issues
attempted and with the diversity of areas addressed.
Does C.A.R. need to be the sponsor? Oftentimes REALTOR® policy goals may
be paralleled by other interest groups, and C.A.R. cansimply "piggyback" --
support their legislation rather than sponsor a parallel competing measure, or
force a desired change as a price of removing opposition. If more control
(and more political investment) is desirable, co-sponsorship with anotherentity
may be a preferable option.
Options for positions include:
1.Support, but not Sponsor This position implicitly concludes the proposal is
not an appropriate subject for expenditure of the level of legislative
resources (at this time) that actual sponsorship would require.
2.Sponsor as an Amendment Actively seek to insert the proposal in
relevant bills of others as opportunities present themselves.
3.Co-Sponsor Share in the drafting, control and required expenditure of
resources with another lobbying entity. This option requires much more
political resources than simple support of legislation of others, but carries
with it more control of the final product.
4.Sponsor Adopt as a portion of C.A.R.'s own legislative program; highest
investment and prioritization of legislative resource.
Who is the legislation for? Is the whole Real Estate industry really
committed to the proposal, or does it onlybenefit a small portion of C.A.R.'s
membership? Will the bill divide C.A.R. membership? In the recent
struggle with the title industry over affiliated business legislation, the lack
of unanimity within REALTOR® ranks was ultimately fatalto our
program.Don't over reach. Is the proposal evenhanded to
Buyers / Sellers; listing / selling agents; lenders / borrowers, etc., at least
on the face of the proposal? Little legislative sympathy is given to attempts
to stifle competitors, exploit consumers, or fix more than the problem at
hand. C.A.R. is regarded as a powerhouse within its particular "turf,"
but like other lobbying entities, C.A.R.'s influence declines rapidly as it
moves away from "core" concerns.
Has it been tried it before? How come? How come it didn't work
then? Even in this era of term limits, the legislative viability or
"do-ability" of various types of proposals changes relatively slowly. In
recent years, the Legislative Committee and the Board of Directors have
evidenced a willingness to sponsor more "long shot" attempts at
legislation. However, once a proposal has been tried and found wanting,
should it not any repeat attempt be based upon indications that previous
opposition can be dealt with before it is reintroduced?
Please see the State Legislative Issues Report for a more comprehensive
discussion of how sponsored legislation is proposed through the so-called "two
tier, three track system," andfor a detailed discussion of the implications of
the various possible positions on legislation.
Legislative Priority Group Members of the Legislative Priority Group
Include:
* Chair of the Legislative Committee
* Chairs of thecommittees that report through Legislative Committee
(Common
Interest Development, Land Use, Local Governmental Relations, Property
Management, Real Estate Finance, Taxation
* Member of the Executive Committee
* Chair of the Planning Subcommittee of Strategic Planning and Finance
Committee
* President-elect (Chair)
