Local Opinion: Arizona’s 'fair access' bills bad for taxpayers, economy

Debate over environmental, social and governance (ESG) policy has ramped up recently in Arizona after the introduction of a slate of “fair access” legislation. At first glance, fair access legislation – legislation that imposes restrictions on businesses based on their ESG policies – seems like a silver bullet to stop corporations from moving further and further to the left. I’m no fan of “woke” corporate policies, but the reality is that some of these bills as initially proposed would unleash a slew of unintended consequences that would lead to harmful outcomes for hardworking Arizonans, and be devastating for our state government.

SB 1694 recently made news, highlighted by this paper, for the wide range of government contracts its initial language would impact – anything from the company that makes the reflective coating for road signs to our state’s largest hospital chain. In fact, when I first read SB 1611 and SB 1694, it was clear both bills would jeopardize not only the autonomy of our business owners, but Arizona’s economy as a whole. As a former state senator, I know these bills would have prohibited Arizona from renewing contracts with many companies that our state currently relies on for goods, services and jobs. That’s a mutually detrimental problem for businesses and government.

As a taxpayer, I don’t want to see government unfairly limit the pool of businesses who bid to provide government services. Lack of competition means government can’t procure the best possible service at the lowest possible price, and I want to get the best return on investment for every tax dollar I pay. Furthermore, as a grassroots conservative, I simply don’t think government ought to tell business owners how to run their companies.

Too often a heavy-handed approach to government regulation leads to unintended consequences. My concern with SB 1611 and 1694 was not because they push back on woke corporatism, but because their language would have resulted in ambiguous requirements that would punish businesses across the state for making private decisions that could be misconstrued as such.

Happily, since the article was published, both of these pieces of legislation were amended on the Senate floor to take a much more pragmatic approach. This approach protects the rights of business owners to make decisions in the best interest of their companies and only limits government — restricting the state from imposing needless regulations on businesses as a condition of government contracts. Now, instead of creating a roadblock between government and business, the amended bills guarantee that a path always remains open for any responsible business that wants to provide our state with quality goods and services at a competitive price. This is a better path forward.

To fellow Republicans, I would say: let’s not put unnecessary red tape between businesses and the government, allowing the government to dictate whom the private sector can and cannot do business with. It won’t help government provide services more efficiently, and it won’t save taxpayers money. Instead, I would encourage fellow taxpayers to join me in advocating for the truly conservative approach: less government regulation. In the amendments to SB 1611 and 1694, we have a model of what this looks like. These amendments took the smart approach that avoids unintended consequences and prevents government overreach.