NRA's Fisher: NRN misses the mark with editorial - National Restaurant Association president William P. Fisher responds to June 17, 1996 National Restaurant News editorial on NRA lobbying policies - Column

Editor's Note: Rarely has an NRN editorial generated as much passionate response as did "NRA's shift to far right driven more by politics than issues," June 17. Despite several interpretations to the contrary, nowhere did the editorial intend to criticize the NRA's commitment to the industry or its mission to forward the best interests of foodservice operators. Rather it questioned an apparent political shift in the association's lobbying efforts. Here are some of the responses:

I was grievously dismayed to read the editorial in your June 17 edition suggesting the National Restaurant Association has become a politically partisan organization forsaking the merit of the issues we address. While, at best, you have created a misimpression and, at worst, you have printed misinformation -- an egregious lapse for an otherwise-responsible member of the trade press -- I hope you'll allow me the opportunity to balance the scales of fairness, which have been tipped, unwittingly perhaps, by well-meaning but naive writers.

At the outset let me state emphatically that we are a decidedly partisan organization -- partisan first, last and always in promoting and protecting the foodservice industry in the arena of federal legislation and regulatory affairs. Given that by the nature of the industry we represent a widely diverse constituency with a broad spectrum of political views, our common and binding thread is our profession -- foodservice -- and our positions and actions are based on advancing the best business interest of the industry in becoming more profitable, creating more jobs, contributing in ever-increasing measure to the economy and adding value to the quality of American life. That is what we stand for; that is what we do!

I need to set some of your statements straight.

The association's Board of Directors did not vote to give $1 million to the political campaign of 20 Republicans. We did convey $1 million to a coalition of business groups that is raising funds for an issue advocacy campaign to offset the $35 million the AFL-CIO has vowed to raise in its "Union Summer" campaign. The unions have targeted 75 incumbents in the House of Representatives whom they hope to unseat in November because of their generally pro-business record and opposition to the fiscally irresponsible tax-and-spend policies of the past. The coalition will use its funds to counter union attack advertisements that are beginning to fill the airwaves.

What you did not report in your editorial is that the board also authorized the expenditure of up to an additional $1 million to be used to counter state ballot initiatives in the six states, Arizona, California, Idaho, Missouri, Montana and Oregon, and two cities, Denver and New Orleans. The union tactic is to place minimum-wage referenda in state and local voting booths to let the voting public register their votes directly on that issue. The unions have moved to the states and localities to advance their agenda, and we are helping to defeat them in this new battleground.

With respect to minimum wage, we are not dispassionate nor insensitive to people or social issues. The philosophical underpinning of this association is that America and the foodservice industry are best served in the long run by letting the marketplace determine wages, costs and prices, rather than have government legislate artificial, mandatory costs on business without a corresponding increase in productivity or the overall standard of living. If you want government dominance, look at any one of several European models.

Finally, let me say that the economic world we live in is tempered by the political world we elect, for better or for worse. To advance the best interest of our industry, we must, and do, communicate frequently and fervently to federal elected officials, be they Republicans, Democrats, Independents, conservatives, moderates, liberals, "blue dogs" et al. We are on the "side" of the foodservice industry and support those who support us to get things done. Not to do that would cause our industry to waft in the winds of Washington; and if you consider the outcome of that scenario, there may not be much of an industry left for you to write about.

Note: The June 17 editorial stated that "the Board of Directors approved up to $1 million to shore up the public images of 20 Republicans bruised in union-funded blitzes for their opposition to a federal minimum wage hike," not that the money was intended for "the political campaign of 20 Republicans," as Fisher writes.

COPYRIGHT 1996 Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group