Women-, minority-owned preference good in theory, bad in execution

By Chris Thompson

State Sen. Glenn Grothman has taken to an extreme his opposition to preferences for women- and minority-owned companies.

But he still presents a relevant argument.

In the waning days of the legislative session, the West Bend Republican introduced a doomed proposal for a constitutional amendment that would ban racial or gender contracting preferences. He did so in response to two bills — one that would make permanent a 25 percent minority contracting goal for projects that receive affordable housing tax credits and another that would restore a state program that gives grants and loans to minority businesses.

Both bills failed to get a vote before the session ended.

Grothman‘s proposal also failed, but it brought to light a growing trend of offering preferences to construction companies. Whether they are focusing on minority-owned companies or Milwaukee-based companies, lawmakers are handing out competitive advantages as if they were buttons at a campaign rally.

In a way, they are.

Preferences are strong political capital, giving a politician the opportunity to show how much he cares and understands.

But where does it end? At what point does a preponderance of preferences go too far in manipulating competitive balance?

Those were the questions behind Grothman’s proposal. He just took it too far, backing it up with opinion and rhetoric rather than facts and statistics.

There is a point at which preferences will do more harm than good. At least Grothman took a shot at saying where that point might be.

Chris Thompson is the editor at The Daily Reporter. He can be reached at (414) 225-1818.