Ehrlich Vetoes 'Wal-Mart' Bill

By John Wagner
Washington Post
May 19, 2005

RINCESS ANNE, Md., May 19 -- Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. this afternoon vetoed legislation that would effectively have required retailing giant Wal-Mart to spend more money on employee health benefits or pay into a state insurance program for the poor.

Ehrlich's action came during a tightly choreographed ceremony in which he was flanked by a top executive from the Arkansas-based company and greeted by a high school band playing on a blocked-off downtown street lined with American flags.

"We are here to enthusiastically veto a bad piece of public policy," Ehrlich (R) said, arguing the bill would have a chilling effect on businesses considering locating or expanding in Maryland.

Ehrlich chose Somerset County as his venue because it has one of the state's highest unemployment rates, and the fate of a planned Wal-Mart distribution center here has become entangled in the controversy surrounding the bill.

Eduardo Castro Wright, Wal-Mart USA's chief operating officer, said in an interview before the ceremony that the company could reconsider its plans to locate here if Ehrlich's veto is overridden by lawmakers.

"It singles a company out in a way that is discriminatory," he said of the legislation, which passed on largely party line votes, in the heavily Democratic General Assembly this year.

The bill would have required for-profit companies with more than 10,000 employees to spend 8 percent of their payroll on health-care benefits. As written, Wal-Mart is the only known company operating in Maryland that would be affected.

Officially called the Fair Share Health Care Bill, the legislation was commonly referred to in Annapolis as "the Wal-Mart bill."

Ehrlich's stance, which he made clear weeks ago, drew heavy criticism in recent days from leading Democrats, union representatives and health-care advocates.

"We had hoped that . . . Gov. Ehrlich would be big enough to get beyond his cozy relationships with Wal-Mart and other big business backers and side with the majority of people in the state," said Jim Lowthers, president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 400. "But it appears the governor is turning his back on working families."

Terry Lierman, chairman of the Maryland Democratic Party, said the legislature's passage of the bill had been "the right thing to do," given that some Wal-Mart employees now must rely on Medicaid, the state-run insurance program for the poor, for health care.

"Taxpayers are footing an even larger bill with Wal-Mart dumping their employees into Medicaid rather than insuring them," Lierman said in a letter to Democrats this week in which he urged them to turn out for a rally here at the same time Ehrlich vetoed the bill.

Several dozen protesters who showed up were told by local police that they could not bring signs near the event.

Proponents of the legislation said they will urge the General Assembly to override Ehrlich's veto. Lawmakers are next scheduled to convene in January.

Frank White, president of the Princess Anne Town Commissioners, said he hopes the bill is not revived.

"It's a bad bill," White (R) said. "It's a bad bill for business, and it's a bad bill for Somerset County."

He praised Ehrlich for taking "a very courageous step in vetoing this bill."

Wal-Mart has contributed to the governor's campaign. The company last year hosted a fundraiser for his reelection bid in Annapolis, and this year donated $4,000 on the eve of the legislative session. Aides said Ehrlich's view of the bill was not influenced by the contributions and noted that union leaders supportive of the bill have contributed to Democrats.