It would be hard to find another organization that wields as much influence under the Gold Dome as the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. While legislators don't march in lockstep to do their bidding, when the Chamber makes its position known on a piece of legislation you can be assured your state representative or state senator at least pays attention.

A few days ago the Chamber released its legislative scorecard for the just finished 2011 session of the General Assembly and there were a few local surprises. Legislators were judged on 10 bills that were voted on by both the House and Senate, and an additional bill only voted on in the House. 

As a business organization, the Chamber is primarily concerned with issues that impact Georgia's economic climate. From education to taxes, their goal is to keep the Peach State a competitive place for business nationally and internationally. With the nation still struggling economically and unemployment remaining high here, that's a goal we should all get behind. 

While I generally don't agree with the Chamber's position on every issue each year, we'll usually be on the same page about 90 percent of the time. However, this is one of those years when I sided entirely with their scorecard issues. While reviewing the scorecard, I was really surprised that some members of our local Bartow legislation delegation who I view as traditionally being pro-Chamber didn't score that well.

Among our house members, Paul Battles received a "C" and Christian Coomer scored a "B". In the Senate, Bill Heath pulled down a "B", while Barry Loudermilk grabbed an "A+." I always value independence and understand lawmakers must vote their conscious on an issue-by-issue basis, but in a depressed economy I'm sure a few residents may have concerns about how their members ranked.

For comparison, here's how some legislators in surrounding counties scored: State
representatives Katie Dempsey of Rome and John Meadows of Calhoun both earned an "A;" Ed Setzer of Acworth a "B;" and Rick Jasperse of Jasper pulled a "C." In the Senate, Jeff Mullis of Lafayette graded a "B+," while Chip Rogers of Woodstock was given an "A+."

All of the legislators I've mentioned so far are Republicans. There are two Democrat state representatives in northwest Georgia, Rick Crawford of Polk County and Barbara Reece of Chattooga County. Each of them received a "U" for unsatisfactory.

To get an "A" a legislator needed to score 90 or above. For a grade of "B" an 80 to 89 was required. A "C" ranking meant the legislator scored between 70 and 79, and anyone under 70 received a "U."

One piece of legislation supported by the Chamber that hurt the scores of several legislative members was SB10. This bill, which passed and has been signed into law by the governor, will give Georgia's cities and counties the ability to hold local referendums to let their residents decide whether to allow Sunday package sales of alcohol. While most legislators from larger cities and counties voted in favor, there were quite a few in more rural areas who were afraid of a backlash from churches in their communities and said no.

Also supported by the Chamber and already signed by Governor Deal was SB122, a bill that allows the creation of public/private partnerships for the planning and building of additional drinking water reservoirs around the state. Using private investment dollars as opposed to taxpayer funds for these projects seems like a no-brainer to me, but Battles and Coomer both disagreed.

HB167, which also passed and was signed by the governor, involved a rewrite of a section of Georgia's insurance code. The Chamber opposed this legislation, claiming it eroded current employer protections allowed under federal ERISA law. I'm not even going to try to explain this one, but several of our area legislators supported the bill in spite of the Chamber's opposition.

At this point you may be asking yourself what impact this Georgia Chamber of Commerce scorecard has? Will it mean a huge difference in next year's elections? Probably not. There is a chance these scores could be one of many small contributing factors used to help decide how legislative districts will be reconfigured in this year's redistricting special session. More than likely the only real noticeable impacts might be slightly reduced campaign contributions to those with low scores, and possibly reduced influence as committee assignments are made.

To see the complete scorecard for every legislator along with an explanation of each bill used in compiling the scores, you can visit this site. If you see where your senator or representative voted differently than you would have preferred, this would be a good time to make your voice heard.

Follow me on Twitter @chuckshiflett and also check out my statewide columns at: The Backroom Report.