Veto overrides have been a rarity in the Kansas Legislature lately, but Governor Brownback just got handed a big one.

Now law, Kansas HB 117 will require Uber and other ride-sharing services to abide by state regulations: all drivers submit to a background check from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and carry both comprehensive and collision insurance.

The bill will add a few hundred dollars per year to each Uber driver’s cost of doing business— that is, if the company ever reenters the Kansas market, from which they just withdrew in protest. Kansas Senate President Susan Wagle called Uber’s threats “pure political theater,” while Brownback retorted, “over-regulation of businesses discourages investment and harms the open and free marketplace.”

This issue is creating weird political coalitions. Support for Uber unites “uber”-conservative Brownback and 2008 Obama campaign director David Plouffe, who is Uber’s lead political consultant. Opponents include the conservative majority in the Kansas Legislature and their socially-liberal critic, Kansas City, MO mayor Sly James.

In KCMO, James denounced Uber’s aggressive politicking, then led a unanimous city council decision that ride-sharing drivers are taxi drivers, who must abide by city background checks. Compromise followed quickly: Uber will conduct its own checks, but supply the data to the city. As a result, Uber is staying in KCMO— for now. Uber comes to the battle well-equipped, with high-profile lobbyist Plouffe joining former Brownback campaign manager Mark Dugan, advocating for the company from here to London, England, plus France, Germany, and elsewhere.

This issue cuts across the conservative coalition, separating those who are drawn to conservatism for its emphasis on tradition, law enforcement, and authority, from those who are pulled into the movement by libertarian, or free market views. It is not hard to see why policymakers from the liberal James to the conservative Wagle are threatened by such policies, which replace their own authority with that of the free market: ruthless as it is. Uber has been called “Ayn Rand’s favorite car service” by the liberal gossip website Gawker, referencing a famously-outspoken anti-government philosopher. For example, Uber charges up to four times their usual rates during times of natural or human disaster, such as the recent terrorist attacks in Sydney, Australia, and Uber’s own spokespeople defend the practice, arguing that “surge pricing” provides incentives to drivers who face the increased dangers involved in carrying passengers during high-risk situations. Rand would approve: the market knows best.

Liberals are also divided by this. Young “Millenials” are known for their open-minded views about everything from marriage to consumer products. Uber seeks to capitalize on this by portraying their smartphone-based service as cool: ultra-hip Austin, TX welcomes their services while stodgy San Antonio rejects them, for example. Yet traditional liberalism stands for more than being young. Granted, in many cities taxi companies have abused their monopoly status. Still, older liberals have to wonder: has our society become too Uber-hip to support the antiquated idea that a unionized cabdriver should be able to raise a family, send the kids to college, and retire comfortably on his or her fares, even if it means higher costs for consumers? Today’s debate tells the tale.

Michael A. Smith is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Emporia State University.