The "business community" in DC is not unitary, it's segmented and different segments have different, often non-local interests

The four necessary elements of a successful election campaign:

1.  Get on the ballot.
2.  Fundraise.
3.  Create and implement a campaign
4.  Get a majority of the electorate voting to vote for you.

Even if you can do (1), (2) and (3) successfully that doesn't mean you'll win.

It's even harder if you run on a "pro-business agenda," rather than a "pro-citizen agenda," especially in a large center city that has strong progressive leanings politically.  For example, in the 2016 Presidential Election, in DC, 97% of the votes cast were for Hillary Clinton.

Another attempt to elect a "pro-business" Councilmember fails in DC. The Washington Post has an article, "Collapse of council candidate's campaign marks latest defeat for DC businesses," about the failure of the DC "business community" to get a more business-friendly representative on the ballot for At Large Councilmember in DC, with the obvious aim of getting her elected.

S. Kathryn Allen was put forth by ex-Mayor Anthony Williams, who is now the leader of the Federal City Council, DC's major business group, and ex-Councilmember David Catania.  But her ballot petitions were successfully challenged because of forged signatures and other irregularities, and the DC Board of Elections ruled she didn't have enough valid signatures to get on the ballot ("At-Large Council Candidate S. Kathryn Allen Is off the Ballot," Washington City Paper).

This kind of thing has happened for years and years since I've been more involved and a more keen observer of local politics and civic affairs.

I can think of past candidates like A. Scott Bolden (lawyer and fixer), David Bowers (affordable housing production), and Marie Johns (former PEPCO executive) all being put up as candidates in the past--the first two against the Council's then most progressive member, Philip Mendelson, who is now Council Chair. (Note that PEPCO lobbyists have been elected to office in DC, Sharon Pratt Dixon as mayor--she was formerly married to an ex-Councilmember, and Vincent Orange.)

They don't win and often their candidacies don't even make it through the full election cycle.

I have been heavily influenced by the Growth Machine thesis that local political and economic elites are united on a pro-growth agenda focused on real estate and real estate intensification.

-- "City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place," Harvey Molotch, American Journal of Sociology, 1975
-- Urban Fortunes: Towards a Political Economy of Place, 1987, new forward, 2007
-- "Minneapolis Growth Machine," 2015

The organization of DC's business community is somewhat convoluted.  First, the primary "business" is the federal government, and they have different interests not malleable by local actors.

Second, much of the business activity based in the city is federally-focused--contractors, trade associations, law firms--and they aren't much impacted by local political affairs.

Third, the biggest decidedly local industry is around real estate development, ownership, construction, and management, and for the most part--given the reality of how "the Growth Machine" is organized--they are served fine by the way the political system is working now, especially real estate, excepting the pesky problem of civic opposition to various projects getting in the way of construction. (Note though that many of the firms involved in this sector are regional, national, or international actors.)  They aren't going to rock the boat when pretty much all the Council goes along with their wants and needs.

The abstract from the "Growth Machine" paper:

A city and, more generally, any locality, is conceived as the areal expression of the interests of some land-based elite. Such an elite is seen to profit through the increasing intensification of the land use of the area in which its members hold a common interest. An elite competes with other land-based elites in an effort to have growth-inducing resources invested within its own area as opposed to that of another. Governmental authority, at the local and nonlocal levels, is utilized to assist in achieving this growth at the expense of competing localities. Conditions of community life are largely a consequence of the social, economic, and political forces embodied in this growth machine.

Fourth, what we would think of then as the local business community most affected by local politics is small businesses, and they are the ones most likely to be impacted by new laws concerning high minimum wage, family leave requirements, etc.

This community is pretty diffuse, not likely to be members of the DC Chamber of Commerce, and also has mixed politics and even though it can have deleterious effects on costs, some business owners for reasons of values and politics, aren't likely to be against "living wages" and other pro-people political positions.

What is a compelling pro-business/pro-citizen agenda?  As a former commercial district revitalization manager, I'd say it's almost impossible to organize a group of business and property owners operating at the scale of a small commercial district to come together in a coordinated way, working on a broader agenda for the business district that transcends the interests of any one business.

I can't imagine that this works better at the scale of the entire city.

And thinking of the failure of S. Kathryn Allen to get on the ballot and the movie "The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight," I can't help but think of my old joke that "DC and college towns are the worst places to find books about business for sale in used bookstores."

The kind of people who are attracted to DC aren't necessarily the kinds of people interested in or good at business, or in thinking about business in the terms that we associate with small business advocates like the National Federation of Independent Businesses--low taxes, no taxes, no regulation, low regulation, low taxes, no taxes, etc.

If "the business community" wants to have successful candidates, they need to be able to express an agenda that is pro-business in a manner that also is pro-citizen.

There are successful Republican elected officials in cities.  There are or have been successful Republican mayors in communities like Oklahoma City, Dayton, and Indianapolis.

I have been remiss in not writing about Jim Brainard, the Mayor of Carmel, Indiana, a growing suburban community in Greater Indianapolis.

He's a Republican, but he is committed to what is called "New Urbanism," which promotes sustainable mobility rather than automobility, he believes that government needs to address the threat of climate change, etc.

-- "Mayor Jim Brainard on Carmel, Indiana's Arts and Culture District," Americans for the Arts
-- "This Republican mayor is bucking his party to stand up for climate action," ThinkProgress

From the Indianapolis Business Journal article "Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard to seek 7th term":

Since Brainard has been in office, Carmel has grown and changed tremendously. The population has increased from about 25,000 residents to about 91,000, and Brainard has overseen the redevelopment of what have become some of the suburb’s most prominent areas, including the Arts & Design District and City Center.

But Brainard is arguably most well-known for his efforts to replace traditional intersections with roundabouts throughout the city. Carmel has more than 100 roundabouts now—more than any other city in the U.S. Brainard argues that roundabouts are better for the environment and for safety.

At times, Brainard has been criticized for his spending on projects including the Palladium at the Center for the Performing Arts, the redevelopment of Keystone Parkway and the proposed carousel that he wanted to bring to the city.

But Brainard has repeatedly defended the spending by saying it’s necessary to continue improving the quality of life in the northern suburb, and he says, high quality of life helps attract corporate headquarters.

The former Mayor of St. Petersburg, Florida, Rick Baker, wrote a book describing a pro-city Republican local government agenda, The Seamless City: A Conservative Mayor's Approach to Urban Revitalization that Can Work Anywhere.

It sounds anathema to say now, but I would have voted for Mitt Romney as Governor of Massachusetts. He had a great "smart growth" agenda. He expanded health insurance access to low income residents of the state. He wasn't against transit. He wasn't against the environment.

What's the compelling message for such an alternative in DC?  In DC, for a time there was a push to revive the local Republican Party, and they put a bunch of people up for election.  But they primarily pushed for "low taxes" and various positions that progressives wouldn't be that interested in.

(Ironically, they started the push with a purge of the only Republican on Council, a very progressive Carol Schwartz, because she wasn't conservative enough.  But the person who replaced her got trounced in the general election.  By being pure, they ended up losing the only access they had.)

They didn't make a compelling case for election, other than that there needs to be "more competition" or a counter party because of the overwhelming dominance of Democrats as the city's elected officials.

While I agree that the dominance by one party means a lack of vetting and that people get elected without much of a platform ("New Year's Post #1: Defining mediocrity up and the 2014 elections in DC"), the local Republicans failed to make a solid case for why they would be a good addition to the mix.