Figueroa remains convinced her ban will become law: "Some pieces of legislation, it just takes time for people to understand and comprehend. That's the way it should be."

Critics say the arguments are misguided, because the free flow of trade ends up creating more American jobs. Supporters are just aiming to score political points, they say.

"Some of the Democrats nationally have gotten together to play this in each state so it becomes a presidential issue," said Connecticut's budget director, Marc Ryan. "The punitive approach is foolish. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face."

A Detroit business group argued more obstacles will only drive companies away from doing state work and force up prices ; a Republican state legislator from Colorado helped kill a proposal in committee.

"I just really believe that trade barriers are economically counterproductive," said Colorado state Senate President John Andrews. "In the short run, you are burdening the taxpayers of the state with higher costs."

Anti-outsourcing legislation could violate the Constitution and international trade agreements, according to the National Foundation for American Policy, a nonpartisan group that works on trade.

The approach so far, at least by the governors, echoes the in-state preferences of the "Buy America" efforts that gained support in the 1970s amid worries of Japanese economic dominance, said John Thomasian, director of the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.

"That's a reasonable middle ground," Thomasian said. "Most governors are really loathe to interfere with free trade, even while they anguish over job losses."

The dilemma isn't easily resolved. Kansas lawmakers were outraged when they learned that Kansans' calls about food stamps would be handled in India, and wrote a ban into this year's budget.

Then they learned the state would pay $640,000 more, or a 38 percent increase, for the calling center contract. Budget negotiators scrapped the provision.