It seems the governor of Georgia plans to veto the discrimination bill in Georgia. That’s great news, but I think it’s funny to see so many liberals thanking corporations for threatening to pull their business out of the state if it was enacted. Talk about corporate money influencing politics! And this comes right after Apple, another evil corporation, stuck up for their privacy rights.
Freedom of association has been nearly beaten to death since the 1930s.
It’s barely alive.
Weak. Corporations reflect the culture of their customers for obvious reasons, and were simply the conduit through which the Georgia state government responded to the will of the people.
Yeah, it’s almost as if liberals are OK with corporations deciding where to do business based on their values, but not OK with them donating tons of money to the campaign of their choice. I get that you think this is hypocritical, but it’s apples and oranges.
People who value their privacy applaud Apple for standing up to the to the federal government to protect their users’ privacy. AFAIK, Apple is simply fighting the judicial order, not threatening to start shoveling money into SuperPACs. Same goes for the corporations who are threatening to take their business elsewhere protest discriminatory laws. They’re deciding where they want to do business, based on their values. I’m pretty sure that liberals would still be annoyed if they were protesting the Georgia and NC laws by threatening to fund pro-Democrat SuperPACs.
Granted, I’d be annoyed if corporations were doing the same thing to prevent the passing of a progressive law, but I’d begrudgingly accept that it’s within the bounds of the law. Kind of like how Chick-Fil-A can legally donate as much money as it wants to hateful anti-gay groups. And I can take that into account when I decide whether to give them business.
Most likely the will of people that don’t live in Georgia.
The OP is still bullshit though. Liberals don’t hate corporations because they’re corporations. They hate them when the actions they take are in opposition to their principles. No hypocrisy here.
It’s hypocrisy when you decry corporate involvement in public policy. If you just disagree with specific corporate actions by specific corporations, that’s one thing. If you’re against corporate involvement in the political process as a general principle, then that applies when they agree with you.
But I’m glad we’ve established that it’s okay for corporations to threaten to leave a state if they don’t like a tax increase or labor law change or regulatory change. And that no laws should be passed limiting corporate involvement in poiltics in this manner.
I disagree. There’s a distinction between a company choosing not to do business in a state because of that state’s laws and/or taxes, and a company making massive donations to a political candidate deemed more favorable to their interests. Someone can condone the former without condoning the latter. Most of the complaining about corporate involvement in public policy that I’ve heard lately is based around campaign finance. Completely different scenario than the ones referenced by the OP.
If McDonald’s wants to move out of MA because they don’t like the minimum wage, fine. If McDonald’s wants to bankroll their favorite candidate for the next election, then I have a problem with it.
The attempted hypocrisy jab in this thread is stupid beyond words, so I’ll ignore it, and just point to something similar going on here in NC. Our government recently enacted a terrible law House Bill 2 (note that’s an editorial; dig up your own objective cite if you need one). The calls for boycotts have already started–and now the largest economic event in NC every year, the High Point Furniture Market, is reporting dozens of customers are planning a boycott. Dozens ain’t much, given the 75K attendees annually–but it’s early days yet, and they’re really worried.
The Republican party has traditionally had an alliance between “Don’t make rich people pay taxes” and “Private Parts are Icky”. That alliance is falling apart.
No, that is not hypocrisy.
Again, people aren’t decrying corporate involvement. They’re decrying specific issues.
That’s like saying that because a person is against drive-by shootings they must be in favor of complete bans on personal ownership of firearms. No, they’re against misuse of the thing, not the thing itself.
It’s good when corporations do good things, and bad when corporations do bad things.
I’m glad the stupid pro bigotry and hate bill got vetoed, I’m not at all crazy about the way it was done. Thing is, almost always when a corporation uses its economic clout, it’s in an amoral and often evil attempt to maximize profits and to hell with human beings. Instances like the Georgia Religious Bigotry Bill are the exception to the rule.
I suspect that the corporations acted as they did for solid business reasons. They could see the writing on the wall and didn’t want boycotts directed at them for propping up a seemingly bigoted state. So they headed the problem off pre-emptively. Smart move.
Not evil. Arguably amoral.
Also Apple may have been really really acting in their best business interest: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/first-national-bank-cupertino-coming-soon-iphone-near-you
Pretty funny OP. Its ire is not directed against a discriminatory law. It’s not even directed against corporations who opposed a discriminatory law. It’s apparently directed at those libruls who like some things that corporations do, but not others. I know: it’s a challenging distinction for some.
The calculus goes like this: if it’s good PR, and it costs nothing or very little, it’s good for the bottom line.
Nope - because you’re making the standard mistake.
The issue isn’t donations to candidates, it is (in Citizens United) corporations spending their own money on their own speech, or donating it to other groups to spend on speech.
Gosh, does that mean Apple has legal RIGHTS? I was told corporations have no rights because they aren’t people.
The fact that pro-Democrat Super PACs exist in the first place kinda weakens that argument.
My beef is with those who want to make it not within the bounds of the law.
I hope you’re being sarcastic. If you aren’t, well, the problem is that some people insist that ALL corporate participation in public policy, and ALL use of corporate money to do that, is wrong.
Many people have gone around saying that ALL corporate involvement in politics and ALL use of corporate money in politics is wrong. There was no asterisk to a footnote that said “unless they’re on my side.”
It’s sheer, naked hypocrisy.
It’s spot on, and I think that’s the real reason you’re ignoring it.
Many liberals oppose corporate participation in politics, especially when they use corporate money. They say that corporations have no free speech rights.
THAT is the hypocrisy.
(And that’s on top of the hypocrisy over Apple and phone-cracking too).
Really? I have to cite that? Fine.
This is from the leading group that wants to amend the Constitution (the first time the Bill of Rights would be limited in scope in history) to overturn Citizens United:
It’s all over the place out there, but that’s the gist of it. Heck, it’s been discussed in detail on this board, with many posters saying the same thing.