Similarly, Florida’s leadership hasn’t actually done anything yet. They just passed a law saying they are going to do something over a year from now, conveniently after the 2022 election. This isn’t really about hurting Disney, it’s about stirring up their base by saying they’re going to stand up to those woke libtards.
Interesting point, but does it matter that everything the FL politicians are saying is “Disney.” They aren’t exactly being sly in showing that their actions are directed at the Walt Disney Company. They even reference California Company as part of their reasoning.
Freedom of speech isn’t a legal right, it is a principle in practice which can exist even in the absence of a legal right, such as in a private setting. On the other hand a legal right can exist at law, even when there is no legal recourse in practice; for example Article 49 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution gave its citizens the right to criticize the work of state bodies and public organizations, and Article 50 says “citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech” in so many words, yet with no practical means of enforcing these civil rights against the government, these provisions were only given partial practical effect in the late '80s with Gorbachev’s glasnost.
In the first instance I took on a hypothetical where I spoke up at a municipal meeting, and using some fig leaf as cover, the city council rezoned my business in retaliation. With a sufficient fig leaf I would not have any legal recourse despite my right to speak freely before the city council without fear of retaliation. This is not a semantic contradiction - a legal right “exists” at law despite its violation in practice.
In the second instance I refined the hypothetical so that after the meeting, the city council eminent domained my house. With a sufficient fig leaf as cover (I have in mind a retention pond), I would be left with no legal recourse.
The government may in fact do things it has no right to do. And I believe you are mistaken about my very obvious legal recourse, which would depend on me finding and paying for a competent lawyer and meeting my burden of proof to peel off the city’s fig leaf.
We can look back at Disney, which obviously has no problem finding and paying for competent lawyers. But whereas a person whose house is taken from them suffers an obvious harm, Disney has a number of hurdles to pass. From most difficult to least, Disney must:
- prove that their corporation is harmed when the quasi-governmental district they operate in is restructured
- disprove the Florida legislature’s fig leaf reasons to restructure said district / prove that the Florida legislature caused this harm as retaliation for a specific set of actions
- prove they have the right to take those actions without fear of retaliation
I anticipate an objection to the second point. In the eyes of the law, it is not a given that a fig leaf provides cover for prohibited intent. This is something that must be proved. The Florida legislature, being a representative body and coequal branch (if in state court) or sovereign (if in federal court) is entitled to the presumption of good faith. It is not enough to demonstrate a politically convenient coincidence.
If you need another context to apply this rule to, pretend you are manager of a restaurant and receive complaints about a drunk man verbally insulting your staff and patrons. As you enter the dining room you see this is a person of color. It is generally your duty to remove unruly patrons, but you are prohibited from removing a patron due to the color of their skin. Would you say you aren’t allowed to remove this man, as a matter of law?
Or for a more difficult context, imagine you are the district attorney. You had been building a case on a local mobster and thinking whether or not it’s worth bringing to trial. Then he went and publicly criticized your friend the mayor, who you often work closely with. It is generally your duty to bring a case to trial if you think you can secure a conviction, but you are prohibited from doing political hit jobs. Would you say you aren’t allowed to pursue the case any more, as a matter of law?
Which brings us to the topic at hand. Imagine you are a Republican representative in the Florida statehouse. For months you have been toying with the idea of dismantling the Reedy Creek special district, because you think it’s bad policy for the state. Then Disney comes out and suspends political donations until the legislature - the one you work in - repeals the Parental Rights in Education/Don’t Say Gay law, which you voted for. It is generally within the legislature’s discretion to build and dismantle special tax districts according to the interests of the state, but it is technically prohibited to do so in retaliation for a lack of campaign donations. Does this mean you are prohibited from dismantling the Reedy Creek special district, as a matter of law?
~Max
My mistake on the bribery, I had mixed up another discussion.
~Max
Most often attributed to Robin Williams, but the exact origin seems to be unknown.
Disney has already suspended political donations in Florida, as of March 11.
“Thank you to all who have reached out to me sharing your pain, frustration and sadness over the company’s response to the Florida “Don’t Say Gay” bill. […] We are hard at work creating a new framework for our political giving that will ensure our advocacy better reflects our values. And today, we are pausing all political donations in the state of Florida pending this review.”
~CEO Bob Chapek, March 11 2021
I checked and Disney did in fact withdraw the $4,126 it had donated to Joe Harding (who sponsored the bill in the statehouse). Or maybe the representative returned the money (possibly on request?), I’m not sure how that works. Anyways, these are the entries from the Florida Department of State’s website,
Rpt Yr Rpt Type Date Amount Contributor Name Address City State Zip Occupation Typ InKind Desc 2021 M1 01/30/2021 1,000.00 DISNEY DESTINATIONS LLC 220 CELEBRATION PLACE STE 4000 CELEBRATION, FL 34747 VACATION DISNEY WORL CHE 2021 M7 07/14/2021 126.00 WALT DISNEY WORLD RESORT 200 EPCOT CENTER DRIVE LAKE BUENA VISTA, FL 32830 TOURISM INK FOOD & DRINK 2021 M7 07/27/2021 1,000.00 DISNEY GIFT CARD SERVICES, INC SUNTRUST STE 505 LAKE BUENA VISTA, FL 32830 GIFT CARD COMPANY CHE 2021 M7 07/27/2021 1,000.00 DISNEY PHOTO IMAGING SUNTRUST STE 505 LAKE BUENA VISTA, FL 32830 PHOTO SALES CHE 2022 M3 03/26/2022 -1,000.00 DISNEY DESTINATIONS LLC 220 CELEBRATION PLACE, SUITE 34747 CELEBRATION, FL 34747 TOURISM REF 2022 M3 03/26/2022 -1,000.00 DISNEY GIFT CARD SERVICES SUNTRUST SUITE 505 LAKE BUENA VISTA, FL 32830 TOURISM REF 2022 M3 03/26/2022 -1,000.00 DISNEY PHOTO IMAGING SUNTRUST SUITE 505 LAKE BUENA VISTA, FL 32830 PHOTO IMAGING COMPAN REF 2022 M3 03/31/2022 -126.00 WALT DISNEY WORLD RESORT 200 EPCOT CENTER DRIVE LAKE BUENA VISTA, FL 32830 TOURISM REF
This particular man is running unopposed, and I noticed he has waaaay more contributions this year than for the 2022 cycle. Like 8x as many lines in the report and we are only in April. I guess it’s true what they say, there’s no such thing as bad PR…
~Max
They provided a fig leaf? Did I miss the fig leaf?
I got the “If Disney wants to pick a fight, they chose the wrong guy,” message from the Governor loud and clear, what fig leaf is covering up that bit of dick waving?
Help fight my ignorance.
I understand what the categories for media, parks, and content are talking about. But what is revenue from linear networks and direct-to-consumer?
It’s in the 10k I cited above:
[Obsessive nitpicker mode]The article does claim that $4,126 was donated and withdrawn. But your numbers only add up to $3,126.[/obsessive nitpicker mode]
So. Disney donated money to a politician through “Disney Card Services, Inc.” and “Disney Photo Imaging,” sharing an office space. But of course and obviously, Disney was in no way involved in politics before last week. No way!
My original draft said $3,126, and I assumed the missing $1k was for an in-kind contribution. Apparently the in-kind was $126 of food and drink which was refunded (?). But after posting, for some reason I thought I saw all $4,126 refunded and edited that out. I may have missed a line copying the numbers over, or maybe he kept $1,000, but it’s ultimately not that important.
~Max
As reported by Politico,
Republicans argue Reedy Creek grants Disney too much power compared to other theme parks in Florida, including the authority to construct its own nuclear plant, and want to dissolve the district by 2023.
And from the governor’s office, emphesis mine,
It is not the understanding or expectation for SB 4-C, abolishing independent special districts, to cause any tax increases for the residents of any area of Florida. In the near future, we will propose additional legislation to authorize additional special districts in a manner that ensures transparency and an even playing field under the law.
Also, something that hasn’t been mentioned here is this (same press release)
SB 6-C amends the definition of the term “social media platform” to remove the theme park exclusion from the definition. This legislation will ensure that litigation against inconsistent censorship practices of social media platforms and the de-platforming of politicians can be pursued and won in a court of law. This bill amends SB 7072, passed during the 2021 Regular Session, to address concerns related to social media platforms, including provisions the social media platforms must comply, prohibits the de-platforming of candidates for political office and prohibits social media platforms convicted of or held civilly liable for antitrust violations from contracting with public entities.
~Max
Fig leaves actually have to cover the shame in order to work. Everybody can see that Rs went from 0 to 100 on this issue in about one week’s time. They went from reaching out to protect Disney from Desantis’ stupid censorship law, to being shocked that they have a special district that’s been in place since the early 60’s.
And there is also the fact that the specific wording of the bill, the targeting of districts formed before 1968, seems to show specific aim at Disney.
Of the 1800+ special districts in FL, only 5 other than Disney will be affected by the bill. This does not seem like the actions of a legislature that thinks special tax districts are bad and wants to eliminate them. This was aimed at Disney.
I think if they were specifically nullifying contracts, special government grants, et al. given directly to Disney as retaliation for engaging in protected behavior, Disney would have a slam dunk case if they litigated.
The degree of separation (while we all know it is somewhat fictional) between Reedy Creek and Disney + the typical judicial deference to States being fully allowed to regulate political entities (like a special improvement district) for purely political reasons, mean Disney probably has an uphill battle.
That is assuming Disney even intends to challenge this in court, there is actually not necessarily a financial negative to Disney in just doing nothing. Fiscally it is probably a net gain for the District to be gone and the county to take over its operations. The big reason Disney loved that district is the zoning issues, local zoning can be onerous and cumbersome (I work with it all the time as I’m a real estate developer), but even there I think Disney World most needed that special setup during its time of peak construction, back when they were taking it from being essentially “random swampland” to a 25,000 acre, 80,000 employee mega-park. While they still do extensions and revamps of the property that might have zoning implications as an ongoing matter, it is nothing like it would have been in the past, additionally other theme parks in Florida have been able to get just about whatever they wanted built pretty easily. For a company with Disney’s experience and legal expertise in dealing with local governments it isn’t likely they’ll have too much trouble getting whatever permitting they need to do ongoing renovations.
Anyway, I think the constitutionality is pretty disputed, if Disney wants to litigate this they can definitely do so and make it a pretty drawn out thing. David French (not a legal scholar, but a pundit), thinks it is a violation of O’Hare Truck Service v. City of Northlake. Eugene Volokh thinks the legislation is problematic, but probably constitutional due to the degree of separation involved in targeting Reedy Creek and the deference the court usually gives to a State playing politics with other State political entities. Professor Michael Dorf thinks it is unconstitutional.
Professor Dorf concedes to Volokh’s point that in general, the courts are going to absolutely allow politicians controlling a State legislature, to use the political system to pass laws for political purposes aimed at other political entities in their State in retaliation for acting politically. The courts sort of view this as, well, “politics” and think the courts don’t need to play in that field more than strictly necessary.
Where Dorf diverges, and here he quotes an unnamed appellate lawyer, is that he believes the specifics of this situation are different because Disney is being retaliated against for protected speech unrelated to the political parameters of their operation of Reedy Creek,
Where the speech relates to the official duties, the answer will generally be yes. And with respect to political appointees, the job is inherently political, so patronage of some sort is inevitable . But where the speech of an individual, local government, or corporation with some special governmental authority is on a matter wholly unrelated to the exercise of the governmental authority that individual, locality, or corporation possesses, the interest in retaliating in response is no different from the (nonexistent) interest in retaliating against ordinary citizens for speaking out on matters of public concern.
Between Eugene Volokh, Professor Dorf (two relatively well-known law professors), the unnamed appellate attorney and David French (now a pundit, but a retired attorney who litigated a number of constitutional law cases in his career), you have a good number of legal experts who all agree it’s a complex/tricky issue.
But isn’t it all just theater? Don’t the districts being dissolved have to agree by vote, which they never will, meaning this is all just performative and nothing will ever come of it?
No. There is a provision like that in the statutes before this law was passed, Fla. Stat. 189.072(2). This law however, reads
Notwithstanding s. 189.072(2), any independent special district established by a special act prior to the date of ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, and which was not reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5, 1968, is dissolved effective June 1, 2023.
~Max
Disney says the state cannot dissolve the district without paying off the debt and interest first, per the 1967 contract that created the district. Disney plans to continue business as usual, ignoring DeSantis’s law.
Imagine the QOP doing something without researching how it would actually work. When has such a thing ever happened before?
For a bit of humor.