DeSantis's war on Disney

I won’t and it’s illegal for you to give me an F for that.

You have it backwards. Disney’s prior political contributions, one source said $55 million over 30 years, those are what I’m saying was extortion.

DeSantis’s war on Disney isn’t extortion, it’s political show. Disney has its own districts so that it can do its own roads, police, firefighting, utilities, etc. Walt Disney pushed hard for it so he could build EPCOT without answering to municipal and county authorities. Fold the district into say Orange County and suddenly the citizens of Orlando have to pay for all of that.

Democratic state house Rep. Anna Eskamani (represents part of Orlando), said,

“There really has not been an evidence-based analysis on the economic impact of Reedy Creek today. And what would happen if it was eliminated. I think there needs to be legitimate research done, versus just punitive performative politics because there are questions that have not been answered of what the economic impact would be with changing something that has been in statute since the 60s.”

(Interesting fact: they even got permission to build a nuclear power plant because Mr. Disney thought the city of tomorrow might need one.)


An article I found today, talking about how the GOP is losing touch with the American mainstream.

I mean, really, the Daily Caller is going to compete with Disney and the Muppets? What are they going to do? Make a TV series about an AR-15-toting Easter Bunny?

Oh, and Ted Cruz put an image in my head that I didn’t want, suggesting that Disney will soon have Mickey and Pluto going at it. Which is not only gay sex, but beastiality.

What is it with Republicans sexualizing everything?

All I know is, Disney is not who I would want to have as an enemy.

Bestiality? Wait until he hears about Brother Bear 2.

Oh, and of course Beauty and the Beast. :man_facepalming:


What really galls the bigots is that Disney represents your basic middle-class sensibility. And it’s left them behind.

They do not.

What is the Second Amendment, Alex?

Florida politicians threatening to withdraw special relationships to gain favors isn’t unprecedented. Connie Mack used to be a Florida Senator. He was also a descendant of a former baseball team owner. His ability to threaten baseball’s “antitrust exemption” (it was ruled a game - not a business - back in the early 20th century to justify its monopoly over professional baseball) resulted in baseball’s expansion by 2 teams in the early 90s, including his home state’s Florida Marlins.

In this case, I’m thinking some significant political contributions will eventually smooth things over.

You make it sound so benign. The Republicans plan to eliminate two districts that reliably elect black people.

Well that is really the problem isn’t it. Probably the fundamental misunderstanding that conservatives have regarding homosexuality , that led to the don’t say gay bill, is that they entirely equate homosexual attraction with homosexual sex.

They don’t make this mistake with regard to heterosexuality. When Belle falls for the beast, or robin hood frolics with maid Marion, its all perfectly age appropriate because its about love not about sex. However if you see a happy family with two dads holding hands, well you can’t really explain why they would do that without talking about sex in a way that would be inappropriate for 2nd graders.

I’m not seeing the outrage. The reason why Disney was given a separate political subdivision was because a rich guy wanted to build a happy fun park in the middle of a swamp and bring all kinds of economic development to the state. Along with that, they were building a gigantic infrastructure that was unique in that it wasn’t like a typical city but built only for the theme park.

Now that this corporation has stopped only being a happy fun theme park but has used its quasi-government status to inject itself heavily into the political process, then the idea becomes that a private corporation should not be given a unique government platform from which to push its agenda. In a sense, it is government speech which is at odds with what the State of Florida is trying to do, and I don’t understand why Florida must continue a branch of government that is at odds with itself, especially when that branch of government is a purely private corporation not answerable to voters.

Disestablishing this government that Disney has control of would not stifle its ability to speak at all. It has a special perk that is not available to other corporations who also speak on issues. Should the NRA have its own political subdivision? If a corporation is “punished” by not allowing it to self govern, then every corporation is being punished.

Well, you see, as the Supreme Court has told us, corporations are people with free speech rights. Therefore, by attempting to punish Disney for exercising its God-given Constitutional rights in a way that it disapproves of, Florida is violating the First Amendment, which I’m told is in some circles considered to be almost as important as the Second.

“Unique”? AFAICT there are over fifty thousand special district governments within the US, and nearly two thousand in Florida alone. You act as though Disney’s situation is some kind of unheard-of privileged status.

And the notion that it’s the existence of the special district that gives Disney a “platform from which to push its agenda” is completely risible. Disney has plenty of platform of its own making from which to air its views, thanks. Its municipal control of the Reedy Creek Special District is not significantly amplifying its voice in public affairs.

The Reedy Creek Improvement District is a (weird) municipality, i.e. a state government agency, and the state can abolish it at any time through whatever legislative process is provided by the state’s constitution and laws. Municipalities have no constitutional rights separate from those of their own states; in fact, they do not have standing to sue their own states in federal court for any reason whatsoever.

I think Disney would have an uphill climb in establishing before the current federal courts that there’s any justiciable issue at all here. I don’t think there’s ever been a finding that a state’s ability to abolish a government agency is limited by the constitutional rights of the entities that elect the agency’s authorities. (Maybe it came up during desegregation? Like, I could see a state abolishing a majority-black city for blatantly racial reasons, and I could see that era’s courts looking very unfavorably on such an action.)

Do any religious organizations have their own special districts? I think the current Supreme Court would be much more interested if a state retaliated against a church-owned special district for its religious views.

That’s an interesting idea. So if the mayor of Colorado Springs, for example, decided to trash Governor Polis, could he just get the legislature together and say “the Springs is no more” with no recourse?

There are plenty of things that are legal for governments to do until it’s clearly retaliation for an action. Protected actions, like freedom of speech and association, make that doubly dangerous.

Yes, so long as the relevant laws of Colorado say so. Many states have entrenched protections for local government specifically to prevent such an action, but absent such a provision, the state can give and take away completely arbitrarily.

That’s because there isn’t any outrage. Outrage is a GOP speciality - they’ve got a new one every Wednesday. What you are seeing is complaints about DeSantis politically retaliating against a corporation that won’t support his bigotry and homophobia.

How have they injected themselves “heavily” in the political process, really? Expressing what could best be described as milquetoast opposition to a single government bill?

It’s also ridiculous to claim that Disney has never been political before. It literally fought to rewrite copyright worldwide, for example.

No, clearly the issue is that DeSantis et al disagree with their political position this time. And so the government is attempting to punish them for having a position they don’t like.