The modern republican party is an authoritarian party of white nationalists and plutocrats. Pretty much everything they do is designed to service that agenda.
The sooner we accept that fact the sooner we can start dealing with it.
Um, this is a politician standing up to a Corporate Overlord. Theoretically, this is a good thing. Practically, it could be wildly entertaining, but we’ll never get to see the backroom kerfuffle.
Note that I wrote that the Republicans have been saying they’re the Free Speech party. I didn’t write that they are the Free Speech party.
A politician standing up to a special interest would normally be a good thing. But in this case, it appears the motive was that he got a higher bid from another special interest.
I made the comment in other threads that this probably kiboshed any chance Atlanta may have had on Amazon HQ2.
I know. They also say they are the party of personal responsibility, fiscal discipline, national security and good ideas.
Yep, I agree that this hurts Georgia’s reputation as a state that’s good for business-- and it also hurts the republican party’s reputation as a business party. If there’s one thing business people absolutely do not want, it’s using state power to reward and punish businesses for making what are purely business decisions. Delta’s decision to put distance between itself and NRA was simply to make it clear that it was neutral; it’s not like that took a position on guns. They still presumably allow the transport of firearms in their cargo hold.
And this is now something that businesses have to think about in other red states too. How moored to reality is the republican party in other supposedly pro-business states, like Texas, like Florida, like Alabama, or like Tennessee? What if they get on the wrong side of conservatives?
Having said all of that, it’s not technically a violation of freedom of speech. Delta’s not guaranteed a tax break under the constitution, and the GOP can decide to reward or punish corporations that don’t support their agenda. It might be stupid and it might backfire in the long run (Atlanta would be pretty badly injured economically if Delta decided to pull up its stakes and move to Greater New York) but they can do that if they choose.
As I intimated elsewhere it’d be cheaper for Delta to put money toward getting rid of Cagle (and any fellow travellers in the state legislature) than to move its hub. Not that I’m a fan of special interests of any sort engaging in that sort of political meddling but I have been repeatedly assured that it is all perfectly fine and legal.
So… what are they going to do about Dick’s Sporting Goods?
Copy of their media statement below:
Agreed - actually, Kansas City is possibly rebuilding our airport, so maybe we could get it. I was just pointing out that a hub can’t just be picked up and moved. Even beyond people, there needs to be physical capacity (landing slots, gates, hangars, etc), plus changing all the routes.
So, it could be done, but it will take quite a while. Although just announcing the intent to move would cause some fun.
It would be difficult, but they definitely should start taking some visible first steps in that direction, accompanied by a public statement… oh, how exactly should they word it… (thinks) (snaps fingers) Ah, yes; here’s just the line they should use:
They don’t have to do that, just entertaining a delegation from Minnesota would do it.
Remember, the point of a hub is to be centrally located. if the NewDelta hub moves to NY, or Kansas, that’s really not centrally located for their routes anymore.
I think they should move to Atlantis.
All Hail Atlantis!
I disagree. Taxes and tax breaks are set by law. The First Amendment says the government cannot enact a law which abridges free speech. So the government enacting or repealing a tax break on the basis of what somebody says is a violation of the First Amendment.
(my emphasis)
You one of them coastal elites? The Kansas City with the “international” airport is in Missouri.
And if you move the hub, then by definition it is centrally located.
He’s an idiot, but I don’t see how this is opposing freedom of speech per se. This looks more like a shakedown or posturing. I’m sure that a hefty donation to his campaign fund will cause him to triangulate.
Conservatives have created the doctrine that money is a form of speech. So telling somebody they have to donate money to a cause is compelling them to speak in a certain manner. If the government is telling you what you have to say, it’s clearly abridging your freedom of speech.
Now I’ll admit I’ve said that equating money with speech is wrong. And I stand by that. If it was up to me, this would be a case of extortion not a freedom of speech violation. But I don’t write the rules. Conservatives wrote them and I’m just pointing out that those rules are being broken.
Exactly.
I wanna point out the obvious… as soon as corporations do this, they will become The Devil, and a Threat To All Life On Earth (trademark). Why? because it’s a Repub on the receiving end (for a change).
Just watch.
They’re not technically punishing free speech; they’re punishing a decision by a corporation to dissolve a business partnership. They’re not punishing something that was said by a corporate spokesperson or a protest attended by employees off the clock. It’s dirty politics, and you could also argue that it’s against the spirit of free enterprise and freedom from government’s big hand, but it’s probably not an attack on the first amendment.