Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

American business needs a strong democracy, not political retribution

Left: Ron DeSantis, right: Mickey Mouse

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Disney are locked in a multi-year political battle.

DeSantis: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images; Mickey Mouse: Paul Bersebach/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images

Ballous-Aares is CEO and founder of Leadership Now Project,a membership organization of business leaders committed to protecting American democracy.Pleasants is an internet executive who has led multiple global enterprises. Brack is a managing partner at Hypothesis, a venture capital firm, and a former Time Warner executive. Pleasants and Brack are founding members of the Leadership Now Project.

The United States continues to have one of the freest and most dynamic economies in the world. U.S. businesses generate jobs, improve living standards and are amongst the most trusted institutions in American life. They thrive in no small part from operating in our enviable democratic republic and free market economy. But in recent years political leaders have displayed growing and worrisome authoritarian tendencies that undermine these cherished advantages and threaten the American economy. Case in point: political retribution toward businesses in response to acts of free speech and the abrogation of their first amendment rights.

There is a huge difference between elected public officials demanding alterations to business practices by enacting laws affecting entire sectors — the proper scope of governance — and using the law or bully pulpits to wage targeted campaigns against individual business leaders that do not share the leaders’ policy views. Indeed, a hallmark of totalitarianism is the total politicization of society, where the awarding of contracts and the ability to freely operate a business are entirely bound up with whether business leaders express fealty to the ideological beliefs of powerful officials.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

We have seen a growing number of examples of this over the past decade and at every level of government, from municipal agencies to the White House. Most prominent is the ongoing fight between Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Disney, in which the company’s decision to express an opinion that differed from the governor and local political leaders led to a protracted and cascading series of legal battles and attempts to punish and disrupt the company’s Florida operations.

This type of targeted political retribution should not be condoned by any party or elected official. And yet leaders from both sides of the political spectrum have entered retributive waters, although with notable partisan asymmetry. In 2019, President DonaldTrump sought reexamination of the government’s cloud-computing contract with Amazon in retaliation for coverage he did not like from what he called “the Amazon Washington Post,” ultimately leading to the company losing the $10 billion arrangement. He sought to block AT&T’s purchase of Time Warner in retaliation for CNN’s coverage; courts ultimately allowed the merger. And recently, in his role as a leader of the GOP and its frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, he promised in victory to have Comcast and NBC “investigated” for their coverage, made it apersonal vendetta to go after companies that do not align with his political agenda and pledged to undertake an overall campaign of “retribution.”

At the state level, after Delta Airlines in 2018 announced it would withdraw discounts for National Rifle Association members in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting — a move that ultimately affected 13 accounts — Georgia Republican lawmakers retaliated by revoking a $50 million tax exemption for the airline. On the other side of the aisle, Chick-fil-A’s history of donating to religious groups opposed to same-sex marriage led local Democratic officials to oppose the company’s expansion in several cities in 2021 and to unsuccessfully seek to cancel an existing contract with the company to open on New York thruways. And in 2023, California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, threatened to end state business with Walgreens after it announced it would not seek to distribute mifepristone, an abortion drug, in the 21 states where abortion had been banned; ultimately the company was too enmeshed in California health delivery protocols for him to do so.

We as individuals certainly have our own opinions on which policies are worth company involvement and which side we would support. But that isn't the point. The point is that companies should be free to make whatever decisions they want about expressing an opinion on policy issues, within the bounds of law and regulation, and then answer to the market for the consequences. They shouldn’t have to fear engagement will lead to government retribution from politicians looking to score points with their bases.

It is worth repeating that this behavior by government actors towards businesses is not normal. This is a rising and increasingly disturbing phenomenon in America, one that conflicts with our values as a free society and harms our economic vitality. Regrettably, such retaliation has caused some business leaders to pull back from broader stakeholder and civic positions and to self-censor in hopes of avoiding political skirmishes and potential avengement.

We propose that the appropriate response to such targeted political retaliation is for business leaders and participants to defend democracy actively and stand united for all of the constitutional rights and protections that fuel our economic prosperity.

Asking which candidates support foundational democratic rights should not be a partisan question – it’s a pro-America, pro-business responsibility. It’s an important time for business leaders to stand strong as guardrails of democracy, and to take action to preserve the core system that lets so many flourish.

Read More

Young adults shopping for clothes

Members of Gen Z consume at an unsustainable rate: clothes, makeup, technology and every other imaginable product.

RyanJLane/Getty Images

Mass consumerism and the hypocrisy of Gen Z

Pruthi is a professor of entrepreneurship at San Jose State University, where she is a co-founder and director ofHonorsX, and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project. Kharbanda is a senior at Presentation High School in San Jose, Calif.

California lawmakers recently approved two bills banning grocery and convenience stores statewide from offering customers reusable plastic bags. These bills are the next step in combating plastic waste, but what about the waste from mass consumerism that has come to pervade our lives?

Through the past decades, we have been trained to shop, purchase and consume products to solve our problems. While mending old clothing or refurbishing used goods have become things of the past, new products that are ubiquitously promoted are cramming our stores, screens, mailboxes and nearly every aspect of our lives.

Growing up in the digital age, Gen Z is the prime target for this consumerist culture. Their lives are catered toward finding flaws with what they currently own and buying the next best thing. In the process, our world lays waste, proving the disastrous effects of those spending habits.

Keep ReadingShow less
Iceberg hiding money below
wenmei Zhou/Getty Images

The hidden iceberg: Why corporate treasury spending matters

Freed is president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability.

Too much media coverage and other political analyses focus on contributions by corporate political action committees but overlook the serious consequences of political contributions made directly from corporate treasury funds.

In talks with corporate executives, the default too often is almost exclusively on company political engagement through its PAC. This ignores what one political scientist has likened to an iceberg of spending, where disclosure is not required (and hence is “dark money”) or is partial (only by the recipient, not the donor) and totals are much greater than the amounts allowed for PAC spending.

Keep ReadingShow less
hand reaching out over an American flag
Nikolay Ponomarenko/Getty Images

Big Philanthropy to the rescue? Think again.

Cain has served in leadership roles at numerous foundations, nonprofits and for-profit corporations. He was a founding partner of American Philanthropic.

As the media and elites across America take up a fight to “save democracy,” Big Philanthropy is casting itself in the role of superhero. Since 2011, the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for High Impact Philanthropy reports, some $5.7 billion has gone to programs supporting U.S. democracy, with grant announcements that often depict foundations as stepping up to forestall a doomsday.

The Carnegie Corporation, warning of a “fragility of our democracy ... unimaginable just a few years ago,” has pledged to strengthen social cohesion and combat polarization. The MacArthur Foundation is partnering with Carnegie and the Ford and Knight foundations, among others, in the $500 million Press Forward effort to “address the crisis in local news.” As Knight president Alberto Ibargüen put it to the New York Times: “There is a new understanding of the importance of information in the management of community, in the management of democracy in America.”

Keep ReadingShow less
American flag and business imagery
Sean Gladwell/Getty Images

How your company can follow the model for political spending

Freed is president and co-founder, Hanna is research director, and Sandstrom is strategic advisor at the Center for Political Accountability.

With corporate political disclosure and accountability accepted as the norm, the next step for responsible companies is to put in place a framework for approaching, governing and assessing their election-related spending. The framework would establish policies for when or whether to spend and a process for evaluating the benefits and risks associated with a decision to use corporate resources to advance a political cause or candidate.

Keep ReadingShow less
Superhero businessman revealing American flag
BrianAJackson/Getty Images

Are U.S. companies living up to their commitments to democracy?

Fordham is a PhD student in political science at the University of Washington. Brumbach is an associate professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley.

“[A]s a company, we have a responsibility to engage. For this reason, we are working together with other businesses through groups like the Business Roundtable to support efforts to enhance every person’s ability to vote.”

These were the words of AT&T CEO John Stankey, responding to a Georgia law that limited absentee voting. A similar bill proposed in Texas prompted Dell CEO Michael Dell to issue the following statement: “Free, fair, equitable access to voting is the foundation of American democracy. Those rights — especially for women, communities of color — have been hard-earned. Governments should ensure citizens have their voices heard. HB6 does the opposite, and we are opposed to it.”

The pattern is clear: U.S. business leaders are increasingly vocal in support of democratic institutions.

Keep ReadingShow less