Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The growing threat of government retaliation against businesses

The growing threat of government retaliation against businesses

Fireworks show at Disneyland in Anaheim, CA as a lawsuit looms in Florida

Getty Images

Ballou-Aares is the founder and CEO of the Leadership Now Project, a membership organization of business and thought leaders committed to protecting and renewing American democracy.

Recently, we’ve observed an unsettling trend in the United States — political retribution against companies for their speech, especially when that speech involves disagreement with political leaders. The ongoing conflict between the state of Florida and the Walt Disney Co. serves as a visible and disturbing example. In an effort to address the issue, the Leadership Now Projec t working with pro bono counsel Covington & Burling, on August 2, 2023, filed an amicus brief in Walt Disney Parks v. DeSantis.


Leadership Now’s brief underscores what is at stake when political leaders use their power to punish companies who express alternative views. Political retaliation creates a chilling effect throughout the market, hampers economic growth and deters investment by undermining fundamentals of business and democracy.

Regrettably, the actions of Florida and Gov. DeSantis outlined in the Disney v. DeSantis case are not isolated incidents of government retaliation against businesses. Companies from Delta Airlines to Walgreens have faced the threat or reality of government retaliation after responding to customer opinion, or taking actions in response to state or federal laws. The outcome of the Disney v. DeSantis case will have profound and broad-reaching effects that could significantly undermine the ability of companies to be responsive to the evolving needs and interests of customers, employees and shareholders.

Beyond affecting the targeted company, the threat of political retribution engenders what historian Timothy Snyder terms “anticipatory obedience.” Businesses more broadly may choose not to take certain actions out of fear, thereby reining in their own rights. This self-imposed restraint can limit a company's ability to make decisions about how to manage itself in the best interests of its stakeholders, including choosing when to take action or voice opinions.

Today, firms are under heightened pressure from customers, regulators, employees and shareholders to engage on an ever-expanding range of issues. Companies, whether supporting or opposing a particular policy, or aiming for neutrality, find themselves navigating the treacherous waters of a politically charged environment, fearing both government punitive measures and running afoul of public opinion.

But stepping back from the arena in fear of retaliation inadvertently helps create an environment where companies become ever more susceptible to the whims of political actors and agendas. In the face of corporate retreat from the public sphere, political leaders become ever more emboldened to behave like autocrats, rewarding allies and punishing perceived adversaries. Businesses working to ensure political retribution does not take hold in the U.S. as it has in other countries is in the best interest of firms and of democracy.

Furthermore, as trust in government and media dwindles globally, business leaders have emerged as rare credible figures in a distrustful landscape. According to the 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer, businesses were perceived as the most trusted institutions, and by 2023, they were uniquely viewed as institutions of both competence and ethics. As a trusted group in society, business leaders can navigate these tricky waters by focusing on protecting the fundamentals of democracy without addressing every individual issue that arises from political processes misaligned with citizen interests.

For instance, in August 2023 in Ohio, business leaders — from former Chairman and CEO of Procter & Gamble, John Pepper, to Jeni Britton, Founder of Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams, firmly defended democracy against an effort to alter the state's century-long rule. The effort aimed to make it more difficult for citizens to approve or win ballot initiatives. The trusted leadership of these business figures played a critical role in the campaign's success in preserving a stable democratic process.

Leadership Now recommends utilizing our Corporate Civic Action Plan or the University of Michigan's Erb Institute Principles for Corporate Political Responsibility, as guidance. Both offer business leaders actionable, non-partisan templates to help determine whether and how to engage in civic and political affairs responsibly.

It is in the collective interest of democracy and a strong economy for businesses to push back on political retribution and use its influence to help restore the fundamental tenets of democracy.


Read More

Woman holding out an empty wallet at a table.

Many Americans wrongly associate poverty primarily with Black and Hispanic communities. Explore how this misconception influences public opinion, politics, and anti-poverty policy.

skaman306 / Getty Images

More Whites Live in Poverty than Either Blacks or Hispanics - Correcting the Perception of Poverty

From observing people and politicians over the years—I can find no data on this—I have the impression that liberals as well as conservatives think that the typical person living in poverty is Black or Hispanic. The image most Whites have of people of color is someone who is poor—except for celebrities—with little education; they are not aware of many people of color who are middle class. On the other hand, they are not aware of many Whites who are poor and so they think their number is low.

Why is the perception of poverty important? The perception of who is poor has significant impact on the support for government programs that aid the poor. Given the extent of racism in this country, whether subtle or violent, (see my post, “Whether the Issue is Gun Violence or Inequality, It Always Comes Back to Race/Racism”), it’s not surprising that support for anti-poverty programs is non-existent among MAGA Republicans and for that matter has always been weak among Republicans; 45% of Republicans would even cut food stamp support. Their attitude is "it's your fault;" so government has no responsibility to help. They feel the causes of poverty are personal: bad life choices, drugs, lack of work ethic, and the breakdown of families—all negative perceptions of Black culture.

Keep ReadingShow less
The All-America City of San Antonio Collaborates to Address Teen Pregnancy and Other Issues
person in green pants sitting on white textile
Photo by Vanessa on Unsplash

The All-America City of San Antonio Collaborates to Address Teen Pregnancy and Other Issues

San Antonio, TX, has been working to reduce teen pregnancy for over two decades, making considerable progress through collaborations among the city, county, nonprofit organizations, and the University of Texas. A nine-time All-America City, one of San Antonio’s key community collaborations, SA 2020, harnessed civic muscle to create and achieve dozens of measurable goals, including a significant reduction in teen pregnancy.

The San Antonio Teen Pregnancy Collaborative (SATPPC) was formed in 2010 in response to news that Bexar County had one of the highest rates of teen births in the United States. The SATPPC brought together an impressive list of cross-sector organizations, including public entities, community-based organizations, and faith-based and secular institutions. The group’s overall goal was to reduce the Bexar County teen birth rate among females ages 15 to 19 by 15% by 2020, and it exceeded this goal even before that date.

Keep ReadingShow less
Anti-gerrymandering sign

Anti-gerrymandering sign

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting for Politicians or Their Consultants to Fix Gerrymandering

2018, a nonprofit worker in Michigan named Katie Fahey posted a message online asking if anyone else was tired of politicians drawing their own districts. She had no campaign experience and no political base.

Within two years, the ballot initiative she built, called Voters Not Politicians, had written an independent redistricting commission into the Michigan constitution. Hollywood eventually made a documentary about it, Slay the Dragon, which is a fairly accurate description of what she had actually done.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red rock formations in the "Valley of the Gods."

Red rock formations in the "Valley of the Gods" on April 22, 2026 in Bears Ears National Monument, Utah. Bears Ears has been a controversial Monument since it's creation in December of 2016.

George Frey / Getty Images

When Public Lands Become Real Estate

Last week, in his latest attempted liquidation of our shared heritage, President Trump signed two executive orders eviscerating protections for close to three million acres of our national monuments: Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. From the Oval Office, a president who has never even seen these sacred sites reduced them by roughly 90%, dwarfing his 2017 attempt at a similar land grab by about a million acres, leaving only 300,000 acres of protected land. These cuts will directly threaten critical wildlife habitats, put nearly 100,000 irreplaceable archaeological sites at risk of destruction, and fracture an interconnected indigenous homeland that has been stewarded by Native tribes since time immemorial. To Trump, it’s just another real estate deal.

The Trump regime has tried to portray this set-up to sell off as an effort to restore public access. During the Oval Office photo op where the president signed the proclamations, he said of the monuments: “You can’t go hunting. You can’t go fishing. You can’t do anything. You can virtually not even walk on it.” That is, to put it mildly, a malicious lie. All your favorite forms of outdoor recreation—from hiking and camping to fishing and hunting—are allowed there, which Trump might know if he had ever visited the land he decided is not worth preserving. In fact, the Antiquities Act doesn’t limit ordinary public use but rather the extent to which an area can be subject to mining and drilling. So much for the land of the free. Trump wants to make it a whole lot easier for extractive industries and private development interests to privatize and pillage these sacred lands for financial gain. Home of the brave? Not an ounce of courage to refuse the fuel lobby when it comes to our public lands. At least the law is on our side. As the President of the National Parks Conservation Association put it, this is both “a betrayal to the American people and illegal.”

Keep ReadingShow less