Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

The president is granting refugee status to white South Africans. Meanwhile, he is issuing travel bans, unsure about his duty to uphold due process, fighting birthright citizenship, and backing massive human rights breaches against people of color, including deporting citizens and people authorized to be here.

The administration’s escalating immigration enforcement—marked by “fast-track” deportations or disappearances without due process—signal a dangerous leveling-up of aggressive anti-immigration policies and authoritarian tactics. In the face of the immigration chaos that we are now in, we could—and should—turn our efforts toward making immigration policies less racist, more efficient, and more humane because America’s promise is built on freedom and democracy, not terror. As social scientists, we know that in America, thinking people can and should “just get documented” ignores the very real and large barriers embedded in our systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Insider trading in Washington, DC

U.S. senators and representatives with access to non-public information are permitted to buy and sell individual stocks. It’s not just unethical; it sends the message that the game is rigged.

Getty Images, Greggory DiSalvo

Insider Trading: If CEOs Can’t Do It, Why Can Congress?

Ivan Boesky. Martha Stewart. Jeffrey Skilling.

Each became infamous for using privileged, non-public information to profit unfairly from the stock market. They were prosecuted. They served time. Because insider trading is a crime that threatens public trust and distorts free markets.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

A pump jack seen in a southeast New Mexico oilfield.

Getty Images, Daniel A. Leifheit

Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now.

In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game.

Keep ReadingShow less