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

Man wearing Trump hat watches Trump on TV

Trump’s 10-to-1 rule aims to cut red tape, but fewer regulations can mean weaker food safety, Head Start services, and checks on presidential power.

Wu Xiaoling/Xinhua via Getty Images

Trump’s 10-to-1 Rule Gives the Presidency Too Much Power

We only think about the plumbing in our homes when something goes wrong. The same is true for government bureaucracy. Rules, procedures, and bureaucrats operate largely out of sight, making sure food is safe, Social Security checks arrive, workplaces are safe, and children with disabilities receive the services promised to them by law. Yes, there is plenty of red tape in government, just as an old house can accumulate pipes that no longer serve much purpose. But ripping out pipes simply because there are too many of them is not much of a plumbing strategy. Yet the Trump administration has made the number of federal regulations it eliminates a measure of success. That raises a more important question: When does cutting bureaucracy stop making government more efficient and start making it less capable?

1. The Case for Cutting Red Tape

Keep ReadingShow less
US Capitol building
white dome building near body of water during daytime
Photo by José Matute on Unsplash

We The People

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln concluded the Gettysburg Address with a vision of democracy that has endured for more than a century:

“That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The U.S. Capitol in autumn.

New surveys of nearly 20,000 battleground voters find bipartisan majorities say Congress ignores the public, and that more public influence would help.

Philip Yabut/Getty Images

Americans Say the People Can Lead Congress to Common Ground; It Appears They Are Right

New surveys in battleground states and districts across the country, as well as nationwide, find that Americans—both Republicans and Democrats—believe Congress does what most Americans would do less than half the time.

They also found that majorities agree that if Congress were to be more influenced by the people, it would be more likely to find common ground. In fact, surveys show that majorities of Republicans and Democrats agree on what to do about many issues that Congress is stuck on.

Keep ReadingShow less