“Boycotts may or may not work, but what will work is to identify every unique benefit these woke companies get under the law and remove them and require they operate as all other companies in those states have to,” Vought added.
The increasingly aggressive pushback against politically outspoken companies is the latest, and perhaps purest, illustration of a party at a philosophical crossroads. Republicans spent decades aligning themselves with the business community and its preferences for lower taxes and fewer regulations. During the 2017 GOP tax reform push, the party slashed the corporate rate from 35 to 21 percent. In return, they have been bolstered with industry money and political support. Now, however, they’re betting that they can win on a backlash to the idea that political correctness has entered the boardroom and is irreversibly damaging conservative causes.
For Trump alumni like Vought and other conservatives who have soured on big business, the sudden enthusiasm for their cause has been a welcome development. Still, many conservatives remain skeptical that the newly-coordinated campaign portends a seismic shift for Republicans. There is, for example, no appetite to embrace a corporate tax hike as proposed by President Joe Biden to pay for infrastructure spending. But while it may not be the end of the marriage for Republicans and big business, even they see it as the beginning of a volatile patch in the relationship
“Old habits are hard to break. There are legislators who have served in office for 30 years and this is like learning a new language for them,” said Rachel Bovard, senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute. “They still think profit motives drive these companies and it’s not in their interest to punish conservatives. But you’re seeing younger senators and office holders speak out on this and it will shape their politics moving forward.”
The roots of this friction started during Donald Trump’s presidency, when the White House would occasionally launch into cultural slap-fights that advanced the president’s personal, political, and business whims; and conservative TV hosts encouraged boycotts of companies that seemed amenable to liberal pressure campaigns.
But it has accelerated during Trump’s post-presidency, with Republicans making use of the law to punish corporate entities that they feel have crossed them. The most prominent case came a week ago when Delta publicly condemned Georgia’s new, GOP-authored voting law that civil rights groups say will impose difficult new requirements for absentee and mail-in voting and disproportionately disenfranchise voters of color. Soon after Delta CEO Ed Bastian decried the legislation as “unacceptable,” Georgia House Republicans voted to rescind a lucrative fuel tax break for the company. The measure failed when state senators declined to take it up on the last day of their legislative session.
On Friday, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick lambasted American Airlines over the company’s opposition to a GOP proposal to adjust voting hours and grant state leaders more authority over local elections, among other changes. The measure, which has yet to advance out of the state legislature, was also condemned by Dell Technologies.
“Texans are fed up with corporations that don’t share our values trying to dictate public policy,” Patrick wrote in a lengthy statement.
Then came the Major League Baseball association’s announcement that it was yanking its annual All-Star Game from Atlanta’s stadium to protest the Georgia voting overhaul. Trump urged his MAGA followers to boycott America’s favorite pastime, as well as a host of other companies that had criticized the voting law, “until they relent,” while Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp accused the MLB of succumbing to “cancel culture.” Other Republicans accused the MLB and Delta of engaging in a faux outrage campaign, noting that both companies maintain business ties with China despite its well-documented history of human rights abuses.
“Will Major League Baseball now end its engagement with nations that do not hold elections at all like China and Cuba?” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, one of the Senate’s leading China hawks, wrote in a letter to MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred on Monday.
But, once again, it wasn’t just charges of hypocrisy or boycotts on the menu. Within hours, prominent GOP voices — from Donald Trump Jr. to Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) — had proposed terminating the baseball league’s century-old antitrust exemption, which classifies the MLB as a sport and not a business. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) followed up on Monday morning with a warning of his own. There would, he said, be “serious consequences” if corporate America continues acting like “a woke parallel government.”
A spokesperson for McConnell declined to clarify what the Kentucky Republican meant by “serious consequences.” The Chamber of Commerce, a pro-business lobbying organization that has mostly supported Republican candidates and legislation in the past, though increasingly backed Democrats, did not respond to a request for comment.
The aggressive public pressure campaign by conservatives aimed at influencing corporate behavior is putting corporations in the uncomfortable position of having to straddle both the left’s calls for social justice and the right’s unexpected threats to their bottom line. Some Republicans say they are simply taking a page from the Democrats’ playbook — just as progressives called for a boycott on Equinox gyms after its CEO donated to Trump or a ban on the In-N-Out burger chain after its founder donated to the California Republican Party.
“After two decades of the left being on offense, normal people are starting to fight back and say if these are the rules of the game we are going to play too,” said former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. “I think that’s [Republicans] saying, ‘oh you want to pick a fight with me? This is what a fight is going to be like.’”
But there are also concerns Republicans will get stuck in a never-ending tit-for-tat that will damage long-standing ties to the business community. GOP lawmakers have, so far, only targeted companies on individual bases and not industries as a whole. Rubio, for example, said he would support a unionization effort at a Amazon factory in Alabama, not because he viewed it as critical for labor rights but because it would expose the e-commerce giant’s hypocrisy as a supposedly high-minded company.
“I wish companies would take the Michael Jordan approach to politics and recognize that Republicans and Democrats both buy shoes, we all fly on the same airplanes,” said former Republican congressman and Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz.
“I think Republicans as a whole would be better to point to [Opportunity Zones] as a better long term solution for everyone as opposed to trying to fight Coke and Delta one battle at a time. It’s just silly at some point,” Chaffetz said.
‘A nicer version of Trump’: GOP donors flock to DeSantis
POLITICO’s Holly Otterbein reports on how Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman’s Senate run has become an inflection point in the Democratic party. Plus, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she won’t bring progressive “court packing” legislation to the floor. And House Minority Leader McCarthy meets with scandal-ridden Rep. Matt Gaetz.
The enthusiasm was on full display during DeSantis’ appearance at last weekend’s Republican National Committee donor gala in Palm Beach, Fla., where he drew wild applause for declaring the party needed figures who withstood public pressure and weren’t afraid to confront what he called the “elite, New York corporate media.”
The governor was mobbed over the course of the weekend. Joanne Zervos, a New York City donor who spoke with DeSantis during the conference, said many contributors saw him as “a nicer version of Trump,” someone who had embraced the former president’s policies but lacked his rough edges. Zervos said she was drawn to the governor because of his approach to dealing with the coronavirus.
DeSantis last week also made a surprise appearance at a donor retreat convened by the Conservative Partnership Institute, an organization overseen by Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). The event was held at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach. During his appearances last week, some attendees approached him and encouraged him to run in 2024.
Whether DeSantis’ popularity among donors is lasting or fleeting remains an open question. The 2024 nominating contest is a long way off, and other would-be candidates have also developed close relationships with contributors. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) was also well-received at the RNC retreat, according to attendees. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) has previously drawn financial support from hedge fund manager Paul Singer, one of the party’s most sought-after givers. Pence spent years cultivating big contributors, many of whom were uncomfortable with Trump but saw the then-vice president as an ally within the administration.
For now, DeSantis aides insist that the 42-year-old governor is focused squarely on running for reelection and hasn’t begun thinking about the presidential contest, something they have been trying to remind donors. The governor faces a potentially challenging 2022 contest against Democratic state Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, who is expected to enter the race soon.
But DeSantis’ aggressive courtship of national givers bears striking similarities to the approach then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush used in his 1998 reelection race, which preceded his presidential bid two years later. Bush spent the 1998 campaign traveling the country and introducing himself to the Republican Party’s biggest donors, many of whom contributed to his reelection effort and later became key to his 2000 national campaign.
As he embarks on his fundraising blitz, DeSantis has begun building a team with national experience. He has tapped veteran Republican strategist Phil Cox to help oversee his 2022 campaign. Cox, who has developed deep ties to the donor class through his past leadership of the Republican Governors Association, accompanied the governor to last week’s retreats.
But DeSantis’ most potent fundraising weapon may be his home state, which has long been home to some of the GOP’s biggest bankrollers. The governor has tapped into upscale areas like Miami Beach, where during a multistop March swing he appeared at a fundraising lunch at the La Gorce Country Club that was hosted by real estate developer Jimmy Tate. Others present included investor Jimmy Resnick.
Florida’s list of major Republican Party donors is getting longer. While the state has long attracted the wealthy through its promise of low taxes and warm weather, the pandemic has supercharged the migration. Financial leaders say they’ve been drawn to DeSantis’ reluctance to embrace the stringent mitigation policies implemented by blue-state governors that have taken a toll on businesses.
The roster includes venture capitalist David Blumberg, who in November moved to the Miami Beach area from San Francisco. Blumberg, who contributed more than $100,000 to Trump’s reelection effort, has met with DeSantis around a half-dozen times since arriving to the state.
“I have admired Gov. DeSantis from afar,” Blumberg said. “Since I’ve moved to Florida with my family, I’ve gotten to know him reasonably well and have a very good impression of what I’ve seen.”
The GOP-Big Business Divorce Goes Deeper Than You Think
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a legendary business professor and associate dean at the Yale School of Management, has watched this split grow in recent years, and has heard it from CEOs he knows and works with. What the GOP cares about and what major businesses care about is, increasingly incompatible, he says.
“The political desire to use wedge issues to divide — which used to be fringe in the GOP — has become mainstream,” Sonnenfeld says. “That is 100 percent at variance with what the business community wants. And that is a million times more important to them than how many dollars of taxes are paid here or there.”
Over the weekend, Sonnenfeld hastily organized a Zoom conference with roughly 100 major corporate executives to talk through the voter restrictions being considered by state legislatures throughout the country, and about the way top Republicans like McConnell and Ted Cruz are responding with attacks on businesses that speak up in opposition.
Most of the CEOs on the call were Republicans; Sonnenfeld himself has been an informal adviser to both Republican and Democratic presidents, but he has a longstanding relationship with McConnell, and spoke at the senator’s wedding to Elaine Chao. The CEOs “ranged from amused to outraged” in their reaction to the GOP attacks on businesses, says Sonnenfeld. “Their comments ranged from talk about ‘taxation without representation’ to the paradox of ‘cancel culture’: It’s OK if they speak out, but only as long as they stay on script?”
As the GOP tries to position itself as the home of “working-class values,” capturing loyalty with a steady campaign against the perceived excesses of progressive culture, it’s running afoul of a business community that can’t simply silo off “culture war” topics. In the eyes of major corporations, issues like voting rights, immigration and transgender-inclusive restrooms have economic impact, too. The millions of people alienated by those fights aren’t just their future customers, many of whom expect to support brands they believe in, they’re the companies’ employees.
“The bad news for Republicans is that they seem to have a 1920s view of who big business’s workforce is,” says Sonnenfeld. “That workforce is, at a minimum, highly diverse — and they get along. Trying to stir that up is misguided.”
The new Republican penchant for mocking corporations for being too socially aware — for instance, Sen. Ted Cruz’s Twitter threat to use the power of the state to harm Major League Baseball’s business, signing the message off with “go woke, go broke” — fundamentally misunderstands what matters to business in the 21st century, says Sonnenfeld. “Basically, business leaders believe that it’s in the interest of society to have social harmony… Divisiveness in society is not in their interest, short term or long term.”
If the marriage between the Republican Party and the business community is on the rocks, what does that mean for politics? What do we misunderstand about what really matters to CEOs? And why aren’t business executives more afraid of boycott threats from the right?
For answers to all of that and more, POLITICO Magazine spoke with Sonnenfeld this week. A condensed transcript of that conversation follows, edited for length and clarity.
In the last couple of weeks, we’ve seen major business come out in strong opposition to changes to election law in Georgia and other states. Over the weekend, you helped organize a phone call with around 100 corporate leaders to discuss it all. Tell me about that.
Yes. As anxiety was rising, I invited 120 CEOs on 48 hours’ notice. I thought that if I was lucky — on such short notice, and on a Saturday competing with the Masters [golf tournament] — we’d get maybe 10 to show up, thanks to my personal relationships. But 90 actual CEOs and business leaders showed up, and 120 people were on the call, including the various election and legal experts.
There were some who are interested in trying to find out what happened in Georgia. There was an explanation by the Georgia business leaders of how, in fact, they were working assiduously backstage [on the Republican bills to overhaul election laws in the state] and thought they’d taken out 95 percent of the bad stuff. It turned out they’d gotten 80 percent out; they didn’t realize that left in there was the [legislature having the ability to suspend] county officials who are elected to be in charge of voting. As was pointed out, the Carter Center in Atlanta certifies elections around the world as being democratic or undemocratic on just that basis; they have poll-watchers around the world to prevent this kind of thing.
But Georgia was not the focus; that was just the warning shot. The volley over the bow is that we had business leaders from Texas saying, “you don’t know what bad is,” and looking at this spread [of voting rights restrictions] to 47 state legislatures. Michael Waldman, the head of the Brennan Center, gave an analysis of how bad [the proposals are] in these different states.
This November, for the first time in American history, [major business leaders] worked to guarantee millions of workers paid time off to vote. We’ve never had that before — and that’s a bypass around government, with its inability to make Election Day a national holiday. So they created their own workarounds. But on top of that, they were really proud that they managed to have — these particular companies — over a million workers with a full day off not only to vote, but to help fortify elderly voting site volunteers who were at risk for Covid and [had to handle] the tidal wave of ballots. They did so much, and they were so proud that this was the largest, fairest, most secure election in U.S. history. And to have [the election] condemned [by Republicans] after the companies put so much into ensuring that, they’re pretty upset.
What was the reaction among CEOs to all the recent criticism from Republicans?
Well, they ranged from amused to outraged. Their comments ranged from talk about “taxation without representation” to the paradox of “cancel culture”: It’s OK if they speak out, but only as long as they stay on script?
I think the clarion call that actually got this ridiculously high participation rate on such short notice was, in fact, Senator Mitch McConnell’s paradoxical call to action for CEOs. [Last week, McConnell gave a speech in which he told corporations to “stay out of politics,” with the caveat that he did not mean that they should stop making campaign contributions.]
Despite your extraordinary range of Washington contacts, I bet I’m the only person you’ve interviewed that actually spoke at Mitch McConnell’s wedding. Only three of us spoke: It was the ambassador to the People’s Republic of China, the ambassador to Taiwan, me — and maybe Elaine [Chao’s] father. I have a nice relationship with Mitch. I admire him, and I’m glad he walked back his statement. It missed the mark.
The CEOs were across the political spectrum. But one thing they were unified about was their right to have a voice, and the importance of fortifying each other when they get out in front on an issue.
It is kind of like 2017 after Charlottesville, when Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier spoke out against President Trump’s failure to condemn white supremacist hate groups and left Trump’s American Manufacturing Council. At first, the business community wasn’t sure if they were all going to leave [Trump’s various business advisory councils]. But some, like Dave Abney, the chairman of UPS, said that Trump’s attack on the character of Ken Frazier [after Frazier resigned] was unjustified. And Business Roundtable came out with a statement from more than 200 business leaders. They rallied around one another. That was remarkable. It was a clarifying moment, and they came out to make a unified statement — and that’s why we’re here right now.
Earlier you told me something that I can’t let pass by: You spoke at Mitch McConnell’s wedding?
Yeah. I’ve known them for a long time. And I’ve been friends with Elaine for some 40 years. [Pause] It’s never been mentioned anywhere before. I thought I owed you that. [Laughter]
I appreciate it. You mentioned this wide range of political beliefs among the business leaders on the call. I imagine that many of those CEOs are somewhat conservative. Are they alienated from the GOP? How would you characterize their politics right now?
Yes, this group was about 70 percent Republican and easily 60 percent conservative, even if they are Democrats. It was a clear act of defiance just to be on call. But that doesn’t mean that they all agree with each other on the different options available for corporate response.
What we’re seeing right now from business leaders is sort of this gangly return to adolescence to say, “We’re not going to be defined by the parentage of either political party.” Lord knows who misclassified very honorable, legitimate social democrats as “progressives.” Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC — [it’s] great what they do, but they’re social democrats; not “progressives.” Progressives — Teddy Roosevelt ran on that ticket. So did “Fighting Bob” LaFollette, a Republican senator [and 1924 Progressive presidential nominee], with Burton Wheeler, a Democratic senator, as his running mate. They were fighting for bridges and dams and immigration, for urban beautification, the settlement houses of Jane Addams, safe workplaces.
That’s what “progressivism” is and was. And that’s the theory [that animates] Joe Biden and Mayor Pete [Buttigieg] and Amy Klobuchar and maybe Mitt Romney. That’s who progressives are. And that’s where the business community is: They’re pretty much somewhere between Mitt Romney and Joe Biden.
Are there other issues where business leaders feel alienated from the GOP, or is it mainly around these questions of having a basic functioning democracy?
The business leaders, to a person, were trying to explain: they don’t like being politicians. They’re not public officials. But trying to create and fortify social harmony is absolutely directly in the strategic context of what CEOs do — although the Wall Street Journal editorial board [which has been critical of business leaders for speaking out against the Georgia law] doesn’t seem to understand that.
Since [Herbert] Hoover, the Republican Party has been identified as the party of big business. Well, the bad news for Republicans is that they seem to have a 1920s view of who big business’s workforce is. Whatever they have in mind when they think of “Joe Six-Pack,” the reality is really different. That workforce is, at a minimum, highly diverse — and they get along. Trying to stir that up [in a “culture war”] is misguided. The business community’s interests are not to be xenophobic. It’s not in their interests to be isolationist. It’s not in their interests to be protectionist. And the GOP, those haven’t been their positions, at least since the 1950s. But now they are.
Basically, business leaders believe that it’s in the interest of society to have social harmony. The CEOs really care about these issues. Divisiveness in society is not in their interest — short term or long term. They don’t want angry communities; they don’t want fractious, finger-pointing workforces; they don’t want hostile customers; they don’t want confused and angry shareholders.
The political desire to use wedge issues to divide — which used to be fringe in the GOP — has become mainstream. State by state, party has taken that path. That is 100 percent at variance with what the business community wants. And that is a million times more important to them than how many dollars of taxes are paid here or there.
If [corporate tax rates] go from 34 percent to 27 percent instead of 22 percent, they’re way less concerned about that. There’s too much focus on taxes. On taxes, what we’re seeing is, in fact, CEOs are willing to concede. There’s a lot of ground there. You’ll get anywhere from [JPMorgan Chase CEO] Jamie Dimon and Bill Gates to Jeff Bezos saying, “we’ll give a couple of dollars on tax.”
They’re interested in free markets — whether or not that’s product markets, financial markets or labor markets. It’s about the image and reality of America: “give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses,” Emma Lazarus’s poem on the Statue of Liberty. That’s the spirit of it. But it’s also this: If the U.S. is not seen as a comfortable, attractive magnet for the world’s best talent, we’re in trouble. We don’t want all this technological expertise to be siphoned away to our trading partners, and that’s starting to happen.
[Business leaders] are upset about immigration policies. Around this time last year and into the summer, the universities were somewhat inept in their lobbying efforts [on the issue], and even the immigration attorneys were underperforming. They were kind of relying on the same K Street nomadic lobbyists who hop around from place to place, shun controversy, don’t want to create waves, who were kind of checking boxes but not having a meaningful impact. It was the business leaders, four major tech companies in particular, who went off to see Jared Kushner — and I know this point blank; I was in the middle of it, and this has not been out there, by the way — and say, “You can’t condemn us for outsourcing this work to China or India if we can’t bring these highly skilled workers here. We’re already now leasing space in Vancouver and Toronto, and we’re working on wiring the infrastructure so this will be on U.S. time zones. If we can’t get [these skilled workers] into the U.S., we’re still going to function as a North American company with the talent we need.”
They have different priorities [than the Republican Party seems to think]. They’re upset about the [anti-LGBTQ] “bathroom bills.” They’re upset about gun violence; hundreds of companies severed ties with the NRA or stopped dealing in semiautomatic weapons — from Wal-Mart to Dick’s Sporting Goods. As we talk about “regulatory rollbacks” during the Trump administration, they were almost entirely EPA-directed; nobody was lobbying for that in corporate America. With the automakers, it became the entire industry fighting the [Trump-era] EPA, saying, “We like working with California. We think that in addition to what we’re doing with hybrids and [electric vehicles], we are pretty sure that we can get a 50-mile per gallon efficiency in the old-fashioned internal combustion engine. Don’t stop us.” So [Attorney General Bill] Barr was told to unleash the antitrust division to sue the auto industry for conspiring in [agreeing to stricter environmental standards]. It was ridiculous.
You’ve spent a lot of your time at Yale working with business leaders and studying how they think. I’m curious how a CEO makes the calculation of whether or not it makes sense to speak out about an issue. Can you walk me through that?
Yeah, there are five parts, really.
First, they have to know what is in the strategic interests of the business. As a steward of other people’s resources, they have to be mindful that it can’t just be their personal values alone — and when it is, then they have to be willing to put their job on the line, as Ken Frazier did at Merck [following Trump’s comments after Charlottesville].
Second: Is it a defining element of their brand? How does it reinforce their brand and their brand values? Google retreated from China because of invasions of privacy and theft of intellectual property. They drew a line in the sand about what their brand is. Frankly, Apple did not.
Third: If the issue itself is divisive, who else is involved and why? With these [anti-transgender] “bathroom bills,” the companies that led the charge against the euphemistic “religious freedom” acts in Arkansas, Indiana, North Carolina and Texas — amazingly — were AT&T, UPS and Doug McMillon [the CEO] of Wal-Mart. They were out front. I mean, Patagonia was there, Howard Schultz of Starbucks was there, Nike was there, Tim Cook of Apple was there, but they joined later. It had such force because these were not considered political extremists or edgier companies; this was coming from the heartland. When companies like that get involved, it has an effect.
Fourth: Is the particular issue one where remaining silent is itself a stance? On many of these issues — such as voting access, or whether the president was elected in a truly honest election — there’s no middle ground; it’s a dichotomous yes or no. Some companies waffle, trying not to make enemies. You can’t get away with that anymore. Your silence is acquiescence; it is a decision. You’re making a decision: your silence is a decision. And when you recognize that, some of these issues are so salient and so critical that you have to take a position.
Fifth: We know from surveys that the CEO is the most trusted voice in society right now. That wasn’t the case [years ago]. Right now, both your line of work and my line of work have lost a step [in the public eye]. Elected officials at every level — city, county, state, federal — have all been knocked down a peg. Clergy? Lord knows their standing has suffered.
Whose standing has not only been steady, but actually, weirdly, gone up in all these polls that usually agree on very little else? Business leaders and military leaders. They are the most respected pillars in society — and the military can’t have a political voice, so [business leaders] realize they have to speak up. If they see a dangerous slide toward anti-democratic or tyrannical movements, they have to speak up, and it’s in their own self-interest.
And how do they consider the potential risks of coming out with a stance, like the potential for a boycott?
We’re seeing a courage for business leaders to speak out and not worry about being criticized as “woke” or as pressured. They have learned they can take courageous stands and maybe muscle their way through it. The blowback, they’ve learned to anticipate it. Boycotts? They have gotten through that. Some of them, like Nike, realized that they could wear it as a badge of honor.
When Matt Levatich of Harley-Davidson had to try to get product into Asia, because of retaliatory trade barriers that made it difficult to get Harley-Davidsons in Asia — this was Trump’s initiative — he had to shut down their plant in Kansas City. They still had one Racine, Wisconsin. They still had one York, Pennsylvania. But they had to shut this one down to create products in Asia for Asia. President Trump said, “Boycott Harley-Davidson.” My gosh. That’s like boycotting apple pie, baseball and Coca-Cola. I mean, the iconic symbol of Harley-Davidson is the American eagle, of all things. The president says not to buy Harley. Well, who is their only real pernicious competitor? It’s Hero Honda, which has a much larger market share worldwide. This is “Make America Great Again”?
Same thing with what Trump did with Goodyear tires: Goodyear has had a long-standing, decades-old policy of not allowing [employees to wear] political campaign paraphernalia in the workplace. So Trump went after Goodyear [in protest of them not allowing employees to wear MAGA merchandise at work], saying, “Don’t buy Goodyear tires,” telling people to buy the competition. Well, who’s that? It’s not U.S.-based companies: It’s Italian-owned Pirelli and French-owned Michelin in Europe; it’s Japanese-owned Firestone-Bridgestone in Asia. It’s counterproductive.
CEOs have learned to not be afraid of these boycotts. They have to take positions.
Even when you’re really beholden to very strong individual clients [the loss of which] can hurt a professional partnership, you might think they would worry [about speaking out]. But you take a look at somebody like, say, Brad Karp of [the white-shoe law firm] Paul, Weiss: Over the last week, he has 60-some of the nation’s largest law firms banded together, ready at a moment’s notice to have SWAT teams of election law experts fanned out to any of these states considering legislation to restrict voting rights. They have the confidence to work collaboratively as problem solvers.
Last question: In terms of its political involvement, where do you see business going from here?
So the huge takeaway is that there are things that are specific to their industry that they can do that aren’t just uniform policy statements — as we saw with Apple and Will Smith this week [announcing they’re pulling the filming of a new movie out of Georgia in protest of the state’s new voting laws]. Some of my colleagues and people in the social advocacy fields want to have these grandiose policy statements and all these petitions. OK, great, fine. But there’s actually a whole menu of actions available that are specific to the companies. And a lot of it’ll be driven through the collective action of people who have a shared fate.
We see this with airline industry getting together, or companies within Georgia or Arkansas or Texas getting together — wherever they have a shared fate. We’re seeing business communities finding a new sense of collective civic duty. And I have the utmost enthusiasm about that.
Pence has pacemaker implanted – POLITICO
Former Vice President Mike Pence had a pacemaker implanted on Wednesday, his office announced in a release Thursday.
After being named to Donald Trump’s ticket in 2016, Pence disclosed that he had been diagnosed with an asymptomatic left bundle branch block, he said. In the past two weeks, Pence’s office said he had begun to have symptoms related to a “slow heart rate.”
Pence then had the pacemaker inserted in a successful “routine surgery” at Inova Fairfax Medical Campus in Falls Church, Va., his office said in the statement. Pence is “expected to fully recover and return to normal activity in the coming days,” the statement said.
Rapid Reflux Relief – Video
US and China agree to cooperate on new climate agreement
Kelechi Iheanacho is Leicester’s key man as club targets historic FA Cup final
‘The Muppets’ slapped with a content warning by Disney
NYC finally makes right call on Trump-run ice rinks
Texas mayor quits, calls residents ‘lazy’ amid power outages
Breaking News2 months ago
‘The Muppets’ slapped with a content warning by Disney
Opinion2 months ago
NYC finally makes right call on Trump-run ice rinks
Breaking News2 months ago
Texas mayor quits, calls residents ‘lazy’ amid power outages
Living2 weeks ago
Baby born with three penises makes medical history
Living2 months ago
CA mom bullied by fellow parents for selling sexy snaps on OnlyFans
Breaking News2 months ago
Los Angeles woman Monique Munoz, 32, killed in Lamborghini crash
Breaking News2 months ago
Tessica Brown seeing surgeon for removal of Gorilla Glue in hair
Breaking News2 months ago
Trump urges ouster of ‘unsmiling political hack’ McConnell