Offline
In my opinion, there's a big difference between corporations and other organizations making decisions based, in part, on local political considerations when determining where they are going to hold events or build operations and corporations making large donations directly to politicians or to committees that exist solely to advance the interests of a politician. Politics do not exist in a vacuum, they are integral to the lawmaking process and those laws impact corporations.
And I think it is entirely within a corporation's prerogative to consider these kinds of social engineering laws in the same sense that they would consider tax laws or labor laws. If the corporation or orgainzation determines that a particular law is problematic for any aspect of the law's impact, it is entirely within their reasonable prerogative to elect to go elsewhere. I think that some in this discussion suggest that this is no different than any other kind of corporate expenditure to "influence" the political process but I don't see it that way. I don't think these organizations are necessarily moving these events as some effort to make it painful for North Carolina so that they change their law. I think that may be part of it, but the bigger purpose is to avoid the direct impact on the organization that holding the event in North Carolina would bring. For instance, if an organization has by-laws or policies that prohibit the organization from doing business with others that don't have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation, signing contracts to hold an event at the Greensboro Coliseum could conflict with that by-law or policy. Or similarly, if the organization has LGBT employees that could potentially be impacted by the law during the course of the event, the organization may wish not to subject those valuable employees to that experience.
It's not necessarily part of a carrot and stick approach to influence a change in the law. These organizations hold big events that happen in real life - not just in rhetoric. And I don't think it is any different from a corporation pulling out of a state because the state changed their tax law or labor law, or some other law that is going to be challenging to that organization's activities.
While these moves may have the result of influencing political change, it is all transparent and exactly how these relationships are supposed to function. If advocates of a law succeed in getting it passed, but those negatively impacted by the law react in a way that the constituency believes to be detrimental to the extent that there is pressure to change the law, that is just how things work. I don't see the problem there.
At the same time, I also completely agree that political speech is fundamental to the First Amendment. If you believe in the philosophy behind the prohibition on the infringement of political speech by the government, you can't really argue that it is acceptable to shut down political communication by any American, whether as an individual or whether organized into a corporation or non-profit organization. And I don't see why it matters who is funding it, as long as it is transparent. Communication is about ideas and discourse, even if it is specious. The remedy is through debate - not through shutting it down.
The only aspect of the whole discussion that I find problematic is when there are direct donations to the lawmakers - particularly if those donations are not public or transparent. The lawmaker should be beholden only to the constituent - there can be no other master, or else the fundamentals of representative democracy begin to break down.
And I think it is entirely within a corporation's prerogative to consider these kinds of social engineering laws in the same sense that they would consider tax laws or labor laws. If the corporation or orgainzation determines that a particular law is problematic for any aspect of the law's impact, it is entirely within their reasonable prerogative to elect to go elsewhere. I think that some in this discussion suggest that this is no different than any other kind of corporate expenditure to "influence" the political process but I don't see it that way. I don't think these organizations are necessarily moving these events as some effort to make it painful for North Carolina so that they change their law. I think that may be part of it, but the bigger purpose is to avoid the direct impact on the organization that holding the event in North Carolina would bring. For instance, if an organization has by-laws or policies that prohibit the organization from doing business with others that don't have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation, signing contracts to hold an event at the Greensboro Coliseum could conflict with that by-law or policy. Or similarly, if the organization has LGBT employees that could potentially be impacted by the law during the course of the event, the organization may wish not to subject those valuable employees to that experience.
It's not necessarily part of a carrot and stick approach to influence a change in the law. These organizations hold big events that happen in real life - not just in rhetoric. And I don't think it is any different from a corporation pulling out of a state because the state changed their tax law or labor law, or some other law that is going to be challenging to that organization's activities.
While these moves may have the result of influencing political change, it is all transparent and exactly how these relationships are supposed to function. If advocates of a law succeed in getting it passed, but those negatively impacted by the law react in a way that the constituency believes to be detrimental to the extent that there is pressure to change the law, that is just how things work. I don't see the problem there.
At the same time, I also completely agree that political speech is fundamental to the First Amendment. If you believe in the philosophy behind the prohibition on the infringement of political speech by the government, you can't really argue that it is acceptable to shut down political communication by any American, whether as an individual or whether organized into a corporation or non-profit organization. And I don't see why it matters who is funding it, as long as it is transparent. Communication is about ideas and discourse, even if it is specious. The remedy is through debate - not through shutting it down.
The only aspect of the whole discussion that I find problematic is when there are direct donations to the lawmakers - particularly if those donations are not public or transparent. The lawmaker should be beholden only to the constituent - there can be no other master, or else the fundamentals of representative democracy begin to break down.
