Blog No. 286. The GOP and Corporate Woke

For the past two weeks, we have witnessed the unusual spectacle of a public rift between the Republican Party and corporate America. The rift began with reactions by corporate leaders to the recently passed election law in Georgia, but the conflict soon took on national dimensions. Republicans have reacted as though they have been betrayed– expressing anger and resentment and threatening retaliation.

While the estrangement is unlikely to blossom into a full-blown divorce, it may well leave lasting impressions on both sides. Republicans may have learned that providing tax cuts and deregulation does not necessarily earn them universal fealty from the beneficiaries of those policies. Conversely, corporations may have learned that demands of political loyalty from their Republican friends need not be satisfied at the cost of alienating large portions of their own community of employees, investors and customers.

Damage from a deterioration in the relationship between corporations and Republicans will fall more heavily on the latter. Contributions from corporate PACs will not disappear, but they may be diminished or more selectively deployed. The reputation of the Party, already damaged at the hands of Donald Trump, can ill-afford further stains. The capacity of the Party to command loyalty by threats of retaliation is distinctly limited. Trump’s call for boycotting a bevy of offending corporations that had spoken out against the Georgia law (“Major League Baseball (MLB), Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines, JPMorgan Chase, ViacomCBS, Citigroup, Cisco, UPS, and Merck”) was essentially silly. And it was no less so when echoed by Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal. The chance of organizing a boycott that could be felt by any of the targeted companies is negligible — observers noted with some glee that even after his call for a boycott, Trump was seen with a Diet Coke bottle on his desk

Almost as implausible, but even more offensive, are suggestions by some that Republicans retaliate against corporations by legislation. In fact, the Georgia General Assembly did undertake to punish Delta by removing a tax benefit, but that action appears to have died in the Georgia Senate. At the national level, a nasty tweet from Senator Marco Rubio carried an implied threat “Why are we still listening to these woke corporate hypocrites on taxes, regulations & anti-trust?” The answer, of course, is that, at least in theory, Republicans listen to corporations on such matters not to do their bidding, but to consider their views in formulating sound policy. Beyond that, it is difficult to imagine Republicans expressing their disappointment with corporations by, say, suddenly agreeing to the increase in the corporate tax rate Biden has proposed.

In fairness to Republicans, the Georgia law, if taken in isolation, might have seemed an unlikely casus belli. A leader of the corporate pushback, Delta, is located in Atlanta and was familiar with the legislation as it was being developed, but offered no objection until after it was enacted. By now, readers may have formed their own opinions of the law, which has been summarized by the New York Times among others. My own view is that while the law contains some restrictions that are unnecessary, and would make voting marginally more difficult, they hardly amount to an “atrocity” or “Jim Crow in the 21^st Century” as President Biden put it. The law preserved both early voting and voting by absentee ballot without an excuse and was less restrictive than laws in many other states. The law added voter ID requirements for casting absentee ballots, but meeting the requirements will be considerably easier than standing in line for several hours to vote.

One of the most publicized provisions of the Georgia law was a prohibition against furnishing water or food to a voter standing in line. Although there are similar laws in some other states, the ban seems mean-spirited and unnecessary: it is doubtful that a voter would be influenced to change his or her vote on the basis of such a courtesy. Nevertheless, the provision will probably not be significant in its impact: it is also doubtful that many voters would stay home, or abandon a voting line, for lack of proffered refreshments.

Nevertheless, the new Georgia law cannot be viewed in isolation. The law came on the heels of, and in response to, Donald Trump’s bogus and continuing claim that the election in Georgia had been stolen from him along with his reprehensible attempts to coerce Georgia election officials into “finding” the 11,780 votes necessary for him to win the state. Trump was rebuffed by the Georgia officials, but had support in the Georgia legislature where, among other things, some members sought to convene a special session to select a separate slate of electors. Given that history, the most troubling provisions of the new Georgia law are those giving the legislature control over the State Election Board, removing the Secretary of State as chairman of the Board to make him a non-voting member, and giving the Board the authority to suspend local election boards. The Georgia Secretary of State, it will be recalled, is Brad Raffensberger, who courageously rebuffed Trump’s efforts at coercion. By effectively demoting Raffensberger, the legislature not only inflicted payback but opened the way for intervention in future elections.

Finally, the optics (or, as one used to say, the appearances) of the enactment of the Georgia law could hardly have been worse. The bill was hastily signed into law by Governor Kemp in a closed ceremony with the participants assembled under a picture of a plantation. The crowning touch was furnished when a black member of the state legislature knocked on the door of the Governor’s chamber and was not only denied admission but arrested and hauled away by police.

As of March 24, legislators have introduced 361 bills with restrictive provisions in 47 states.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-voting-bills-tracker-2021

Even more important, the Georgia law is in the vanguard of scores of restrictive bills currently pending in state legislatures around the country. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “as of March 24, legislators have introduced 361 bills with restrictive provisions in 47 states. That’s 108 more than the 253 restrictive bills tallied as of February 19, 2021 — a 43 percent increase in little more than a month.” This legislation is fueled by the appalling delusion still held by the majority of Republican voters, who swallowed Trump’s Big Lie that the election was rigged and stolen by Biden

Under the circumstances, it is not only heartening but important that corporate attention has a focus far broader than Georgia and shows no sign of dissipating. The Washington Post reported on a weekend meeting over Zoom to address the issue of voting rights: “More than 100 chief executives and corporate leaders gathered online Saturday to discuss taking new action to combat the controversial state voting bills being considered across the country, including the one recently signed into law in Georgia.”

Then on Wednesday, two-page advertisements appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post and other major newspapers The advertisements were signed by over 300 corporations, executives, and other prominent figures. Although the statement did not refer to specific legislation, it conveyed a powerful message:

We stand for democracy.

A government of the people, by the people.

A beautifully American ideal, but a reality denied to many for much of this nation’s history.

As Americans, we know that in our democracy we should not expect to agree on everything.

However, regardless of our political affiliations, we believe the very foundation of our electoral process rests upon the ability of each of us to cast our ballots for the candidates of our choice.

For American democracy to work for any of us, we must ensure the right to vote for all of us.

We all should feel a responsibility to defend the right to vote and to oppose any discriminatory legislation or measures that restrict or prevent any eligible voter from having an equal and fair opportunity to cast a ballot.

Voting is the lifeblood of our democracy and we call upon all Americans to join us in taking a nonpartisan stand for this most basic and fundamental right of all Americans.

The Wall Street Journal has stoutly defended the Georgia election law and objected to corporate intervention in what the Journal has oddly described as “partisan cultural politics.” The Journal argues that the corporate CEOs are acting against the interests of their own  shareholders. Shifting to the related issue of H.R. 1 and the voter protections it would provide, the Journal complained:

By endorsing the (false) claims that Republicans are denying the franchise, the CEOs are supporting the direct electoral interests of the Democratic Party. If H.R.1 passes, it will impose rules on all 50 states that will make it easier to elect more Democrats. That’s why Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and President Biden are so intent on passing it.

It is noteworthy that the Journal did not pause to explain how or why the rules of H.R. 1 would make it easier to elect more Democrats. Apparently, they fear that any expansion of the electorate would have such an effect. That is the instinct of Republican state legislators around the country who would prefer to narrow the franchise than to broaden the appeal of their Party. For their part, corporate leaders appear to recognize that nothing is more important to the interests of their companies and their shareholders than a stable and healthy democracy.

And where does all this leave the GOP? Marooned in the slough of Trump. In a dinner at Mar-a-Lago, adjunct to a conference in Palm Beach sponsored by the Republican National Committee, Trump indulged himself with a vintage rant. Whinging over his grievances, Trump assailed his perceived enemies, including not only Democrats but Republicans, calling Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell a “dumb son of a bitch” and a “stone-cold loser.”  Trump’s performance dismayed many of the major donors in attendance, with one saying, “It was horrible, it was long and negative.” According to Politico, Senate Republicans are praying for a truce between Trump and McConnell, but that seems unlikely to occur any time soon, if ever. What seems more likely is a battle between Trump and McConnell to be fought out in primaries. That in turn will augur well for Democrats in 2022 if Biden is able to tame both the coronavirus and appetites of the progressives in his party.