Republican presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson responds to DeSantis' row with Disney, says it's 'n

[libertybele]

Republican presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson responds to DeSantis' row with Disney, says it's 'not the role of government' to punish a business you disagree with

Asa Hutchinson, a Republican candidate for president, responded to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' spat with Disney on Sunday, saying it's "not the role of government" to punish a business with which one disagrees.

During an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," host Dana Bash asked Hutchinson about his stance on fellow Republicans "using the government to change social policy and wage culture wars?"

"I don't like what Disney said about the legislation that I would have supported in Florida, but it's not the role of government to punish a business when you disagree with what they're saying or a position that they take," Hutchinson said.

Disney publicly criticized DeSantis' so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill, which he signed into law last March. It prevents teachers in kindergarten to third grade from holding classroom discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity.

In retaliation, DeSantis threatened changes to Disney's special tax district. Disney filed a lawsuit last week against DeSantis — who is expected to announce his own White House bid — claiming that the governor's ongoing actions against Disney violate its Constitutional rights......................

https://www.businessinsider.com/asa-hutchinson-responds-to-desantis-and-disney-feud-2023-4

[Right_in_Virginia]

....says it's 'not the role of government' to punish a business you disagree with

Wasn't this once a cornerstone "conservative" principle?

[roamer_1]

Wasn't this once a cornerstone "conservative" principle?

No. But when the 'punishment' is simply taking away privileges previously awarded that business, not awarded equally to other businesses, the point is moot.

That privilege was awarded to a family friendly, wholesome company... Which it is no more.

[cato potatoe]

Hutchinson is a loser.   If Walmart started pushing Arkansas to sell castration to its schoolchildren, the state would be within its rights to remove any welfare granted to the company. 

[LMAO]

From the article...
"I don't like what Disney said about the legislation that I would have supported in Florida, but it's not the role of government to punish a business when you disagree with what they're saying or a position that they take," Hutchinson said.

We need to be careful with this. I prefer a Disney boycott from the people vs government intervention. I am always suspicious of government overreach and setting bad precedent that could come back to haunt us

[Right_in_Virginia]

No. But when the 'punishment' is simply taking away privileges previously awarded that business, not awarded equally to other businesses, the point is moot.

That privilege was awarded to a family friendly, wholesome company... Which it is no more.

Where is this "wholesomeness" mentioned and defined in the agreement?  Where in the agreement is the government's right to takeover if the private company strayed from this "wholesomeness"?  (Serious questions)

[Right_in_Virginia]

Hutchinson is a loser.   If Walmart started pushing Arkansas to sell castration to its schoolchildren, the state would be within its rights to remove any welfare granted to the company.

Would it be on the right side of conservative "principles" to give the governor the sole right to appoint a private company's BODs?

[roamer_1]

Where is this "wholesomeness" mentioned and defined in the agreement?  Where in the agreement is the government's right to takeover if the private company strayed from this "wholesomeness"?  (Serious questions)

Doesn't have to be. And the government is not 'taking it over'.

[cato potatoe]

Would it be on the right side of conservative "principles" to give the governor the sole right to appoint a private company's BODs?

No.  The board appointed by DeSantis oversees a government entity.  The prior board was a puppet of the corporation.

[roamer_1]

Would it be on the right side of conservative "principles" to give the governor the sole right to appoint a private company's BODs?

That's not true. Reedy Creek is not Disney.

[GtHawk]

Maybe it's just me but when I look at what's happening with Disney, Florida and DeSantis I see a Florida issue, not a National issue and not a Presidential election issue, unless DeSantis is doing something with Disney on a national level...which he can't. So all this is just about Trump's surrogates and those auditioning for his VP spot attacking DeSantis for doing his job representing the people of Florida...who so far I have not read about them complaining.

[libertybele]

Maybe it's just me but when I look at what's happening with Disney, Florida and DeSantis I see a Florida issue, not a National issue and not a Presidential election issue, unless DeSantis is doing something with Disney on a national level...which he can't. So all this is just about Trump's surrogates and those auditioning for his VP spot attacking DeSantis for doing his job representing the people of Florida...who so far I have not read about them complaining.

Good assessment @GtHawk  - I agree

[Right_in_Virginia]

when I look at what's happening with Disney, Florida and DeSantis I see a Florida issue, not a National issue and not a Presidential election issue

Except DeSantis's entire campaign is: "Florida: The Blueprint for America".  So the governor-wannabe president choosing corporate winners and losers based on his personal political strategy, potentially damning First Amendment protections and contract law in the process sure matter, bigly.

[roamer_1]

Except DeSantis's entire campaign is: "Florida: The Blueprint for America".  So the governor-wannabe president choosing corporate winners and losers based on his personal political strategy, potentially damning First Amendment protections and contract law in the process sure matter, bigly.

What bullcrap! Removing privilege from bad acting companies is not the same as 'deciding corporate winners and losers. In a FAIR system, Disney would not have had the Reedy Creek development AT ALL. What of all the other resorts in FL that never got such deference?

Your angst rings hollow.

[catfish1957]

Wasn't this once a cornerstone "conservative" principle?

Let us know where you live, and we'll make sure a 20 acre hog farm is built nearby.  Bet you might want governmental intervention then.

Stopping the sponsorship of the grooming and degredation of our youth is more of a "conservative principle" than what you cite.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

What bullcrap! Removing privilege from bad acting companies is not the same as 'deciding corporate winners and losers. In a FAIR system, Disney would not have had the Reedy Creek development AT ALL. What of all the other resorts in FL that never got such deference?

Your angst rings hollow.

Pretty clear she has no idea exactly what the whole Reedy Creek situation involves.  But she's taken the position she has anyway because Trump said so.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

No. But when the 'punishment' is simply taking away privileges previously awarded that business, not awarded equally to other businesses, the point is moot.

That privilege was awarded to a family friendly, wholesome company... Which it is no more.

 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Shut your mouth Asa, be glad we're not firing real bullets... for now.

We're at war with the left, total war.

[DefiantMassRINO]

What the Government giveth, the Government can covet.

Government is not a trustworthy partner of business.  Government can unilaterally change the rules at any time.  Any tax break, any tax credit, any tax incentive, and any regulatory relief can be revoked at any time.

Contract Law is not what it used to be, especially in the wake of the 2008 Financial Collapse and the 2020 Covid Pandemic.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Pretty clear she has no idea exactly what the whole Reedy Creek situation involves.

I assure you, I do.  And hiding behind "Reedy Creek" is clever, but it isn't going to work. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

That's not true. Reedy Creek is not Disney.

On March 28, 2022, DeSantis signed into law the “Parental Rights in Education bill” — called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by critics. Disney released a statement via Twitter the next day, arguing that the bill “should never have passed and should never have been signed into law.” The company wrote that its “goal” was “for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts,” adding that it would “remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that.”

DeSantis was enraged. “I think they crossed the line,” he warned during a news conference in Tallahassee the next day. In his book, “The Courage to Be Free: Florida’s Blueprint for America’s Revival,” DeSantis describes Disney’s statement as a “declaration of war.” The governor claims that by “promising to work to repeal the bill,” Disney “was pledging a frontal assault on a duly enacted law of the State of Florida.”

DeSantis is wrong. Disney merely expressed a contrary opinion. And expressing that opinion is protected by the First Amendment. The governor’s campaign of retaliation for exercising that right in turn violates that law.

Disney has the absolute right to express its opposition in any number of ways. For instance, it can financially back other like-minded groups, lobby Florida lawmakers, buy advertisements, produce a show to explain why it thinks the law damages society — or just tweet out a statement.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case supports Disney’s claim. Many argue (and we agree) that the decision unfairly skewed the ability of wealthy donors to influence elections. But the fact remains that under current Supreme Court case law, corporations have First Amendment rights when it comes to political speech. That means the government cannot retaliate against a corporation for exercising its right to free speech concerning proposed or enacted legislation. That’s exactly what DeSantis did.

In his own book, DeSantis essentially admits that he retaliated against Disney in a manner that clearly violates its First Amendment rights. He does not cite any illegal behavior on the company’s part — simply its political views. “Once Disney declared war on Florida families,” DeSantis writes of Disney’s opposition to the law, “it was clear to me that the company’s executives in Burbank had not considered the lack of real leverage that Disney has over the State of Florida.” That “leverage” included the fact that Disney couldn’t easily pick up and move its massive footprint, as well as the special privileges the company enjoys by effectively running its own local government — the Reedy Creek Improvement District.

The district was established in 1967 by an act of the Florida Legislature and grants Disney favorable financial terms, including a special tax status. DeSantis targeted this longstanding arrangement only after Disney publicly expressed its opposition to the “Don’t Say Gay” bill — an obvious violation of Disney’s First Amendment rights.

In fact, DeSantis writes that it “would have been unthinkable” to get the Florida Legislature to “re-evaluate” or “eliminate” the district “just a few weeks before Disney executives made the fateful decision to take sides in the woke culture wars.” DeSantis pays lip service to the “right” that the Walt Disney Co. and “its executives” have “to indulge in woke activism.” But he quickly adds that “Florida did not have to place the company on a pedestal while they do so,” arguing that Disney’s “special arrangement” became fair game.


https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/desantis-disney-first-amendment-rights-unconstitutional-rcna81974

[Kamaji]

Fascinating how Trumpistas now want to give preferential treatment to certain corporations.  One would almost confuse them with the garden-variety liberals/progs who have done so for decades.

[roamer_1]

[...]

So what?

[Right_in_Virginia]

So what?

Violation of First Amendment protections are now "so what"? 

[Hoodat]

Republican presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson responds to DeSantis' row with Disney, says it's 'not the role of government' to punish a business you disagree with

The role of government is to guarantee equal protection under the law.  Which is what Governor DeSantis is doing.  Disney shouldn't be given preferential treatment over its competitors.