There is a long list of reasons why Florida might not want to continue give Disney the treatment it’s received for the past 55 years. DisneyWorld is not just a complex of theme parks, but a municipality unto itself. And Florida was good with this for a long time, both because of the revenue, tax and tourist, Disney brought into the state and the money it spread around to state politicians re-election campaigns, regardless of party affiliation.
It was a very symbiotic relationship until Disney took the side against the governor’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill.
“If Disney wants to pick a fight, they chose the wrong guy,” Mr. DeSantis, a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2024, wrote in a fund-raising email to supporters on Wednesday. “I will not allow a woke corporation based in California to run our state,” he continued. “Disney has gotten away with special deals from the state of Florida for way too long.”
The issue is not whether you agree with what Disney had to say. It’s not whether you think Disney deserves the special treatment it received from the State of Florida. The issue is not whether corporations should keep their nose out of controversial issues and focus instead on doing their business. The issue is whether a state, Florida, can explicitly punish an entity for expressing a view it does not like.
That era ended on Thursday, when the Florida House voted to revoke Disney World’s designation as a special tax district — a privilege that Disney has held for 55 years, effectively allowing the company to self-govern its 25,000-acre theme park complex. The Florida Senate voted on Wednesday to eliminate the special zone, which is called the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Having cleared the way to this outcome with a formal proclamation, Gov. Ron DeSantis will almost certainly make the measure official by adding his signature. It would take effect in June next year.
Did Disney enjoy exceptional status in Florida, status that most other business in the state couldn’t claim? You bet it did, although to be fair, Disney also brought a lot of money to the state, and put Orlando on the map. But that wasn’t enough for DeSantis.
Mr. DeSantis added: “Disney thought they ruled Florida. They even tried to attack me to advance their woke agenda.”
This is hardly the first time government has sought to use its clout to punish to punish a business (See Delta in Georgia or Citigroup in Texas, or the NRA in New York) for its policies or views, but to enact a law to revoke Disney’s special status was, perhaps, the most direct, obvious and explicit retaliation imaginable.
Two days later, with pressure building for Disney to condemn the legislation, [Disney CEO Bob] Chapek did so. He also announced that he had called Mr. DeSantis “to express our disappointment and concern that if the legislation becomes law, it could be used to unfairly target gay lesbian, nonbinary and transgender kids and families.”
“The governor heard our concerns and agreed to meet with me and L.G.B.T.Q.+ members of our senior team in Florida to discuss the ways to address them,” Mr. Chapek said.
Disney was hardly the only corporation to take issue with this ridiculously vague and overbroad law, but because of Disney’s extremely high profile and connection to Florida, its entry into the mix was significant.
More than 150 companies, including Marriott and American Airlines, had already signed a Human Rights Campaign letter opposing the legislation. Disney, however, had avoided taking a public stand, with its chief executive, Bob Chapek, explaining to employees in an email on March 7 that he did not want the company to become “a political football.”
It wasn’t that Disney didn’t appreciate its position in relation to the Florida government, but that its employees pressured the company, no doubt because of its high Florida profile and its importance to the Florida economy, to take a stand against the law. After all, Disney was the 800 lb. gorilla in Florida, and if any entity could put pressure on DeSantis to change his evil ways, it was Disney.
When Disney came out against the law, it was not merely embarrassing for DeSantis and his political aspirations, but a challenge to his power. He was the governor. He wants to be president. He couldn’t appear weak by shrugging off Disney’s position. He had to puff out his chest and show Disney who’s the boss of Florida.
For those who hated Citizens United, holding that corporations enjoyed a First Amendment right to express their views, it’s going to come in handy now should Disney challenge Florida’s retaliation against it for condemning the law. But the politics of the relationship makes this game of chicken complicated. There will be significant costs and revenue losses all over the place, foreseen and unforeseen, as a consequence of this law.
The revocation of the Reedy Creek Improvement District will do some serious damage to Disney. It will do even more serious damage to Orlando and Florida and a lot of people whose fortunes depend on the two of them getting along. Much as some in Floriduh may agree with DeSantis’ law for lack of understanding why it’s a terrible law, will they care enough to watch their income disappear, their revenue drop, their business or job go poof?
As the law doesn’t go into effect until June of next year, there’s still plenty of time for Disney and DeSantis to kiss and make up once the fever has subsided and restore their respective situations to their mutual advantage. Or not. All over a law which stands almost no chance of surviving a constitutional challenge.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The issue is whether a state, Florida, can explicitly punish an entity for expressing a view it does not like.” Do you see revoking a privilege the same as punishment? No rule was broken, no rights taken away. In some ways, this situation may be comparable [I’m asking, not concluding] to the Bob Jones University case over the revocation of its tax exempt status (a privilege) due to its racist policies (against public policy, no statute). That case is different in that the issue was free exercise vs public policy, but similar in that both lost/will lose a valuable privilege initially bestowed by government. I’m interested in your take on loss-of-privilege v punishment. (Just a reminder … this is “Be Kind To Non-Lawyers Day”.)
Of course it’s punishment. Save the sophistry for reddit.
I mean, damn, DeSantis explicitly said it was intended as punishment. This is no different than all the anti Chic-fil-a crowd using political power to punish for wrongthink. Surely that’s what we elected them to do, right?
Look, Disney is awful. I was sitting with my grandson last week reading while he watched Disney Jr and damned if they ran a two minute cartoon commercial decrying microaggressions. Disney Jr. My grandson just turned four. So outside any consideration of what the Florida law actually says – and given the state of our media there’s no way for us to reliably know that without reading the damn thing ourselves – I personally am much less likely to spend money on Disney stuff because they’re indoctrinating children in woke bullshit.
But I’m a private citizen. The government of Florida isn’t. This is stupid culture war garbage on both sides (all these stupid laws wouldn’t be happening absent the left’s insistence on indoctrination of children in gender and race starting in kindergarten) . They can’t even leave the bleeping kids out of it.
And that doesn’t even get into the constitutionality of this, which seems dubious.
DeSantis joins my loooooooong list of “people I’ll never vote for ever”. He’s embarrassing himself.
It’s actually Earth Day.
So I was kind to him for no reason? Crap.
“[R]evoking a privilege [vs] punishment”? This is an astonishingly bad take, lawyer or not.
Every one should be deeply concerned whenever any public official (particularly a governor whose state lege is at his beck and call) publicly announces, and then follows through with, plans to harness the power of the state to punitively harass and punish political opponents, including those who, whether genuinely or for business purposes, do not share a love of authoritarian wet dreams. (Chris Christie’s love for lane and beach closures, anyone?) That this occurred in Florida is peak Florida Man.
I say this without getting into whether the GOP is genuine when it says its “platform is centered on stimulating economic growth for all Americans, protecting constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and maintaining our national security.” It is hard to reconcile that mission statement, on its face, with DeSantos’s pattern and practice of mental midgetry.
“He wants to be president.”
When reprisals target a defender of the other team’s toxic, regressive ideology: “Damn right it’s punishment.” Bad faith overreach and power plays are virtues when done by the righteous side against the forces of evil.
I don’t know which team you’re complaining on behalf of, but the OP mentioned targets of the same nature punished by the left, and in my post I basically said Disney = Chic-fil-a.
Politicians who abuse their power to punish thinking that they disagree with should be chased out of office on a rail. Unfortunately the zealots don’t care when their team does it because it’s punishment for truly evil people or something. The zealots and the politicians that pander to them are slowly strangling the American system.
I knew this would come in handy.
Every time you use one of these I do a little victory lap inside.
Mr. Greenfield, you write that this furor is “[a]ll over a law which stands almost no chance of surviving a constitutional challenge.” I may not be a Free Speech expert, but as I understand it Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education Act” dictates what teachers employed by political subdivisions of the State of Florida may teach, say, and do when teaching State dictated curricula in Public Schools created, funded, regulated, and ultimately governed by the State of Florida. If the law attempted to regulate what teachers in privately owned and governed schools could teach, say, and do certainly the law would be unconstitutional. But isn’t government dictating what government employees teach, say, and do different?
There’s a bit more to the law than that, leading to liability for saying something any random parent decides is age inappropriate.
Mr. Greenfield, I am aware of the administrative and trial court remedies afforded by the Parental Rights in Education Act against a public school district (not teachers) when parents believe a public school or school district is not acting in accordance with the requirements of the Parental Rights in Education Act. I am also reasonably certain that analogous “Private Attorney General” Acts have been deemed constitutional. I know you are busy, and not obliged to answer, but I am still curious about the “why” of your statement that this is “a law which stands almost no chance of surviving a constitutional challenge.”
In the post, I state that it’s vague and overbroad. Was that unclear?
There is nothing hard to understand about why this law is unconstitutional unless you really don’t want to understand.
This is meaningless gibberish unless you desperately need to believe otherwise.
Its only unconstitutional if you don’t understand words. It is not vague or overbroad. It will survive, and survive well.
And DeStantis did the right thing. If a corporation has a special exemption, and makes money because of that, then they should not be lobbying for anything outside their lane. They decided to do so, and hence rightfully are losing their exemption. And this will be fine for the counties and people of Florida. Its probably better actually.
Strong argument.
Well, I guess that teaches me.
Republicans are in favor of revoking corporate control over an entire municipality resulting in huge tax consequences for the residents and Democrats are against it. The Culture Wars(TM) have put us in the upside down.
The issue “is not whether you think Disney deserves the special treatment it received from the State of Florida.”
Any chance there could be more than one issue?
No. Post hoc rationalization is a game everybody loves to play, but it’s still bullshit.
Not for the thinking. Not only did the Leg and Swamp Dope expressly say what the purpose is, but they’re deconstructing something that mostly benefits the governments and folks in the counties occupied by Mickey Mouse’s House. By the numbers:
1. Reedy Creek is an independent taxing district. It taxes only Disney, which is the District.
2. The District uses the $50M in taxes to do typical muni stuff, like build and maintain roads; run water, sewer and electrons; provide law enforcement and EMS; and generally keep the District running like a muni.
3. The two counties where Mickey Mouse’s House sits get a shitboatload of property and school tax from the District and provide not a single service. In return, Disney doesn’t have to pull permits from two counties if it wants to build something like a giant fiberglass castle. The Swamp gets about $1B in sales taxes every year.
4. With the change, the counties must provide all the normal muni services and take on the District’s debt–a cool billion. I ain’t gonna figure the cost of providing just fire, EMS and LEOs to what amounts to a city of 150-200,000 drunks and children.
Nope, there’s just one issue, and it’s stated. It’s highlighted by the dipshittery of the Swamp government killing a deal that it’s had the best of for 50 years, just for spite.
The issue is not whether you agree with what Disney had to say.
Awww, but I want to wax poetically on this issue!
It’s not whether you think Disney deserves the special treatment it received from the State of Florida.
Awww… but!
The issue is not whether corporations should keep their nose out of controversial issues and focus instead on doing their business.
Awww… come on!!!!!
The issue is whether a state, Florida, can explicitly punish an entity for expressing a view it does not like.
Meh. Boring.
This is where confusion reigns for the average Joe, because some media outlets are saying or implying that the bill to end Florida special tax district(s) applies only to Disney and others are saying that the bill applies to all districts created before a specific date. No one mentions how many districts are affected if the latter is true. That leaves the AJ with the choice of pulling up the bill on the Florida Legislature website and trying to interpret what attorneys for the leg wrote on our own and without a legal education, then moving on, Lord knows where, to research how many STDs (yes, I like the sound of that) are affected. Plus, that question is only partially related to the larger one of this post.
Why do we even have public media? In this instance, and so many more, they are useless.
Rant over.
It affects five other districts. Having reviewed their titles and knowing Swamp geography, the others are either miniatures, like a law library in tiny Bradford County, or no longer operating in a meaningful sense.
Thank you. That makes it so much clearer.