Month: April 2022

The Phony Feud Between Republicans and Big Business

When Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis struck back at Disney for declining to support his culture war demagoguery, some observers were quick to see this as evidence of a supposed rift between the Republican Party and big business.

The Washington Post ran a front-page story declaring that “growing numbers of state and federal Republican leaders today seem eager to clash with the country’s biggest corporations.” The article portrayed the Disney dispute and a few other examples, such as criticism of Delta Air Lines for opposing restrictive voting law changes in Georgia, as “cracks in the once-sturdy relationship between companies and a business-friendly GOP.”

A similar article in the New York Times was headlined “Rebuke of Disney is Sign of a Shift by Republicans Away from Big Business.”

Reading these pieces gave me a strong feeling of déjà vu. I was reminded of the commentaries that were published about Donald Trump during his first presidential race and after his election in 2016. Much was made of his supposed attacks on big banks, military contractors and pharmaceutical companies. This continued when Trump went after Amazon.com for its supposed sweetheart deal with the postal service.

It eventually became clear that all of purported conflict amounted to nothing of substance. Trump never followed through on any actions that would negatively impact large corporations. In fact, he pursued a thoroughly pro-business agenda of lavish corporate tax cuts and a relentless attack on regulation. The latter made life easier for payday lenders, brazen polluters and employers engaged in wage theft. While some major corporations expressed misgivings about Trump’s style or his rhetoric on other issues, they were thrilled to watch him fulfill their most ardent policy desires.

Trump’s evil genius was his ability to give his working-class supporters the impression he was promoting their interests while actually catering to the corporate elite.

I have no doubt that DeSantis and other Republicans now attacking big business are engaged in the same kind of political theater. The only difference is that, while Trump pretended to be an economic populist, today’s rising GOP stars find it more advantageous to spar with corporations over social issues. It is true that DeSantis got Disney’s special taxing district rescinded, but he will probably get it reinstated once he no longer needs the company as a political foil.

The GOP spats with corporations are made easier by the fact that much of big business these days is engaged in its own posturing. Under the rubric of corporate social responsibility or ESG, many large companies are speaking out on social and environmental issues, often depicting themselves as the vanguard of change. They may do this on their own initiative, or, as in the case of Disney, are pressured by employees.

Trump-style Republicans and politically correct corporations are both engaged in a kind of kabuki dance. DeSantis et al. are pretending to be moral crusaders when they simply pursuing their political ambitions. Large companies are pretending to be moral crusaders of another sort when they are simply burnishing their commercial image.

Reporters looking for serious corporate critics are not going to find them anywhere in the Republican Party—nor among most Democrats. The mark of a serious challenger to big business is someone willing to support efforts to curb corporate power. That means strengthening worker organizing rights, consumer protection laws, environmental oversight, antitrust laws and the like—not concocting phony disputes with companies to advance a misguided culture war agenda.

The Dubious Rehabilitation of the Arms Industry

War always creates business opportunities, and the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine is no different. Some of those opportunities are direct: producers of military hardware stand to benefit from increased orders from the Pentagon to replenish stockpiles of weapons being shipped to help the Kyiv government survive. Some are indirect: petroleum companies are profiting from the rise in world oil prices brought on by the war.

We are now seeing another kind of boon: corporations previously regarded as pariahs are now being viewed by some in a new light. Chief among these are the weapons producers. In addition to the new orders, these corporations are enjoying the fact that some investment advisors and analysts who previously shunned their shares are now arguing for their rehabilitation.

After the war began, two analysts at Citigroup led the way with the claim that “defending the values of liberal democracies and creating a deterrent” meant that weapons makers should be included in funds with the ESG—environmental, social and governance—label. Sweden’s Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken is allowing some of its funds to buy shares of military companies, reversing a position it adopted just a year ago.

Many ESG advocates are pushing back on this effort, but the fact that it is happening is an indication of the inconsistency in the motivations for ethical investing. Some ESG investors simply want to dissociate themselves from companies they find objectionable. Others hope that companies denied ESG approval will feel pressured to change their practices. A third category believe that firms such as fossil fuel producers are susceptible to legal risks that will undermine the value of their shares. And yet others may hope that disinvesting in odious companies will ultimately put them out of business.

These different categories are further complicated by the distinction between companies that are shunned because of their own practices and those which are part of an industry that is problematic.

One thing made clear by the war in Ukraine is that big military contractors are not headed for oblivion, as some hoped after the end of the Cold War. That applies not only to producers of conventional weapons that are now in great demand. Russia’s claims that it just tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile could spark a new nuclear arms race.

All this is not to say that we should be pinning a halo on the likes of Northrop Grumman and Raytheon Technologies. Even if some of their products are currently needed for the legitimate cause of helping Ukraine, much of what that do is still inherently objectionable. A long-term, large-scale build-up of weapons spending is not what we need.

Moreover, the major military contractors have long rap sheets involving repeated violations of the False Claims Act in their dealings with the Pentagon as well as bribery, export control transgressions and other offenses. None of them are model corporate citizens.

The sad truth is that the decisions of ethical investors will make little difference in the future of the military contractors. With or without an ESG seal of approval, they are riding high and will continue to prosper as international conflicts intensify. We can only hope that the world calms down, and we can go back to treating weapons producers with the same disdain we direct toward coal and tobacco companies.

Getting Tough with Corporate Privacy Violators

Privacy violations, which used to be a relatively minor compliance issue for large corporations, have now become a much more serious concern. And a recent Federal Trade Commission case could be a sign of more aggressive enforcement practices to come.

Back in the early 2000s, privacy cases consisted mainly of actions brought by state regulators against fly-by-night operations that ran afoul of Do Not Call rules by placing large numbers of unwanted marketing robocalls. The data in Violation Tracker indicate that aggregate federal and state privacy penalties across the country were only a couple of million dollars per year.

Over the past decade, total agency privacy penalties have grown substantially, exceeding $50 million each year since 2016. The blockbuster cases fall into two major categories. The first involves corporations that were fined for allowing major breaches of their customers’ data to occur. For example, in 2018 Uber Technologies had to pay $148 million to settle a case brought by state attorneys general for a breach of data on 57 million customers and drivers—and for attempting to cover up the problem rather than reporting it to authorities.

The other category consists of cases in which corporations were directly responsible for the privacy violation. In 2019, for instance, Google and its sister company YouTube agreed to pay $136 million to the FTC and $34 million to New York State to settle allegations that the companies violated rules regarding the online collection of personal data on children.

This category also includes the largest privacy penalty of all—the $5 billion paid by Facebook to the FTC in 2019 for violating an earlier order by continuing to deceive users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information.

Also in this category is a recent case handled by the FTC and the Department of Justice against WW International (formerly Weight Watchers International Inc.). The agencies are collecting $1.5 million in civil penalties from the company for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act in connection with their weight management service for children, Kurbo by WW. The government had alleged that WW collected personal data such as names and phone numbers as well as sensitive information such as weight from users as young as eight years old without parental consent.

In addition to the monetary penalty, the FTC took the unusual (but not unprecedented) step of requiring WW to delete their ill-gotten data and destroy any algorithms derived from it. As a blog post from the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton points out, this kind of punishment can have a major impact, given that a single tainted dataset may require the destruction of multiple algorithms.

Requiring corporate miscreants to destroy intellectual property is in line with the ideas recently proposed by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Rohit Chopra for using measures beyond monetary penalties in regulatory enforcement. Chopra called for forcing misbehaving companies to close or divest portions of their operations—and, in the most egregious cases, to lose their charters.

The moves by the FTC and the CFPB are signs that regulators are recognizing that aggressive new enforcement tools are needed to shake up large corporations that have grown too comfortable paying their way out of legal jeopardy.