More about the leftward tilt in corporate power

When Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal surrendered to corporate pressure recently and vetoed religious freedom legislation, Georgia state Sen. William Ligon complained, “Corporations should focus on creating jobs and serving their customers, instead of threatening states with economic retribution.”

True, but here’s the problem: For lots of big corporations, the government is their major customer. Sometimes, for big defense or big social welfare contractors, that is literally true. Other times it is politically true: Particular regulations can make or break a company.

Starting in 1978 I wrote speeches for the CEO, president, and senior vice presidents of DuPont. That job temporarily satisfied two desires: to defend capitalism (restitution for my Communist involvement in the early 1970s) and to support my family with a good salary. But I resigned and moved to the University of Texas in 1983 for two other reasons: to stop defending crony capitalism and to write in my own name.

DuPont, like other giant corporations, was learning in those years to hug Washington. CEO Irving Shapiro became President Jimmy Carter’s best corporate buddy. Our government relations staff succeeded in having new regulations hurt Dow or Monsanto more than they hurt DuPont. Our corporate contributions program tilted mildly left, with the largest think tank contribution going to the Brookings Institution. It took all my best efforts to get a smaller donation to The Heritage Foundation.

But those were minor irritations compared to what we see today. Thirty years ago I wrote my first book, a history of how corporate public relations had become more and more government-centric in the 20th century. I didn’t have enough imagination to foresee the current scene, where giant companies bully governors so as to please Washington and some present and future employees.

Back then corporations tended to stay in their lanes: Military contractors tried to appease pacifists, companies selling largely to women tried to placate feminists, chemical companies offered a hug to environmentalists, and all of them pushed for lower corporate taxes. Now, though, the manly NFL tells states to forget about hosting a Super Bowl unless confused men can use women’s restrooms.

The degree of doublethink is also far greater than I anticipated. PayPal does business with totalitarian regimes that murder homosexuals but kills expansion plans in North Carolina. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo pushes travel to Communist Cuba but bans state employee visits to North Carolina.

Last month Monsanto lobbyist Duane Simpson told Missouri legislators that religious liberty legislation in the Show-Me state “will impair our ability to compete for world class talent.” Dow Chemical Company president Jim Fitterling showed his bias: “When employees don’t have to hide who they are they are more productive, more innovative.”

Sure, and all of us are equal, but some are less equal than others, as George Orwell’s pigs proclaimed in Animal Farm. President Fitterling, what about employees who are devout Christians, Jews, or Muslims and oppose the LGBTQ agenda? Do they have to hide who they are and what they believe, or are they by definition less productive and innovative than others?