Well, you are right. Reedy Creek Was “carved out,” eg singled out for their speech. Which is why this is a clear First Amendment violation. This wasn’t a neutral application of change to Florida special district law. Once you recognize that entities such as corporations have First Amendment right, which Citizens United did, you can’t punish them for exercising those rights. And Citizens United recognizes the rights of corporations to political speech. Even unpopular speech.
Some big, and small, investors are trying to use their wealth to invest in companies that will, in their opinion, benefit the planet as much as the investors. Profitability doesn't seem to be the driving factor. I guess the loss in returns can be viewed as a form of philanthropy that stretches the dollars much further if invested in private enterprise trying to do the right thing.
I would view ESG policy more as foresight and long-term planning rather than philanthropy. In other words, if the ESG concept doesn’t take hold in this country and elsewhere, we are all going down the shitter, including these companies.
Reading the statement posted by the OP, it didn't say they couldn't invest in companies that make money on ESG. The statement said that SBA had to only consider financial fact. "Require SBA fund managers to only consider maximizing the return on investment on behalf of Florida’s retirees."
If you think Central Florida would celebrate the revenue and job losses that losing Disney would bring, you're even more delusional than I thought.
Yeah, this all just sounds so horrible. Prohibit big banks, credit card companies and money transmitters from discriminating against customers for their religious, political, or social beliefs. Prohibit State Board of Administration (SBA) fund managers from considering ESG factors when investing the state’s money. Require SBA fund managers to only consider maximizing the return on investment on behalf of Florida’s retirees.
That effectively eliminates ESG funds as most primary goal is not seeking max returns regardless of management practices. If maximizing returns is the only consideration independent of how the funds are managed the state will be investing in some ruthless funds that prey on people. Perhaps the state could open a chain of payday lending sites to maximize returns or invest in foreign sweatshops that use child labor or buy more rubles or distressed assets of companies that left Russia
In the free state of Florida, you are 100% free to say any nice thing you want about the governor and his policies. What’s so hard to understand?
so it is optional if you want to invest in the funds but they are forcing you to think their way. explain that logic to me please..on second thought, don't bother as it will likely make as much sense as you and ET do elsewhere.
You'll like this: Ron DeSantis: 'Florida Has Put WOKE Banking on Notice' (breitbart.com) Of course, our woke liberal friends see no problem with PayPal discriminating like this. Dang, they did this up in Canada too when funds were stolen from protesting truckers. It's okay for banks and corporations to discriminate against anything and anyone they darn well want to and we the people just have to grin and bear the screw job. Heads up, this crapola is going to be stopped in Florida and likeminded states are going to join us.
Is part of this new law to prevent companies like PayPal from withholding funds from people based on the company's personal beliefs? I can't believe what happened to those truckers in Canada... That can never even happen again.
how do you feel about Texas refusing to allow banks to operate there if the banks don't support gun rights? was that worth the $500M and counting that taxpayers are now paying in increased interest rates on bonds since so many underwriters pulled out of Texas? that's $500M less to build and operate the infrastructure that the taxpayers need going directly to banks willing to kiss the ring in Texas. Is that the way gubmnt should operate?
So you think government should dictate to banks who they do business with? Sounds like you aren't a big fan of free markets and prefer centrally planned economies with big government enforcing your preferred mandates.
In this example, is this the way woke BS is supposed to work? Get rid of ESG. It is absolutely not anything we need in the US. Let Europe and Canada continue to screw up if that is the will of their people. There are signs that it isn't with the farmer strikes. Texas isn't Florida's responsibility. Maybe a poster who lives in Texas will speak up and provide the links to justify your comments as you didn't do so.
Yes, and Ron DeSantis is in the picture at the press conference in support of the law and DeSantis will sign it.
so ET leaves a come on man but doesn't answer the question..I'll try again, yes or no. Do you support the Texas law that has given banks willing to subjugate themselves to it an additional $500M in bond interest that could have been spent building water systems, paying teachers, cops, fixing roads, etc
That's great news... these freaking woke/communist companies think they can make their own rules up with other people's money. Every governor should sign similar legislation into law .
You have it backwards, I'm not a fan of banks and quasi banks forcing their views on others. I'm also not a fan of outsiders impeding the historical process of our banks and corporations with their woke ESG scoring. Nip this BS in the bud just like CRT and sex/gender in the schools. All of this is doing nothing more than to further the already deep divide in the nation. Red States will not tolerate it. Ole Joe executive orders can't force people and states to do this either. You can't win this one in congress or in the courts.
