Yes, the state can absolutely do that if it wants (it already does to a large degree - remember the blowup a couple of years ago about the state giving notice to Unilever that it was going to divest itself of Unilever stock because the Ben & Jerry’s subsidiary was engaged in a boycott of Israel and Florida has an anti-BDS statute for state contracts and investments?). The reason is because that’s not conducting foreign affairs, it’s the State determining how to conduct its own business affairs.
it is using financial leverage to influence companies that work abroad. and it is very selective in its application. you can say that isn't foreign policy if you want to and we can agree to disagree
I don’t particularly care what you call it, I was just noting that it’s something the state 100% has the authority to do in response to the claim that this is a waste of time because it’s impossible for the state to do anything in this field.
I agree they can do it, but how is it different from ESG which the right decries? And how it different than what CA does in putting additional regulations on business, which again, many conservatives seem to have a big problem with?
A state can effectively be more restrictive (not less) than federal foreign policy. It might grandstanding. I really don’t care. I hope if there are things that states can do (and I’m not saying there are) to increase the pain on Iran, then I hope more states follow suit. And I hope Congress gets tired of being led by the nose and cranks up the pain to 11. There should be zero remaining illusions for the left or the right about who Iran is.
On the California one, there’s a difference in directly regulating businesses and regulating the state’s own business. For example, saying “only electrical vehicles may be sold in this state” is different (and implicates a different set of legal issues) than does saying “the state government will only purchase electrical vehicles.” On ESG, it depends what context you’re looking at. Philosophically, the argument is that state government has a broader mandate because it’s elected. But in practice this kind of state purchasing/investment policy also happens to be the exact vehicle most right leaning states have used to push back on ESG.
Wonder if there might be exemptions for friendly companies that, oh I don’t know, are deemed essential, and expre$$ their gratitude to Gov. Ron’s campaign or am I too cynical?
I guess it depends on what Meatball Ron’s sanction are exactly. Are they government purchase regulations, or are they exclusions from doing private business in the state in some form? I honest to god have no idea what sort of business this would encompass. As to your second paragraph sorry I don’t know if you are agreeing or not. To me it is the same thing, creating commerce restrictions based upon a set of morals or values that have little or nothing to do with the product/service being sold. I think that should be perfectly legal but I’m skeptical of its motives and effectiveness in most cases.
My guess is the proposals will almost certainly be amendments to these two statutes, which govern what companies state funds can be invested in and what companies are eligible to bid on state procurements (obviously there are a bunch of other statutes implicating both of those topics, but those are the primary two that affect eligibility on the basis of foreign business operations): Statutes & Constitution: Section 215.473 Statutes & Constitution: Section 287.135 Currently the companies that get put on the scrutinized companies lists are those doing business with the Iranian petroleum energy sector. The special session proclamation put out today lists as topics identifying additional sectors of the Iranian economy as disqualifying and making it harder to be removed from the scrutinized companies lists.
DeSantis is quick to divest our pension funds from all kinds of causes he finds repugnant. Just not from those he feels an affinity for. He can't quit Russia. Just can't rush it
To be fair, Hamas was only able to launch this attack because previous Florida admins allowed them. This is positive. I am hopeful that Florida will soon ban the export of Infinity Stones before half of you are gone (I’ll make the cut.)
For those wondering whether DeSantis Derangement Syndrome exists, this thread ought to be your proof positive. We started with questioning whether the state government has the ability to do anything about companies doing business with Iran. When pointed to the fact that yes, it very clearly does, we’ve moved on to just name calling and being angry over things that effectively no one opposes.
My point is that, irrespective of your opinions about anything else he does, I’m relatively sure no one here is in favor of the state contracting with companies who do business in Iran, or opposed to increased funding for policing and hate crime enforcement around synagogues. Believe it or not you don’t have to criticize every single thing a politician does, regardless of what it is, just because you don’t like them.
I would submit that you have no idea what you're saying, what it really means, how the world economy actually works.
Instead of a negative, read and learn. Read and learn about the relationships and who actually trades with Iran, and what happened when the big brains in the Trump administration, which are just like DeSantis people, basically stupid, used secondary sanctions against Iran and what Europeans did for a workaround. Mind you, the State of Florida doesn't have the power of the Treasury; I doubt you even know how those things actually work, but the point remains if you want to somehow punish those who do business with Iran and don't even know what you're really talking about.
