• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CEO Freedom of speech

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the Economist, here: Companies and democracy - The Political CEO

Excerpt:

When americans notice business and politics mingling in other countries they often see it as a sign of institutional decay, crony capitalism or authoritarianism. Today the mixing of government and corporations is happening in America. Sometimes that is in pursuit of honourable causes, as in the protest of ceos over new laws restricting voting in Georgia and other states. Sometimes it is visible in the statesman-ceo: the latest manifesto from Jamie Dimon, boss of JPMorgan Chase, pronounces on military procurement and criminal justice among many other weighty concerns. Most broadly of all, it is reflected in how the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group, has extended the corporate remit to include serving all stakeholders, for the success of their firms, communities and country.
What makes them even think they have a right to splatter their opinion across the pages more than you or me.

Let them come down here and enter the debate. Then I'll ask them why they think they have any right whatsoever for their hyperbolic salaries ... !
 
Citizens United, government-corporate revolving door, low wages and benefits, 401k instead of retirement, outrageous pay differential between the top and the rest, lobbying, big money has bought politics (not just at the federal level), destroying the environment, military-industrial-Congressional complex (for many reasons), top-down model for most businesses, busted unions, expensive healthcare.
 
From the Economist, here: Companies and democracy - The Political CEO

Excerpt:


What makes them even think they have a right to splatter their opinion across the pages more than you or me.

Let them come down here and enter the debate. Then I'll ask them why they think they have any right whatsoever for their hyperbolic salaries ... !
They have the exact same right as any other person in the US. There are certainly no shortages of people expressing their opinion in the media.

What makes it unusual is that it is unprofessional. A business, whose sole purpose is to make a profit, cannot afford to embrace half the population while demonizing the other half of the population with an opinion, on any subject. That is not good business.

It does not matter what their opinion may be, there will always be potential customers who are put-off by the opinion. Which is why it is especially stupid for entertainers to take a political position. No matter their opinion they are going to loose a portion of their market. A business that alienates its customers is not going to stay in business very long. It is far more intelligent, and more professional, not to have any opinions as a business.

Do CEOs of business have the right to express an opinion? Absolutely. They are no different from anyone else. That doesn't mean they should, unless they enjoy losing money. If I were a stakeholder in the business, I would seriously question the fiduciary duty of the CEO making the opinion.
 
They have the exact same right as any other person in the US. There are certainly no shortages of people expressing their opinion in the media.

What makes it unusual is that it is unprofessional. A business, whose sole purpose is to make a profit, cannot afford to embrace half the population while demonizing the other half of the population with an opinion, on any subject. That is not good business.

It does not matter what their opinion may be, there will always be potential customers who are put-off by the opinion. Which is why it is especially stupid for entertainers to take a political position. No matter their opinion they are going to loose a portion of their market. A business that alienates its customers is not going to stay in business very long. It is far more intelligent, and more professional, not to have any opinions as a business.

Do CEOs of business have the right to express an opinion? Absolutely. They are no different from anyone else. That doesn't mean they should, unless they enjoy losing money. If I were a stakeholder in the business, I would seriously question the fiduciary duty of the CEO making the opinion.
You will find that many CEO's will disagree with that.
 
You will find that many CEO's will disagree with that.
And they are certainly free to disagree, but as someone who was in business for over 30 years there is absolutely no question that expressing an opinion that involves politics, religion, or sex is very unprofessional and extremely stupid by putting the financial well-being of the company at risk.

If they are a private company, then let the CEO do whatever he wants. He is only hurting himself. But if it is a publicly-held company, then the board would be wise to replace this unprofessional CEO before he harms the company further. The majority of the stockholders may demand the removal. I certainly would.

Business only has one purpose - to make a profit. Not to have opinions on any topic.
 
And they are certainly free to disagree, but as someone who was in business for over 30 years there is absolutely no question that expressing an opinion that involves politics, religion, or sex is very unprofessional and extremely stupid by putting the financial well-being of the company at risk.

If they are a private company, then let the CEO do whatever he wants. He is only hurting himself. But if it is a publicly-held company, then the board would be wise to replace this unprofessional CEO before he harms the company further. The majority of the stockholders may demand the removal. I certainly would.

Business only has one purpose - to make a profit. Not to have opinions on any topic.
You repeated yourself. I said many CEOs will disagree with your opinion that their sole purpose is to make a profit. I notice you made a point of mentioning private companies, as if a CEO's public commentary couldn't affect its bottom line. Coincidentally, Chik-fil-a happens to be privately-owned. Dan Cathy had a lot of things to say about sex. The right-wing loves him.
 
They have the exact same right as any other person in the US. There are certainly no shortages of people expressing their opinion in the media.

What makes it unusual is that it is unprofessional. A business, whose sole purpose is to make a profit, cannot afford to embrace half the population while demonizing the other half of the population with an opinion, on any subject. That is not good business.

It does not matter what their opinion may be, there will always be potential customers who are put-off by the opinion. Which is why it is especially stupid for entertainers to take a political position. No matter their opinion they are going to loose a portion of their market. A business that alienates its customers is not going to stay in business very long. It is far more intelligent, and more professional, not to have any opinions as a business.

Do CEOs of business have the right to express an opinion? Absolutely. They are no different from anyone else. That doesn't mean they should, unless they enjoy losing money. If I were a stakeholder in the business, I would seriously question the fiduciary duty of the CEO making the opinion.
Yet those very same entities pay for political campaigns and see their will carried out over that of their voters consistently.

So do you think they shouldn't put their billions of cents in on the political side too?

Both publically denouncing and financially backing would be "weighing in" on a subject.
 
What makes them even think they have a right to splatter their opinion across the pages more than you or me.
It isn't a matter of rights, it's just the media freely choosing whose opinions to report and promote. That is ultimately based on what they think will get the most readers/viewers and thus the most advertising.

Rightly or not, these are people who have a disproportionate ability to influence political policy, social structures and , indirectly at least, public behaviour. I'd argue that it's a good thing for them to put their (claimed) opinions and motives on record. The only real difference between this and the past is that the wealthy business owners, who have always had power and influence in politics, used to apply it in pretty much complete secrecy.
 
What makes it unusual is that it is unprofessional. A business, whose sole purpose is to make a profit, cannot afford to embrace half the population while demonizing the other half of the population with an opinion, on any subject. That is not good business.
Do you have any examples of a business owner or CEO actively demonizing anything close to half the population (or half their potential customer base, which isn't quite the same thing)? I think a key point with this kind of this is that they presumably think a significant proportion of their potential customers feel strongly about somethings and if they can find an angle that makes more people happy than angry (given that most customers probably don't care enough to change their behaviour, especially long term), it'd be a commercial win, beyond any social or moral aspects.

There is also the fact that lots of people are willing to sacrifice some profit or general advantage to do the "right" thing and some of them will be CEOs and shareholders.
 
You repeated yourself. I said many CEOs will disagree with your opinion that their sole purpose is to make a profit. I notice you made a point of mentioning private companies, as if a CEO's public commentary couldn't affect its bottom line. Coincidentally, Chik-fil-a happens to be privately-owned. Dan Cathy had a lot of things to say about sex. The right-wing loves him.
If you read my comment about private companies you will note that I said they were only hurting themselves. Of course it is going to effect their bottom line. It doesn't matter what opinion they take, they are always going to scare away customers.

I do not know what Chik-Fil-A bottom line is, but I guarantee that it would have been more if the owner had kept his opinions to himself.

The same thing was also true for the Dixie Chicks, who after expressing their opinions got put through the ringer. It got so bad that they had to change the name of their band. Had they just kept their mouth shut and played their music they would not have gone through all that hassle.

Entertainers are especially stupid if they adopt an opinion. CEO's, being better educated, should know better. It is very unprofessional for any CEO to form a public opinion of any kind.
 
If you read my comment about private companies you will note that I said they were only hurting themselves. Of course it is going to effect their bottom line. It doesn't matter what opinion they take, they are always going to scare away customers.

I do not know what Chik-Fil-A bottom line is, but I guarantee that it would have been more if the owner had kept his opinions to himself.

The same thing was also true for the Dixie Chicks, who after expressing their opinions got put through the ringer. It got so bad that they had to change the name of their band. Had they just kept their mouth shut and played their music they would not have gone through all that hassle.

Entertainers are especially stupid if they adopt an opinion. CEO's, being better educated, should know better. It is very unprofessional for any CEO to form a public opinion of any kind.
That's not why they changed their name. They dumped Dixie because of the antebellum connotations. That's why Lady Antebellum is Lady A now as well. Keep spitting in the wind, you're the one getting wet.
 
If you read my comment about private companies you will note that I said they were only hurting themselves. Of course it is going to effect their bottom line. It doesn't matter what opinion they take, they are always going to scare away customers.

I do not know what Chik-Fil-A bottom line is, but I guarantee that it would have been more if the owner had kept his opinions to himself.

The same thing was also true for the Dixie Chicks, who after expressing their opinions got put through the ringer. It got so bad that they had to change the name of their band. Had they just kept their mouth shut and played their music they would not have gone through all that hassle.

Entertainers are especially stupid if they adopt an opinion. CEO's, being better educated, should know better. It is very unprofessional for any CEO to form a public opinion of any kind.
Speaking purely of maximizing profits, I agree in most circumstances. However, exceptions do come to mind. One is when politics is a deliberate part or consequence of the branding. Not every company is going to appeal to every part of the political spectrum equally or even at all, and in some cases there is probably more upside to identifying your company with a particular cause or movement. Another is when the CEO is left with no choice. For example, Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas, or Georgia voting laws, are cases where members of the public pushed very hard to NOT let companies be non-committal. There may be cases where a CEO simply can't choose to silently opt out of voicing an opinion or taking a position without alienating even more potential customers.
 
Yet those very same entities pay for political campaigns and see their will carried out over that of their voters consistently.

So do you think they shouldn't put their billions of cents in on the political side too?

Both publically denouncing and financially backing would be "weighing in" on a subject.
Contributing to a candidate or a political party can also be financially risky for the business, should anyone find out. The only PAC that I supported as a business was the National Association for the Self-Employed, primarily to partake in the services and discounts they offered. They would lobby for small business and look out for small business interests. Not particularly controversial, but still a risk if anyone ever cared enough to find out.

I, and many like me, will not shop at stores or do business with anyone who contributes to a political ideology with which I disagree. So if they were smart they would not express their political ideology. By keeping their political opinions to themselves they are maximizing their profit.

If someone wants to pay for a political campaign, more power to them. That is what politics is all about. The person with the biggest megaphone wins. Since money can be used as a form of political speech, it is protected under the First Amendment.

Are you jealous of people who have more money? That is a very leftist trait.
 
Speaking purely of maximizing profits, I agree in most circumstances. However, exceptions do come to mind. One is when politics is a deliberate part or consequence of the branding. Not every company is going to appeal to every part of the political spectrum equally or even at all, and in some cases there is probably more upside to identifying your company with a particular cause or movement. Another is when the CEO is left with no choice. For example, Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas, or Georgia voting laws, are cases where members of the public pushed very hard to NOT let companies be non-committal. There may be cases where a CEO simply can't choose to silently opt out of voicing an opinion or taking a position without alienating even more potential customers.
There may indeed be niche markets, where someone can profit by pushing a particular ideology. They pop into existence all the time, but they also never last. Check out the manufacturer who made all the MAGA hats and see how he is doing financially now that Trump is gone.

The CEO always has a choice, and that choice should always be to have absolutely no opinion about anything, because that is always the best choice for the business.

If the matter is that political charged, then the CEO would be especially stupid to have an opinion. Like I said before, if it were a publicly-held company and the CEO makes a political statement - it does not matter what it is - then the CEO would have violated his fiduciary duty and the board should replace them immediately before more financial harm is caused to the business.

There were certainly occasions when a client of mine would express an opinion. Regardless of what that opinion was I always acknowledged it without ever agreeing or disagreeing. After all, my goal was to take their money and put it in my bank account. Not to risk loosing a client by expressing my own opinion.

My other business philosophy was never say "no" to a client. Only tell them how much more it will cost them.

Both of those business practices, that I rigorously adhered to, made me a tidy profit over a 30 year period.
 
If you read my comment about private companies you will note that I said they were only hurting themselves. Of course it is going to effect their bottom line. It doesn't matter what opinion they take, they are always going to scare away customers.

I do not know what Chik-Fil-A bottom line is, but I guarantee that it would have been more if the owner had kept his opinions to himself.

The same thing was also true for the Dixie Chicks, who after expressing their opinions got put through the ringer. It got so bad that they had to change the name of their band. Had they just kept their mouth shut and played their music they would not have gone through all that hassle.

Entertainers are especially stupid if they adopt an opinion. CEO's, being better educated, should know better. It is very unprofessional for any CEO to form a public opinion of any kind.
Public figures have been giving their opinions since time immemorial. Some will be hurt by it, some won't.
 
Business and profits leaders and politics have always been together since day one of this nation. Look at Morris’ impact on the economy during and after the Revolution.

Over time, business leaders HAVE expressed opinion in politics as well as entertainers and athletes in the sports of the times. Actors and writers were known for their politics; it was their bread and butter. Athletes have always been breaking barriers; look at the first baseball teams in the US.

CEO’s have always had input into politics. It helped to determine the directions of their business and for those who wanted active roles in politics would go as far as to buy and start a newspaper to voice their politics with.

people who disagree with also tend to disagree with the politics the CEO or celebrity has. That is when you hear things like they should be quiet...but the ones who have politics they agree with, then those peoples are “heroes telling it like it is” or “bucking the PC system”.

Isee anyone who wants the CEO’s to shut up are just mad because they are acting against what they want; which currently is anti-restrictive voting legislation. If it was the other way around, there would be no commentary.

It’s kind of like when they are all for boycotting...until the boycotting is against THEIR agenda, then suddenly boycotting is somehow “un-American”.
 
Public figures have been giving their opinions since time immemorial. Some will be hurt by it, some won't.

What else should they do with it.

Problem is, most often, nobody is listening. Talk is cheap in politics - there's so much of it ...
 
sure they are. If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
No they are not.

Too blanket a statement. Examples...Jaime Dimond, the pillow guy and Papa John's.

Public figures are elected by the public. CEOs are private individuals, none of them are elected to hold a public office.
 
No they are not.



Public figures are elected by the public. CEOs are private individuals, none of them are elected to hold a public office.
So now you want to quibble about your made-up definition of "public figure?" Meh.
 
Business and profits leaders and politics have always been together since day one of this nation. Look at Morris’ impact on the economy during and after the Revolution.

Over time, business leaders HAVE expressed opinion in politics as well as entertainers and athletes in the sports of the times. Actors and writers were known for their politics; it was their bread and butter. Athletes have always been breaking barriers; look at the first baseball teams in the US.

CEO’s have always had input into politics. It helped to determine the directions of their business and for those who wanted active roles in politics would go as far as to buy and start a newspaper to voice their politics with.

people who disagree with also tend to disagree with the politics the CEO or celebrity has. That is when you hear things like they should be quiet...but the ones who have politics they agree with, then those peoples are “heroes telling it like it is” or “bucking the PC system”.

Isee anyone who wants the CEO’s to shut up are just mad because they are acting against what they want; which currently is anti-restrictive voting legislation. If it was the other way around, there would be no commentary.

It’s kind of like when they are all for boycotting...until the boycotting is against THEIR agenda, then suddenly boycotting is somehow “un-American”.
Well-said.
 
So now you want to quibble about your made-up definition of "public figure?" Meh.
I'm not the one who does not understand the meaning of "public." There are only two kinds of people, public and private. Those who have been elected, and those who have not. CEOs are generally speaking one of the "have nots," unless you are someone like Trump who is both a CEO and elected to a public office.

If you expect to be understood, you have to understand the meaning of the words you use. Calling CEOs "public figures" when they clearly are not demonstrates that you do not know the difference between a private individual and a public individual.
 
THE CEO SYNDROME

CEO’s have always had input into politics. It helped to determine the directions of their business and for those who wanted active roles in politics would go as far as to buy and start a newspaper to voice their politics with.

The position of "CEO" giveS no one an automatic right or privilege to access a member of Congress for particular attention to their concerns. They are no more nor any less in status than any other citizen of the nation who may want to interface with their elected members of Congress.

No member of Congress should be paying attention to CEO's just because they are CEO's. They are simply American citizens and we all have a right to interface with our representatives to Congress.

So, get off the CEO-syndrome! Real economic-justice is still in the making in America that long, long ago went off on a "get-rich-quick" bent ... !

PS: And please have a look at the historical inscription quoted below. It was applicable in the 19th and 20th centuries and is still applicable today!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom