DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like

[jon-nyc]

The rise of the Banana Republican.

Courts will likely block this as well as the Disney thing.

[Jolly]

Does Florida have line item veto?

[jon-nyc]

No idea but it wouldn’t change the constitutionality of it.

[Jolly]

Why not?

[jon-nyc]

It’s still punishing a company for the content of their speech.

[Catseye3]

@jon-nyc Thank you. I'd decided I didn't know enough to speak up, but my initial reaction was that it looked like DeSantis was using the power of the purse to punish a group for expressing an opinion he didn't like.

[LuFins Dad]

Yeah, it’s a step too far, but after seeing the companies that boycotted Georgia over a voter rights bill that was actually pretty tame and less restrictive than many other states, after seeing the corporate blowback against North Carolina for saying guys shouldn’t be peeing in the ladies restroom, and more… Yeah, I think it’s time for a little pushback against the corporate activism…

[jon-nyc]

First amendment doesn’t compel private parties not to punish speech. But I agree with you it is foul. I have long bemoaned the loss of political DMZ.

[Axtremus]

@LuFins-Dad said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

... I think it’s time for a little pushback against the corporate activism…

No, what you term "corporate activism" here is First Amendment protected speech. Individuals and private entities can "push back" if they want, but the state cannot. It is unconstitutional for the state to punish a private entity for the content of its speech.

[Horace]

Even if our liberal friends on TNCR are unable to distinguish arresting people for exercising free speech, from denying a corporation discretionary public funds, I suspect the courts will be able to.

[jon-nyc]

The punishment is the key fact. Doesn’t matter if the person was not by rights entitled to the thing that was taken away (eg promotion, contract). And yes there’s precedent.

Not to say it's a slam dunk - today's court is quite different from previous ones. Although I would imagine they fancy themselves strong on first amendment protections as well as suspicious of government overreach, they may turn out to be simple partisans behind all the prose and pageantry.

[jon-nyc]

I’m just curious, are there any conservatives here that are against this ? And the Disney thing?

For the purposes of my question, answers like “I would normally be against it, but the libs have gone too far, so…” don’t count as being against it.

[Mik]

Has DeSantis supported public monies for pro sports in the past? It seems to me the media is drawing a connection that may or may not be true.

[jon-nyc]

You really say that with a straight face?

Or do you really mean something like “can anyone actually prove that this was retaliatory?”

[Mik]

Sure. There's nothing to back up the assertion outside coincidence. If you have something more than your assumption, let's hear it.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

The punishment is the key fact. Doesn’t matter if the person was not by rights entitled to the thing that was taken away (eg promotion, contract). And yes there’s precedent.

Not to say it's a slam dunk - today's court is quite different from previous ones. Although I would imagine they fancy themselves strong on first amendment protections as well as suspicious of government overreach, they may turn out to be simple partisans behind all the prose and pageantry.

So it's clearly unconstitutional, open and shut because precedent, but the supreme court might disagree because they're not as objective as you. Check.

Please do feel free to list this precedent you think exists.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

I’m just curious, are there any conservatives here that are against this ? And the Disney thing?

I am against the analogies you conjure in your attempts to convince people that this is a bad thing, but the quality of those analogies is suspect. I'm not against, in principle, an elected politician exerting the will of the people who voted for him, in allocating discretionary public funds. I might not like the decisions sometimes, but such is life. If I dig into it deep enough, the first thing I look sideways at is discretionary public funds being funneled to private corporations. But before this stuff with Disney and the Rays, if you'd asked me, "Horace, do you suppose political alignment, or misalignment, has something to do with whether a private corporation would be given public funds?", I'd have said "Yes, I suppose it would." I would not have said that with a shocked face.

[Catseye3]

@Mik said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

It seems to me the media is drawing a connection that may or may not be true.

Yeah, I had the impression that this article might well have been written by a journalist biased against Disantis. Not something I'd want to form an opinion by.

I emphasize might. I really don't know. But Florida, my god, is nothing if not made separate by its conformation and its issues.

[Jolly]

If Florida has a line item veto like Louisiana does, the governor will often single things out he does not like for whatever reason - political or fiscal.

Down here, the veto can be overridden by a 2/3's vote of the Senate.

[Copper]

@jon-nyc said in DeSantis blocks funds because sports team tweeted something he doesn’t like:

No idea but it wouldn’t change the constitutionality of it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does "Congress" include the Governor of Florida?