Ron DeSantis Bullies Bud Light Like Elizabeth Warren Bullies Amazon
DeSantis talks a lot about freedom but increasingly only applies it to those who agree with him.

This week, amid a flailing campaign for the Republican nomination for president, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis threatened to legally punish a beer company over its constitutionally protected speech. It's the sort of activity—micromanaging a private company using the coercive power of the state—we've long expected from big-government Democrats. And yet despite being completely contrary to traditional conservative principles, it's increasingly in fashion among Republicans as well.
In April, brewing company Anheuser-Busch InBev sent some personalized cans of Bud Light to TikTok influencer Dylan Mulvaney as part of a promotional campaign. Conservatives protested because Mulvaney is a transgender woman. Boycotts ensued, unseating Bud Light as America's most popular beer. In June, Bud Light sales were down 28 percent compared to the previous year, and the New York Post reported that AB InBev had lost $27 billion in value through the end of May.
In a letter to the State Board of Administration of Florida, which manages the state's retirement pension fund, DeSantis requested a formal "review" into AB InBev's "conduct." As DeSantis told Fox News' Jesse Watters, "We had over $50 million worth of InBev stock" in the state pension fund, and the dip in value impacted "hard-working people [like] police officers, firefighters, and teachers."
"We believe that when you take your eye off the ball like that, you're not following your fiduciary duty to do the best you can for your shareholders," DeSantis continued, "so we're going to be launching an inquiry about Bud Light and InBev" that could result in legal action. "At the end of the day," DeSantis cautioned, "there's got to be penalties for when you put business aside to focus on your social agenda at the expense of hard-working people."
Of course, AB InBev has worked with social media influencers for years. Its current financial woes singularly stem from a boycott over the fact that one of those influencers was transgender. DeSantis even contributed to the pile-on himself, telling conservative commentator Benny Johnson in April, "Pushback is in order. I'll never drink Bud again."
More to the point, it's particularly galling for DeSantis to threaten legal action against a private company for speech protected under the First Amendment. It's the sort of activity—micromanaging a private company using the coercive power of the state—we've long expected from Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.). In 2021, Warren called on the federal government to use its antitrust powers to break up Amazon for having the audacity to think that it could criticize her on Twitter. The following year, Warren said the feds should break up large grocery store chains, famous for their low profit margins, for "raking in record profits."
And yet despite being completely inimical to traditional conservative principles, Republicans are joining in on this trend as well.
Earlier this month, seven Republican attorneys general issued a warning to Target Corporation. The letter complained about the retailer's sale of "Pride" merchandise. Similar to Bud Light, conservatives boycotted Target for the sale and display of Pride-themed items online and in stores. Citing the company's 16 percent drop in stock price and $12 billion market loss, the A.G.s accused the company of violating its "fiduciary duties to its shareholders to prudently manage the company and act loyally in the company's best interests."
As First Amendment attorney and legal counsel at TechFreedom Ari Cohn wrote on his Substack, in language that could directly apply to DeSantis as well, the A.G.s are "using the coercive authority of the state to silence views they disagree with. Whether the states are shareholders is irrelevant…. State governments cannot simply purchase stock in a company and declare that they now have the right to threaten the company over their protected expression."
Unfortunately, for all DeSantis' talk about the importance of freedom, he's just as willing as any of his ideological opponents to weaponize state power to punish people who disagree with him. As Reason's Eric Boehm wrote in April, DeSantis is "not merely redefining freedom to mean something other than the absence of restrictions. It's an affirmative argument for those restrictions, wrapped in a promise that the right kinds of people…will continue to enjoy freedom even while it is denied to others."
As DeSantis competes to be the standard-bearer of the Republican Party—whose 2016 presidential platform declared, "We believe political freedom and economic freedom are indivisible"—it's worth keeping in mind that in his ideal world, each would be reserved only for those he favors.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yes, because if the Dems can do it with total impunity and nobody else does so, we get a socialist hellhole. Bothsidesism is a call for unilateral surrender.
Bombing Germany is, generally speaking, bad. WWII didn't give us much of a choice given the alternative.
Hon, you don't get it - this is a *Libertarian* site. Reason is calling Bothsidesism because that's exactly what it is, and calling out the two legacy parties is entirely appropriate. BOTH sides are equally bad.
Corporate fascism isn’t libertarian.
I get paid between $145 and $395 an hour online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining it I easily made $23,000 with no online skills. Just try it on the companion page..
.
.
BONNE CHANCE————————>>> https://Www.Coins71.Com
Look. Criticism of the right equals praise for the left. Even criticism of both sides is praise for the left because any and all criticism of the right is praise for the left. You should know this by now.
Don’t you ever get tired of being you?
Yes he dies. Hence his severe alcoholism. If I were Sarc I would probably be drunk all the time to escape being Sarc too.
No you leftist cunt, they only complain about anything like this once conservatives respond and not when the left begins their initial assaults.
That’s because when the left does it, it’s not news.
If this were a libertarian site he would be calling either for no state pension funds and for that money to go directly to the people working for the government to invest with as they wish, or for the state to be forced to index their fund with the total stock market or gold futures. He does neither.
Open wider, clingers.
Your betters are not done shoving progress down your bigoted, superstition-addled, parasitic, half-educated, right-wing throats. Not nearly.
When your children are slaves, will they think fondly of you?
Children? An incel like Kirkland? I think you're giving the Reverend too much credit, and 49.7% of the population too little.
Yeah, I’m sure he’s never had kids, or ever found a woman who would fuck him. Not willingly, amd he’s probably too weak to force himself on anyone.
My children have advanced degrees.
How about yours?
About these children.
Do you believe they’re . . . real?
Do they make much in tips? I'm joking, of course--because you don't have kids.
Be nicer, or I might instruct my children not to hire you and your children to wash the cars, mow the lawn, or deliver pizza.
And then how would your family score the handfuls of street pills needed to get through another deplorable day in America’s uneducated, bigoted, superstitious backwaters?
Nice to read an attempt beyond your usual stale badinage, Reverend. Not bad. Not bad at all. But you still don't have kids.
If true, you must be a huge embarrassment to them with your exceptionally juvenile behavior. Or do they subscribe to the same concept of behaving worse than my enemy means I'm winning?
Is that why you went crying to Volokh when I gave you a little of your repressive tolerance right back, you slack-jawed, slope-foreheaded hicklib?
Eugene Volokh censors me, not the bigoted slack-jaws who agree with him and dislike my comments.
Other than that, though, great comment!
Eugene Volokh censors me, not the bigoted slack-jaws who agree with him and dislike my comments.
LOL, sure, that's why he leaped to your defense.
Looking forward to shoving your repressive tolerance down your old-ass throat until you choke to death on it.
Poor Artie, always censored. Strange then that my only moderated posts happened to be responses to Artie. Fuck you lefty shit Artie. I'd feel awful if you have kids. /shudder
Oh Arty….. so unable to se the writing on the wall. Your faggot leftist culture warriors are failing horribly. You and your kind are starting to lose, and badly.
The soul of Leftists on display.
Those who yearn to be a toe in the boot stamping on human faces forever.
Unilateral surrender is moral imbecility.
Despite the theater, the hearing raised thorny questions about free speech in a democratic society: Is misinformation protected by the First Amendment? When is it appropriate for the federal government to seek to tamp down the spread of falsehoods? https://t.co/sLPuIJih42
— Sheryl Gay Stolberg (@SherylNYT)
I wonder what the founders would have said to that cunt.
When is it appropriate for the federal government to seek to tamp down the spread of falsehoods?
Never.
I fail to see any equivalence here.
DeSantis is saying that the ESG and social justice efforts of certain companies are hurting their stock price and hence make them bad investments for retirement funds. That is objectively true; progressive institutional investors have been placing ESG objectives ahead of financial results, and that needs to stop.
Warren is threatening Amazon because she ideologically opposes big corporations and in particular Amazon; there is no rational or objective basis for her demands other than her ideology. Nevertheless, she is still certainly within her rights to ask for FTC and anti trust review of any company for any reason.
DeSantis is trying to keep the left from stealing our retirement funds for their own political ends.
^THIS^ ...aaaannnnnd (wait for it ) \/below\/
Then DeSantis can divest his portfolio from those companies. I fail to see why this is something that needs government action.
It’s not his personal investments he’s talking about, it’s the states pension funds.
Obviously the libertarian response is “the state shouldn’t HAVE pension funds for civil servants”.
Sadly, the words “should not” didn’t appear in this article, only in the comments.
And because the taxpayers will be on the hook for any pension shortfall from the investments monitoring the fund managers for intentional bad performance is absolutely within scope for him.
^this^
It needs government action because the government is managing peoples' retirement portfolios and is responsible for the performance of those portfolios.
And when government portfolio managers put political objectives ahead of return on investment, that is wrong.
InBev took the view that in the long term appealing to TG consumers gains more than they lose in bigoted consumers. They're entitled to make that commercial judgment and shareholders are entitled to criticise them for it. If shareholders don't like it, they can sell stock, or sue for breach of fiduciary duty - which is a very high bar - or vote out the board and elect a new one. What government shareholders cannot - or should not - do is use governmental power to change management decisions., I note that union pension trustees try to do the same (having seen this from experience) but they're at least nominally private not government entities.
InBev took the view that in the long term appealing to TG consumers gains more than they lose in bigoted consumers.
That hasn't worked for InBev or Hollywood lately, so I'm not sure what your point is here. Seems chasing niche demographics that don't actually consoooooooooooome your product anyway, while alienating core customers into outright brand rejection, isn't the best long-term business strategy.
“InBev took the view that in the long term appealing to TG consumers gains more than they lose in bigoted consumers.”
No they didn’t. They decided that lining up with Fink was more important than maintaining their customer base.
The fact that they did this should concern you, but you’re aligned with the fascists so you think this will go well for you.
No they didn’t.
As you don't have access to their decision process you don't know. Meanwhile, having some knowledge of how companies operate - and being a regular reader of Matt Levine's columns, my assertion is very likely true.
The fact that they did this should concern you, but you’re aligned with the fascists so you think this will go well for you.
Companies can do what they like if they think it's long-term profitable and doesn't violate the law, even if DeSantis and you, fascists both, don't like it.
Yes, everyone who doesn’t fall in lockstep with whatever freakshow bullshit the democrats are pushing is a ‘bigot’. I’m sure you will push that shit when the democrats ramp up their efforts to outright promote pedophile rights….. I mean ‘minor attracted person’s’ rights.
I have this person muted, but judging by the quote I can tell you that is absolutely false.
What they did do was try to appeal to another demographic with niche advertising that escaped the niche it was intended to appeal to, which in turn ended up in front of their general consumers who found it absolutely disgusting.
Then, to make matters worse, they fumbled the PR response not just once but multiple times and ended up alienating both their primary consumers and the niche market they were trying to appeal to.
So it's literally a lose/lose situation for them now, and the dumb girl that instigated the whole thing properly lost her job over it and will probably end up in some NGO or non-profit since she's no doubt been black balled from ever working in a for-profit institution ever again.
Right-wing, faux libertarian bigots are among my favorite culture war roadkill. These conservative assholes can’t be replaced, by their betters, fast enough as American continues to improve.
Slack-jawed, slope-foreheaded hicklibs who parrot the same boilerplate lines are among my favorite future choke artists. These progressive knuckle-draggers can't be oppressed hard enough to match the violence they deserve.
This is your response to a well thought-out and calm explanation of the situation? I'm guessing you were bullied a lot as a kid.
That's exactly what these state governments want to do: sue for breach of fiduciary duty. They can do this since their retirement funds own shares in these companies.
They will probably lose, though.
They will probably lose, though.
Yup. It's a very high bar to overcome.
Government shareholders aren't trying to change management decisions, they are changing government investment decisions: "your management does X, which harms your future returns, and we are going to sell your stock".
The whole thing is an exercise in falsely framing the issues. At no point was an attempt made to accurately relate the actions, circumstances, or motivations of any parties involved. I'm not sure how I feel about Desantis going after AB as a proxy for ESG, but it would be responsible to say that ESG being financially damaging is the core issue. Lancaster can also fuck off with the assertion that people took issue with this only because Mulvaney is trans (a point in very real contention.) It's because Mulvaney is a disgusting and offensive person seeking fame pushing offensive ideas to kids and now marketing beer to them.
I cannot imagine a more worthwhile reason to question a company than their stock price collapse due to their actions directly harming a state's retirement fund. That is what the state is supposed to do: Get the best return for their money possible.
The money is not InBev's. It is the investors.
You do realize the stock price drop is due to a manufactured right-wing hissy fit?
Where are these righteous AGs when every other company makes a bad business decision? How many of these right-wing AGs wrote stern letters to the My Pillow guy when his screwed-on-too-tight tinfoil hat caused HIS company's stock price to drop?
My Pillow is not publicly traded Drag Queen Tony.
You're a fool. People don't want this tranny stuff shoved down their throat.
Who forced you to watch the commercials? No one? Well then, nothing was shoved down your throat. At least not advertising-wise.
Sarc defends every Democrat and source of alcohol it seems.
The commercials are there to attract customers. They did the opposite. And Bud Light could have simply APOLOGIZED for it and moved on. But they, instead, kept shitting on their former fans. Leaving BL is easy enough --- it's a crap beer anyway. It's for people who don't really want to drink beer but they do want to drink a lot of it.
Hold on. Were there even any commercials? Wasn’t it just social media posts?
This might be the most oblivious post you have ever made.
So, dropping the attitude, what is the answer? I can’t find any reference to any Dylan Mulvaney TV commercial.
I bet you don’t actually know.
I'm going to try to help you suck less. Answer the following question: why do people make money doing social media posts (excluding onlyfans).
Is that your way of saying the social media posts Dylan Mulvaney did for Bud Light were the “commercials”?
That is not how the word, “commercial”, is typically used.
If we are just talking about social media posts, then Adan smith’s comment about it being “shoved down our throats” doesn’t make sense. People would have to seek out the social media posts to be offended.
And Anastasia’s comment about “change the channel” wouldn’t make sense either.
Was there some TV commercial I haven’t heard about — yes or no?
Mike the Sea Lion demonstrates being pedantic.
I'll give you a hint: It's not about Dylan Mulvaney. Start there, and maybe you'll find your answer.
So, we are talking about some other Bud Light TV commercial, not one with Dylan Mulvaney in it?
No Mike, it’s about that executives response to the backlash. That’s what gave the “boycott” legs.
This has been explained to you many times.
You’ll have to continue to explain it to the obtuse sea lion.
How cute. Mike thinks only TV has commercials.
Hint: Commercials have been in more places than TV for a long, long, long time.
OK, radio.
You don’t even get why I am making a relevant point in a conversation where Adan smith claimed that the Dylan Mulvaney “commercials” were “shoved down your throat”. If all there were were Mulvaney’s Instagram posts then those who took offense at the “commercials” went out of their way to be offended.
(Well, you do get why the point is relevant, but you won’t acknowledge it because your goal is never honest discussion.)
Cute. Mike here thinks that ads on the internet do not exist...
Social influencer posts are typically not called “commercials” or “ads”.
But that isn’t even the point, which you are intentionally pretending not to get. The point is there was no content that was in people’s face, such as a broadcast advertisement, and there was no “channel” to change. Anyone who feigned offense had to go out of their way to be offended.
They put him on the cans for a promotion. Turns out a lot of bud light customers didn’t like the idea of buying beer with a tranny in the can for the sake of celebrating trannies. For 2024, maybe you democrats can put Joe and Hunter Biden on Bud Light cans to celebrate pedophillic incest.
You know you want to.
*You're* a fool. If you don't like it, change the channel.
And stop speaking for "People". You're ignorant.
There wasn’t even a channel to change. All there were were posts on Instagram which one would have to actively seek out in order to be offended.
And you're an evil, ignorant marxist cunt. People are leaving over this, that is exactly what you're whining about. That you are too stupid to understand that is your fault and nobody else's.
Disaffected, blustering right-wing bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties.
These worthless faux libertarian assholes can't be replaced -- by their betters -- fast enough.
So carry on, clingers . . . so far as your betters permit. Until replacement.
Better check those ramparts you cower behind, Reverend; they may not be as secure as you pretend.
I will piss on the grave of your bigoted, superstitious, slack-jawed Republican political aspirations. In America, the liberal-libertarian mainstream shapes our national progress and stomps right-wing bigots into cultural irrelevance. Have fun huddling for warmth in the can’t-keep-up rural and southern backwaters until we paint our vestigial clingers into a corner and then erase that corner.
Now you're just projecting. From an actual man to a beta pretending to be one, trust me when I write that your dull cosmopolitan façade needs another coat of turd polish.
Needs moar homo erotica!
Just keep ranting like that while all your democrat bullshit falls apart around you.
You do realize the stock price drop is due to a manufactured right-wing hissy fit?
A market reaction is an effect, not a cause. What you describe above is the effect. The cause, which you conveniently omit, is in fact responsible for the stock price drop. Interestingly, though your attribution in the first example is in error, it is actually correct in the second. Probably something to do with your inability to recognize your own ideological bigotry. Or maybe you're just dishonest.
"You do realize the stock price drop is due to a manufactured right-wing hissy fit?"
Define "manufactured". The Right was angry at Bud Light and abandoned them. Bud Light then doubled down and became the "Gay" beer, which no dude really has a desire to drink.
Sales are cratering EVERYWHERE. Even in the bluest cities.
Also, irrelevant what part of their former consumer base quit them. Their actions, alone, caused it. And their actions harmed the owners of the company. They could always pursue a total stock buyback if they want to not have to answer to investors.
"Where are these righteous AGs when every other company makes a bad business decision? How many of these right-wing AGs wrote stern letters to the My Pillow guy when his screwed-on-too-tight tinfoil hat caused HIS company’s stock price to drop?"
What state fund invested in them? It's not like DeSantis' has issues for no reason. They are actively HARMING FL retirement fund.
Right, sure.
There is plenty of precedent for:
- A state’s governor badmouthing a company’s product publicly then accusing them of fiduciary mismanagement
- Holding an inquiry instead of divesting the state funds of the stock or showing up at its stockholder meetings.
The Meridian Moron can't help but defend his lefty boos.
Mike’s shilling can be called the Charge of the Bud Light Brigade
"Right, sure.
There is plenty of precedent for:
– A state’s governor badmouthing a company’s product publicly then accusing them of fiduciary mismanagement
– Holding an inquiry instead of divesting the state funds of the stock or showing up at its stockholder meetings."
Did he ever badmouth them before this significant drop in their stock price? Feel free to cite an occasion when he did.
And, I know, asking others for input is the REAL action of fascists. Honorable democratic leaders always make unilateral decisions.
He encouraged people to boycott Bud Light, thus contributing to its alleged poor performance. Which means he personally took action that harmed the performance of the Florida pension funds:
https://nypost.com/2023/04/18/desantis-says-anheuser-busch-is-too-woke-has-lost-him-as-a-customer-why-would-you-want-to-drink-bud-light/
I say “alleged” because, as another link I provided below states, the stock actually is up from its 52-week low.
(Oh, look, someone asked me for a cite and I provided one.)
Disney Corp. has incurred billions in losses due to woke movie failures and bizarre actions like putting a maximize looking shemake as a fairy princess at their Disney world theme park. Turns out parents didn’t think much of Cinderefella.
But sure it’s ‘manufactured by right wingers’.
Stupid bitch.
You do realize the stock price drop is due to a manufactured right-wing hissy fit?
InBev isn't entitled to public funds, bitch.
So if instead of putting a man pretending to be a woman on a beer can they did that but put him in black face too, I guess DeSantis, who has an interest in protecting retirement funds, should keep his mouth shut? Normally I'd say he still doesn't have a case but the company itself is on record several times, saying this beer can fiasco was 100% about politics and they are not going to do that anymore.
If a publicly traded company performs acts contrary to it's fiduciary duties, for reasons other than making a profit, isn't that something even free enterprisers should want stopped? Especially if they didn't announce this decision before going through with it? Prosecution may not be the answer, but they should definitely be liable in civil court (or at least sued).
To be fair, then, this would be the duty of shareholders to stop.
To be doubly fair, this appears to be what DeSantis is doing: he is not punishing AB Inbev from his position as a state agent, he is asking whether the state AS A SHAREHOLDER ought to pursue civil action against AB Inbev for their breach of fiduciary duties.
Shareholders have every right to sue. Funny how democrats love government power until it’s used in a way that runs counter to their narrative.
Let me see if I can translate here. libertarians: regulations aren't needed because if a company does actions that hurts it's stock owners they can sue.
De Santis: as the head of the Florida government, a large stockholder in Inbev, there recent decisions have cost stock owners major losses, including my states pensions plans, therefore I propose we investigate them to see if their conduct was contrary to their fiduciary duties and if so, sue them.
Libertarians: that is so tyrannical, doing exactly what I said you should do, but now it's bad because of Kultwer wars. Ehmkay.
It is double the duty of the state. The state grants the incorporation which protects the managers personally from civil liability.
He isn't trying to break up InBev or anything. He's moving pension funds from a bad investment. Any legal actions would be coming from the point of the state of Florida being an investor that has been injured by the company's negligence, not from regulatory powers. They just happen to be a rather large investor.
It's quite different from Warren, who keeps trying to set up her own personal fiefdom in the form of an unelected, unaccountable regulatory authority.
I've long held that many of these ESG advocates in both corporate governance and at large investment firms should be held accountable for breaching their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders and clients. Under existing laws, or by general boycott, though, no need for new laws.
Yes - if you can show a breach. If a company says, "we've done research and on that basis, in the long term our DEI program or minority reach-out (or whatever) will enhance our stock performance [greater revenue, or more investors buy it, or fewer costly lawsuits, etc]" then they meet their fiduciary requirements and if the research is in good faith, it's basically impossible to win a lawsuit against them. The best advice to a shareholder who doesn't agree with the policy or the research is, "sell, Mortimer, sell!"
If a company says, “we’ve done research and on that basis, in the long term our DEI program or minority reach-out (or whatever) will enhance our stock performance [greater revenue, or more investors buy it, or fewer costly lawsuits, etc]” then they meet their fiduciary requirements and if the research is in good faith, it’s basically impossible to win a lawsuit against them.
LOL, he didn't bring a lawsuit against them, you moron, he's simply pulling state investment funds from a company whose main brand is completely radioactive, and has lost market share to the point that it's probably permanent.
I'm addressing this point
I’ve long held that many of these ESG advocates in both corporate governance and at large investment firms should be held accountable for breaching their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders and clients.
Hence my use of the term "breach".
What a stupid cunt you are.
Apologize to Red Rocks. You’re just a leftist piece of shit that has nor right to exist. You only do because of a misplaced sense of tolerance from actual humans.
Tolerance has a limit.
There's nothing "breaching" about removing taxpayer investment funds from a company that's tanking, unless you think InBev deserves those funds in perpetuity.
What a stupid cunt you are.
Well the good faith research is nut of the problem. Can Inbev show an example of a large company that benefited from marketing to a small and largely unpopular fringe movement? I can't say I've researched the subject in depth but it appears that a majority of consumers would prefer that companies not pick sides. In the case of Target for instance I'm pretty sure that tranny and rainbow apparel is readily available online and at small niche businesses. Was Target desperate to get a piece of that business that might appeal to a tiny fraction of their customer base while alienating a much larger group? Or did they decide to make an ideological statement? Or did their good faith research fail them? In any case they have cost their shareholders billions for no good reason.
I demand that the opposition to the crazy progressive left follow the rules of the progressive left, and not even try to defend themselves, until we've already crossed the line and it's far too late.
Then, when they finally DO react, we will be able to call them 'reactionaries' and deflect from all of the terrible crimes we've committed.
Fuck that. Sorry, we will not submit. Your side is evil.
"ESG advocates in both corporate governance and at large investment firms should be held accountable for breaching their fiduciary responsibilities"
And to be clear: both the Biden and Obama administration have (had) spent years countering exactly this. Regulatory boards in the government have been slowly pushing regulations that EXEMPT ESG activity from fiduciary duties. A fiduciary cannot spend his client's money to fund anti-abortion commercials, because that would be a breach of duties. But any political cause that is pushed under an ESG is suddenly allowed- for example, "Diversity and Inclusion" can mean funding commercials that advocate for women's reproductive health (i.e. pro-abortion commercials).
The problem with ESGs is that when you peel back the "diversity and inclusion" or "climate action" or "equity" benchmarks, the solutions underlying them are all the sorts of leftist claptrap that socialists have been pushing for decades. ESGs are a way to allow political hacks to use other peoples' money to fund their pet, leftist political projects.
Keep in mind that BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has decided he's embarrassed by the whole ESG flap so they're no longer going to use that term. Note that he hasn't disavowed the principles of ESG, just the use of the term. From the BlackRock ads I've been seeing lately, they're going to start calling it "America". Possibly "Motherhood, Apple Pie, and Puppies". How the hell Fink hasn't had the shit sued out of him for violating his fiduciary duty is beyond me, it's not his fucking money he's playing with.
Keep in mind that BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has decided he’s embarrassed by the whole ESG flap so they’re no longer going to use that term. Note that he hasn’t disavowed the principles of ESG, just the use of the term.
This is pertinent to the discussion in the Rufo article from this morning. Their current branding isn't working out, so they're looking to re-brand it with something different so they can say, "Oh, this isn't ESG, it's completely different, just look at these helpful public release materials that go over this!" That's why it's important to freeze the branding so they can't keep playing this game of rhetorical whack-a-mole.
I don't see the problem here. They are free to speak (or put whatever they want on their product) and we (shareholders) are free to sue.
Did you mean free to sell?
You can’t just sue a public corporation for being bad at running their business.
You can’t just sue a public corporation for being bad at running their business.
Shareholders absolutely can. What you can't do is sue the managers personally because of the corporate veil, which protection is granted by the state. So the state has an interest in making sure what the managers do is not in violation of the corporate charter. If it is, they are guilty of fraud.
What? Have you never heard of a fiduciary breach claim? Duty of care? Duty of loyalty? Duty of prudence?
I’m gonna bet you cannot find any precedent of a breach claim over a failed ad campaign. Such cases are over much more flagrant and serious misdeeds.
That you are throwing the terminology around as if it applies in this scenario tells me you are being a poser.
Up until now it would be a black swan for a publicly held company to intentionally lose 25% of its sales by insisting on destructive messaging that alienated much of its core consumer base. There have been cases where ad campaigns are a disaster and the company itself takes action (for instance Balenciaga suing the producers of a child teddy bear BDSM ad campaign). The company has a responsibility to its shareholders and failed that. Those shareholders include public sector pensioners. Bud Light execs failed those people but the pension fund executive is taking up their cause.
Goddamn, you’re a stupid ignorant bitch. Which is why you’re a democrat drone.
You can’t just sue a public corporation for being bad at running their business.
Where above in your argument is a failed ad campaign specified? I contradicted your original claim that a public corporation can’t be sued for being bad at running their business, referring to three legal conditions that are actionable within the framework of a fiduciary breach claim. So you moved the goalposts.
As for my being a poser, I think you’re just pissed inasmuch as I called you out on your erroneous assumption, and rather than reasonably accepting the possibility of insight you failed to consider, decided to resort to ad hominem.
Numerous posters here have characterized you as both dishonest and dumb; I’d like to think better of you, but you’re making it difficult.
I think you are right. I apologize.
Thank you.
Another exercise in "whataboutism." I don't know where to start! First of all, states should not be owners of corporate stock. Corporations should not be chartered or regulated by states or nations. Corporations should produce the best products and services they can at the most profitable price possible. If they fail, stockholders should pay the price. States and other government entities should not be employers and should not produce goods and services. Persons who work for governments in the very few necessary activities that only government can perform as authorized by the constitution and within the limits of the constitution should not be provided with anything beyond reasonable salaries; should not be allowed to collectively bargain with government; and should buy their own health insurance and retirement system on a free and open market in health care and retirement funds as they choose - or opt out of working for government! Pointing out that both Desantis and Warren are cynical opportunistic politicians doesn't achieve any of those goals.
You used the word "should" nine times in that paragraph. Care to comment on the real world instead of what you think the world "should" be?
Reality isn't really his thing
But it should be.
😉
Oh, quit should-ing all over yourself. 🙂
On a serious note, though, maybe Libertarians need to set up their own corporations with pro-Libertarian, pro-Free Market corporate mission statements, as well as Libertarian Socially-Conscious Funds consisting of stock shares from like-minded firms.
The practices of these firms and funds could be to deal strictly in privately-produced goods and services for other private individuals and companies, with no slave labor used at any point of production, and all hiring, pay, benefits, and promotions based strictly on merit and ability, not immutable traits. with no Government contracts or Crony-ist sweetheart deals.
It would be a head-scratcher to find existing firms that fit all of those qualifications in today's "Mixed Economy," but it would be well worth a try to create such firms and funds with stock from such firms. If it could be made profitable, it would be a super example of Libertarian "Counter-Economics."
What makes you think that libertarians haven't set up corporations? And how would libertarian-owned corporations escape stifling and punitive regulations that hamper free trade and promote crony capitalism and corruption? And how would they evade corporate taxation and licensing? So, actually, it wouldn't in any way be an example of "counter-economics," super or otherwise. But you've made it quite clear that you prefer the "mixed economy" so maybe you were just being sarcastic? 🙂
I'm well aware that none of what should happen will happen. America is so far away from the founding principles of free enterprise, limited government, citizen responsibility and tolerance that there is little hope that our politicians will say or do anything meaningful to correct that. Therefor I refuse to buy into the "whataboutism" comparing Desantis to Warren, both of whom are excellent examples of what's wrong with American government these days. In the real world there's nothing that liberty-loving citizens can do except keep our powder dry and hope that the D's and R's totally destroy each other while there's something left in America for us to start over again with.
When it's all over, if I can find some real home-brewed beers in Bartertown, I'll see if I can get you some for your great thoughts.
Ever since hearing of and embracing Libertarianism as a teen, it has always been a gnawing thought: How do we get there from where we are?
Hunkering down and waiting while also speaking up I have long suspected is part of the solution.
Person 1- That's wrong!
Person 2- How do you know? What should it be?
Person 1- I don't know... should isn't the real world. But somehow I just KNOW that is wrong.
Person wrong is exhibiting some real Frierian liberation thinking in this example.
Should by definition isn't the real world as is. But without an ability to discern the "should" We have no reason to think what is 'is' wrong. And even if we do, we have nothing to offer for improvement other than just "not this" which is much less useful or helpful than the "should."
Seems like opening a can of worms and you could say this about almost any ad. What about an ad that involves a religious message that turns off consumers and hurts the company? Also this was one can, the damage came from right wing political activists. It was a dumb thing to do, but these activists made a mountain out of a molehill.
Right!?! I'm offended every time Hobby Lobby takes out a huge ad in the newspaper full of religious mumbo-jumbo. Just sell your stupid glitter, fake flowers and picture frames and leave your imaginary "Jeeesus" out of it!
You're outta luck again, Drag Queen Tony, Hobby Lobby is not a publicly traded company. You'll just have to purchase your glitter somewhere else.
How are they this stupid?
Feel free to sell the stock you don't own in them.
I get that you're not very smart, but do you have to continuously broadcast it?
It’s not Tony’s fault, he’s literally had his brains fucked out of him.
By who? His right hand?
God, you both are idiots. It wasn't the can but the ad executives excuse for why she made the can that pissed off most folks. If it had been just the can, it would have blown over. But her explanation that she released was right kept it going. But you all ignore the real reason people were pissed so you can feel smug and superior.
Came here to say basically this. The initial video with Mulvaney claiming to not know about March Madness was cringe, but most people just rolled their eyes and moved on.
It wasn’t until the marketing exec was being asked how “stunning and brave she felt to hire a
delusional psychopathtransgender” as a spokesperson that people started getting upset.And it was all because that exec essentially said that Bud Light hated their customers and wanted new ones. Their (former) customers obliged.
Also have to point out that the rainbows are boycotting Inbev because they didn't defend this Mulvany dude. They've pissed off pretty much everybody for no good reason.
If you can show a massive loss with clear connection to the ad campaign, go to town
Funny how no one, when actually breaking down what happened, has said this all resulted *merely* from an ad campaign. They continue to point out other non-ad related conduct such as:
InBev execs not liking their current customer base
The Ad Exec speaking about the moral high she got from being brave highering a trans. Why is she brave if she thought this was going to be a successful campaign that made money? What fear did she face down? What allowed her the foresight to see the pushback that she was going to get that somehow also didn't cause the fiduciary warning bells to go off?
The double-down by InBev rather than a mea culpable.
The refusal to take serious action to outright fire the people responsible for destroying the firm with the admittance of the what, why, and how the act was wrong.
All of these things contributed to the boycott. And none of them are the actual ad campaign. They were also plainly avoidable at every stage, including stage 1 (see above about 'bravery' versus earnings).
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
This is one thing I'm definitely not investing time or money in, and I don't care how you swing or what's between your legs! Fuck no!
When he says "We had over $50 million worth of InBev stock" in the state pension fund what does that mean? Did they sell it off to lock in the loss or buy more? Besides, it's only $50M, he isn't even talking real money when the value of the fund is $180B, it's a .0044% loss! OMG? Spare me, Biden's economy cost me 20% last year and it's only recovered 14% so far which means if you actually do the math I'm still down ~9% so who do I sue?
Ironically it was the DOJ that blocked the full merger of Ab/Inbev and Modelo and had the Modelo brands handed to Constellation Brands for the US market and Modelo is the new US 'king of beers'. Yeah, not going to buy it either since it's probably just another 'sex in a canoe' type of beer.
Besides, it’s only $50M, he isn’t even talking real money when the value of the fund is $180B, it’s a .0044% loss! OMG? Spare me...
Nobody in the comments cares about math.
He used numbers. You may be confused by the actual math. And not your talking points being math.
How much money must an entity have invested in a company to be allowed to question if the money is not needed there? $50M is a pretty good sum o' cash.
Presumably they have voting shares and they can take it up at the next shareholder's meeting. In comparison, a lawsuit costs both parties money over an issue which would normally be resolved by vote at the shareholder's meeting since it's probably going to be bounced by the courts for that very reason.
In all honesty he'd have a better case against the people who run the pension fund than one particular company in the fund as they're the ones who decided to buy the shares and have the fiduciary duty to the fund. In contrast the Belgian company that is Ab/Inbev may have different priorities depending on the laws they're held to by the EU and/or Belgium.
"Presumably they have voting shares and they can take it up at the next shareholder’s meeting."
OR...they can decide that the company is blowing THEIR money to appease their EXECUTIVES (not the owners, mind you) goals.
"In comparison, a lawsuit costs both parties money over an issue which would normally be resolved by vote at the shareholder’s meeting since it’s probably going to be bounced by the courts for that very reason."
When you have MONTHS of a company constantly fucking up --- you don't wait until a vote. Why should I have to continue losing money due to idiocy of morons because "Well, you can vote on it in a few months"?
"In all honesty he’d have a better case against the people who run the pension fund than one particular company in the fund as they’re the ones who decided to buy the shares and have the fiduciary duty to the fund. In contrast the Belgian company that is Ab/Inbev may have different priorities depending on the laws they’re held to by the EU and/or Belgium."
In case you were unaware, companies doing business HERE have to abide by laws passed HERE. They are always free to divest all of their American holdings if they wish to not do so.
As of today, the stock is only down 1.8% from one year ago. That is hardly a major loss.
Oops. That was the YTD.
Over 1 year BUD is slightly (0.14%) up.
Since Desantis couldn't care less about the pension fund or the value of the stock in the pension fund, it's clearly just an excuse to bash a political target of opportunity. And since it's so obviously such a lame excuse, it's evidence that Desantis is flailing ineffectively trying to gain some traction in his bid to challenge Trump for the nomination. Using a christian metaphor, we may be seeing the End Days of failed authoritarianism in America. One can only hope that these are the death throes of the fake Two Party System, even if it's probably a forlorn hope ...
Negra Modelo is pretty good. It's as close to the old bottled Guinness style as one can readily find in the US, and is 5.3% ABV so not sex in a canoe by any means.
Thanks for the tip. I'll have a look for it while doing the weekly shopping.
Negra Modelo is an Austrian/Munich dunkel style dark larger and Guinness is a stout (ale). I agree that both are solid offerings for their style (St. James Gate brewed Guinness).
In style, you're right, but in taste, they're not a million miles apart, particularly if you're looking for a dark beer with a strong flavour and good but not excessive carbonation.
As a demo, if you like, bottled Guinness and Negra Modelo are more similar to each other than Guinness is to Barclays/Courage Imperial Russian Stout (which fwiw was my favourite tipple at college.)
Personally fond of Harp, but not the easiest stuff to find at restaurants.
I've been drinking Guinness Stout for close to 50 years but it's pretty pricey. Modelo Negra has been a regular 2nd choice for a long time. Also like Shiner Bock. It's not a stout but it's better than the blond beers. Also have Minhas Craft Brewery up in WI and try to stock up on Huber Bock in season.
Imperial stouts tend to have high alcohol content (iirc originally as a preservative to prevent spoil when being shipped across the empire).
Guinness and Negra Modelo are both quality brews.
At one point, Murphys stout was at least somewhat available in the US without the gimmicky nitrogen widget things; not sure if that is the case now. When I worked in Ireland I preferred Murphys more than Guinness (or Beamish). Samuel Smith may still import a stout as well. Maybe their porter too.
Negra Modelo is one of the last remaining Vienna style lagers outside of the German speaking nations. The rest of the world got overtaken by cheap pilsners but a good Vienna lager is still the true king of beers.
Dont forget to add inflation to your losses.
Bidenomics!
By all the face-fanning in some of the comments complaining about this, the math part of it seems rather irrelevant.
FALSE!
Conservatives boycotted because multiple executives stated in no uncertain terms that Bud Light hated their own customers and wanted new ones. Can you blame some people for accepting those terms and finding a new "beer" to drink?
IT’s consumers who are really bullying Tranheiser Busch.
All state pension funds suffer from this problem. See California for god's sake.
Obviously, Florida (and every other state) should not have a state pension fund for its employees. it's a ridiculous insider giveaway to a privileged class.
AND it generates conflict of interest between the state's presumed mandate to preserve liberty and it's desire to punish enemies.
Get rid of the pension fund, problem solved.
Where's the REason outrage over this bully of a governor imposing his political fascism onto the free liberty of the local school district?
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2023/07/14/gov-gavin-newsom-says-state-will-provide-temecula-textbooks-if-school-board-wont/
"Gov. Gavin Newsom says state will provide social studies textbooks to Temecula if school board won’t "
"The Temecula district could be fined about $1.5 million under Jackson’s bill, AB 1078, Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for the governor, said via email."
yeah, Reason you are beclowning yourself daily.
The state's pension fund is a goddam investor, aren't investors supposed to complain about financial improprieties?
Did you read the linked tweet by Ron DeSantis. He makes it clear he is going after the company as part of an anti-woke agenda that goes beyond any investing concern.
Also, if the state is going to investigate on every act of fiduciary irresponsibility, DeSantis himself publicly badmouthed the company that all those firefighters and such depend on.
He pulled state funds out of all ESG products. ESG funds are underperforming. Most people understand why. You apparently don't. ABs actions are among to ESG investments. Putting political bullshit in front of economics.
Mike is just bleating ignorant nonsense, as usual. The stupid cunt will never admit that a democrat made a mistake…. ever.
If you can't tell the moral and legal difference between a legislator threatening to use the coercive power of her office against a private business, and the head administrator of an investment fund (that happens to be owned by a government entity) complaining about an incident of gross mismanagement at a company the fund is invested in, you certainly shouldn't be able to actually sell your writing to a magazine that calls itself Reason.
You omitted DeSantis, and his tweet where he brags about the investigation being a part of an anti-woke campaign on his part, out of your recap and analysis.
It’s not like the state of Florida fund administrator initiated the action. Or as if DeSantis trusted him or her to do his job.
So what? Those companies are not entitled to state funds, you left-simp sack of shit.
Good. DeSantis was elected to protect the rights of American Floridians. He’s just doing his duty and protecting state pension funds from grifting democrat activism. Instead of accelerating the democrat race to the bottom.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/20/politics/desantis-letter-bud-light-company/index.html
At the end of March, Florida’s pension fund held more than 682,000 shares of AB InBev valued at the time at nearly $46 million. The company’s stock price has fallen since then from $66 a share to $58, though it’s still higher than its 52-week low of $44 from September 2022, which was well before the company’s recent controversies.
Florida’s pension fund held $234 million in Disney stock as of March 31.
As of Friday’s closing, BUD is down only 1.8% over the past year.
Oops. That was the YTD.
Over 1 year BUD is slightly (0.14%) up.
How does that compare to the rest of the market?
How would that compare if Bud Light sales didn’t plummet 25% due to their woke actions?
Well, their other brands dropped too, just not as significantly.
How is Molson-Coors doing? Grupo Modelo? CCM?
Maybe DeSantis’s fiduciary duty is to not attack Disney, considering all those Florida firefighter and teachers whose pensions are invested in Disney.
Would this apply to Fox Corporation the owner of Fox News? Shareholders have lost 787.5 million in the Dominion lawsuit and will most likely lose another few hundred million in the Smartmatic lawsuit. Their ratings are also down with Tucker gone
Shareholders absolutely should be suing NewsCorp over this nonsense.
I sure as hell would.
FOX stock is almost exactly at the same price it was a year ago. They have such huge gobs of money the lawsuit didn’t even make their stock price go down.
Firstly, the state (or government) should not be owning stocks in private companies in the first place. Seems like a conflict of interest.
But the other thing is that this Dylan person is not really transgender, it's a dude pretending to be a teenage girl.
There are people who genuinely feel they are the other gender. There are the mentally ill, and those who think their problems will be solved by saying they are transgender. They are at least earnest.
But this guy basically makes a mockery of women (girls, really) and somehow gets lauded and paid for it. He's literally the female equivalent of the old black face minstrel show, being a caricature that is beyond tacky.
Indeed. Accordiong to some actual trannies, their male parts make them uncomfortable and embarrassed. Singing about "my bulge" is not something any would do.
He has always been an attention whore. It's just that AWFL are so up their own ass they cannot see it for what it is.
Fucking "Hiking heels"? What women in history would ever do something that asinine?
It’s all part of the democrat social Marxism clown show. And you’re right, this isn’t for trannies. It’s for white leftist nutcases that think pedophilia is a sexual orientation, and not a mental disorder.
That's my take on this clown also. He doesn't have gender dysphoria he's a comic. Baffles me who his followers are.
Want To Work From Home Without Selling Anything? No Experience Needed, Weekly Payments... Join Exclusive Group Of People That Cracked The Code Of Financial Freedom! Learn More details Good luck...
Visit this website...https://www.dailypay7.com/
The fact that both Disney and Inbev have been shoving woke rubbish down everyone's throats has nothing to do with people rejecting both products. Nope...they're all bigots and anti LGBTQXYZ+123.
The market is only as good as the product itself and when the product turn to crap, then the market turns away from that product.
People are boycotting other companies as well, it's just they aren't as famous or in the spot light.
Disney and InBev brought it upon themselves. Both companies are filled with woke leftists who could care less what the vast majority of Americans think. Not only do they not care but they hold them in such contempt as well.
Sure fine. But not an excuse to use the jackboot of big government to crush those companies. People have been boycotting since time immemorial. Don't like a product, don't buy it. But both (BOTH) Warren and DeSantos thinks that the only answer is to utilize the terrible power of government to prevent people from making choices.
It is especially disingenuous that DeSantis is asking for an investigation into BUD’s management considering DeSantis himself encouraged consumers to boycott Bud Light and the BUD stock has actually gone up over the last year. It’s all grandstanding.
Whatsmore, Florida pension funds have much larger investment in DIS, which DeSantis has been openly fighting, and their stock really has taken a big hit.
He is investigating the thing that promoted his support for the boycott.
Time flows in one direction and that is very important to understand what is going on.
“promoted his support for the boycott”
Wow, what mental gymnastics that phrase entails. DeSantis had no agency here; Bud management forced him to make public statements harming Bud’s sales.
> Ron DeSantis Bullies Bud Light Like Elizabeth Warren Bullies Amazon
Yes, I've been saying this for years. Both of those people (both sides!) use the state as a weapon in a culture war. Warren hates corporations, DeSantos hates LGBTs, and both attempt to use the power of the state to crush them.
This is a libertarian site, and libertarians are opposed to using the force of the state to achieve cultural ends. Even if they oppose corporatism or wokism itself, the jackboot of bigger government is not the answer. Don't like rainbows on your beer can? Buy a different beer! Don't like that a corporation is too successful (or whatever Warren's beef is at the moment), don't buy their product! Allowing people to make their own decisions without the influence or force of government is nearly always the right answer.
One person is divesting in the corporate-government pension BS.
The other is trying to set up her own independent (and un-supervised) - regulatory body to go after companies she personally dislikes.
Both Sides! Yeah.
Apples and oranges, but Reason has to have a daily desantis hit piece. Pace yourselves.
Warren: Do what I sat or I will use the power of government to effectively size your property and enslave you to my whims.
DeSantis: You do what you did but we don't have to support it. And if your doing it broke a law you should be held to account.
Bowfsiedz!!!!!!!!!
Pretty much.
Not even comparable.
DeSantis talks a lot about freedom but increasingly only applies it to those who agree with him.
He learned that from the left.
It is good to know that, to Reason, the current POTUS has no issues. Must be like Obama who "had no scandals outside of wearing a tan suit once"...
Congrats, so called "libertarians". You shall once again fail a presidential election and ensure that we get even more authoritarian "executive" powers
Conservatives protested because Mulvaney is a transgender woman.
Conservatives Pounce!
I mean, sure, to be the most popular beer in America you’ve probably got some solid, pro-Union (maybe public) laborers among your customer base, and having been America’s most popular beer since at least the Clinton Era means a decent chunk of your customer base probably voted for both WJClinton *and* Obama, and it would be hard to imagine being the king of beers without at least some women drinking beer, even feminist women who voted for Hillary, and the fact that Modelo is now in the top spot, “conservador” or “conservadoras” might be more accurate than “Conservatives”, but, sure, Conservatives pounce.
So, yeah, it's probably all white rural Evangelical ranchers protesting Bud Light and not vast swaths of the political spectrum who are OK with you selling Subarus and makeup *to trannies*, but take offense when you put trannies or whatever on their beer and try and sell trannies *to them*.
It’s funny how, for all the talk of plurality and the GOP losing its base and even coherence in a multi-ethnic or majority non-white society, how the Left has become the party of utterly tone-deaf white, ivory tower shut ins.
Make $9,000-$12,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And Choose Your Own Work Hours.
Thanks, A lot Start here
Open This Website…………>>OPEN THIS DETAIL>GOOGLE WORK