Politics, Society

Disney, Bud Light, and Nike Go Head-to-Head With Critics With Controversial New Campaigns

We have been discussing the ability of shareholders and consumers to push back on political or ESG corporate policies. Companies like Disney have already experienced backlash over political campaigns or positions. However, companies are not backing down. This month, both Disney, Bud Light, and NIke are back in the midst of controversies in going head-to-head with critics. This could trigger an interesting period of litigation by shareholders opposing such campaigns as driving down the value corporate stock and brands.

Nike has long been one of the most activist companies in its social and political campaigns, including its controversial corporate support for Colin Kaepernick in his protest during the national anthem at football games.

Recently, it also faced calls for boycotts after the company selected transgender Dylan Mulvaney to feature its sports bras and other products. Mulvaney went on Instragram to declare:

“Home for a moment and leaning into cozy workout wear life with @nikewomen ‘s newest Zenvy leggings and Alate bra! They’re so comfortable and buttery soft, perfect for workouts and everyday wear! #feelyourall #teamnike #nikepartner”

That led to an immediate backlash:

Nike pushed back on critics this weekend and told consumers that they needed to be “kind” and “inclusive” while declaring “hate speech, bullying, or other behaviors that are not in the spirit of a diverse and inclusive community will be deleted” from its sites.

The Nike decision follows another backlash against Bud Light that put Mulvaney on its beer cans.

These campaigns, particularly the beer endorsements, produced an obvious disconnect with many beer consumers who did not want Mulvaney on their beers. While networks described the outcry as a “right-wing backlash,” shareholders may question whether putting a controversial transgender personality on cans of beer will advance or deter sales.

Some expect the Bud Light campaign to alienate many consumers. In the coming weeks, we will see if the campaign increases or decreases sales. However, the legal question is whether shareholders are going to oppose such campaigns as divisive and damaging for the brand.

Disney is an example of that backlash. However, the mouse has now taken the gloves off in a bold move to defy the state of Florida. Disney’s opposition to Florida’s parental rights bill on education led to boycotts and possible retaliatory legislation. 

After its unique self-governance status was removed by the state, Disney used its effective control over the former Reedy Creek Improvement District to get the board at the last minute to hand over direct control of the district’s development rights and privileges to the company. It made the transfer just before the district was gutted by the legislature.

Disney’s move is breathtaking and, in my view, uniquely stupid. I wrote earlier that Disney’s aggressive position toward Florida was harmful to the company and its shareholders. Picking a fight with a state with general tax authority is pretty dumb when you have billions sunk into fixed real estate and assets in the state.

Florida will now seek to nullify this move, but the company has declared all-out war with the state. Even if the state is unsuccessful, it can use other means to even the score with the company. While it was possible that there could be a resumption of civil relations between the state and one of its largest corporate citizens, this has burned any bridge for such a reconciliation.

Once again, the company seems oblivious to economic consequences of its aggressive postures toward the state. While this may be popular for executives, it is not popular with a sizable number of consumers, particularly in Florida. The question is: why escalate the tension?

These companies could trigger shareholder revolts if the moves continue to spark boycotts or diminish sales.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) policies have already led to limited litigation, including shareholder demands for greater transparency or ESG commitment from companies. Some shareholders have also argued that the political views of corporate officers are being pursued over the profits of the company.

Such lawsuits on both sides can be difficult. Shareholders may allege a breach of the “duty of loyalty,” but must show that the officials acted in a self-interested manner or in bad faith. Alternatively, they could argue a breach of the “duty of care,” which requires a showing that the officials acted in a grossly negligent manner.

These latest moves could force these issues. For Disney, it is a surprising decision given the departure of former CEO Bob Chapek after he triggered the controversy over the parental rights legislation. Now, Bob Iger will either move to defuse the situation or face the wrath of a motivated and infuriated legislature.

Legally, we may be entering a new phase in litigation over controversial corporate campaigns. Bud Light, for example, knew it would create buzz with Mulvaney. The question is whether it is the right type of buzz and whether shareholders can object that executives are too willing to test the “go woke, go broke” theory.

246 thoughts on “Disney, Bud Light, and Nike Go Head-to-Head With Critics With Controversial New Campaigns”

  1. They say if you play with it long enough, you’ll go Blind.
    We’ll I’m not completely blind yet, but I have certainly gotten an astigmatism.

    The Other night Cooter (My Blue tick Coonhound ) and I was watching the TV and an Amazon commercial came on and I was frozen dumbfounded with parallax atavism. I mean to tell Ya’ll, I could tell you if it was a Cat or a Dog, Cooter bout went into psychotic fits.

    I mean, I have just gotten over having awful polysexual dreams of Pat from Saturday Night Live flashing through my shine induced psyche, and then This
    ‘THIS’ showed up … WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON AROUND HERE. Can somebody call the TV Guy and fix my Antenna’s Rabbit Ears – Please!
    https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/retail/olivia-wilde-directs-new-amazon-commercial-about-prime-benefits

    1. SO LETS SAY I AM A MARKETER OF WOMENS ATHLETIC WEAR
      SHOULD I CHOOSE A FEMALE MODEL TO MARKET MY PRODUCT OR SOMEONE WITH NO BOOBS TO SELL SPORTS BRAS AND A “JUNK” BULGE TO SELL YOGA PANTS
      IT WOULD APPEAR THE AGENDA IS NOT TO RELATE TO THEIR TARGET AUDIENCE AND IS FOCUSED ON SOMETHING ELSE SINCE NO FLAT OR LARGE CHESTED WOMEN NEEDS BREAST SUPPORT ADVICE FROM A DUDE W/ NO BOOBS- DITTO ON YOGA PANTS FITTING THEIR MAN PACKAGE

      LASTLY FOR THE “FOLLOW THE SCIENCE” CROWD
      IF I CALL MYSELF A GOAT, A SIMPLE DNA TEST WILL PROVE OTHERWISE
      IF A DUDE CALLS HIMSELF A CHICK, THE SAME IS TRUE. FEELING LIKE A WOMAN IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING A WOMAN- I FREQUENTLY FELT LIKE A PRO HOCKEY PLAYER GROWING UP, BUT EVERY PRO LEAGUE ON EARTH DISAGREED- SO TURNS OUT I AM NOT A PRO HOCKEY PLAYER

      DO I CARE THE DUDE WANTS TO PRETEND TO BE A CHICK? NOT IN THE LEAST, DO I WISH HIM ILL, NO, NOT IN THE LEAST- HE HAS ENOUGH ISSUES W/O ANYONE ELSES ILL WISHES
      HOWEVER I PREFER MY FAIRY TALES TO INCLUDE WITCHES, PRINCES, CASTLES AND DWARFS AND WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN HIS FANTASY OR VALIDATION HIS RIDICULOUS STEREOTYPICAL MOCKERY OF HOW REAL GIRLS BEHAVE AND WILL NOT SUPPORT COMPANIES THAT PERPETRATE THIS SILLINESS

      1. Son, I was just wondering if Mitch McConnell was ready to come out of the Barn yet,
        or is if He’s fixen to stay in there forever.

        Everybody’s got one in their Family somewhere, so it’s not to far afield to think that each Party have a few hidding in there somewhere.

        I know where I hang my Tidy-Whities at night, So like you, tain’t gonna bother me none, so long as they don’t try to get in them with me.

  3. What is missing in most discussion is the fact that NOBODY is against trans people per se, it is just that the Trans Movement has gone after kids and gone after them hard. They have taken over the classrooms and the teacher unions and all of the media. Leave the damn kids alone and you will be fine.

    1. And leave women’s sports alone too. And don’t try and use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, or get housed in women’s prisons either. And stop corrupting the health care professions by twisting truth to conform with ideology.

      1. HullBobby and OldMan,
        I agree.
        Drag shows for age appropriate audience.
        Make a ‘trans’ category in sports. And if a biological female feels uncomfortable, she is not the one that has to be forced out of her own locker room.

    2. “ What is missing in most discussion is the fact that NOBODY is against trans people per se, it is just that the Trans Movement has gone after kids and gone after them hard. ”

      BS.

      Conservatives and Republicans ARE against trans people. They use children as a pretext to create legislation against them. Republicans are the ones constantly demonizing them and demagoguing their very identity. They have been around just as long as gays and lesbians. It’s conservative Christian’s who are.pushing the narrative that they are “indoctrinating children”. They are being attacked in every right wing publication and by every right wing news organization. It’s no different than how they reacted to the homosexual community when they were fighting for their equal rights.

      It’s christians who are scared and angry that their world view is shrinking and all they have left is “fighting back”. Like same-sex marriage it’s a losing battle. Eventually Christians will do something so monumentally stupid that they will effectively put the nation behind the trans community. It’s only a matter of time.

      1. Incorrect. What we conservatives are against is the demand that we accept and embrace the extremes of the trans movement. Stay away from our kids, keep your sexuality to yourself, and move on with life. It’s not difficult, but we have bigger – much bigger – issues to concern ourselves with, not the .0001% of the population that wants to be something that they are not.

        1. Skip, they are not demanding that you accept and embrace the extremes of the “trans movement”. They are not doing anything to you or your kids. The only people making those claims are those using fear to scare you into thinking that is what they are trying to do. All they want is to be left alone and have the liberty of being who they are, period. It’s the bigotry and fear of something they don’t understand that is being used to scare YOU into believing something that is not true. They are using YOU for political gain and votes. That’s it.

          They keep their sexuality to themselves. It’s conservatives and republican politicians who are obsessing over the sexuality of others. You didn’t notice that? They are the ones more concerned about it than they are. They are the ones who are constantly demonizing them and creating laws for problems that don’t exist except in their minds.

          It’s none of you business what they believe any more than it is their business what you believe. But you don’t want them to be who they are and therefore are forcing them to conform to what YOU think should be. That kind of hypocrisy is what defines conservatives and republicans. It’s ironic that the most vehement opponents of gay marriage ended up being gay themselves. Right?

      2. Hey Svelaz, how do Muslims feel about trans people? Why is it always Christians that you cite?

        Now on the other issue that you are wrong about, people are not against trans people doing anything they want as long as it doesn’t affect the rest of the people, you know, the vast, vast majority. Things like winning sporting events is just plain wrong, and I assume even you know it. Having MEN, actual rapists, going to women’s prisons is wrong. Having MEN changing in woman’s locker rooms is wrong. Having boys using girls bathrooms is wrong. If you want to dispute any of this please make your moronic argument now.

        Again, please tell me your opinion on how Muslims feel and act regarding not only trans people, but gays in general. Any comment fella? You comment about 200 times a day so answer that one question. Contrarian freak.

        1. Hullbobby,
          In 1976/77, I worked a county home farm in Iowa. Some of the male residents of the home thought they were women, some thought they were farm animals. No one gave it a second thought. They also weren’t introduced into the general population as normal. Today people like these are being forced into our culture, often by law, to be accepted as normal. Of course we’ve always had contrarians on this blog. They’re not unlike these trans-activists. All they are seeking is attention. The trannies want clicks, the contrarians want replies. Don’t give either them what they want.

        2. “Hey Svelaz, how do Muslims feel about trans people? Why is it always Christians that you cite? ”

          Because the majority of legislators and opponents of trans people are Christians. They are also the ones pushing for all these laws against them. How many Muslims in state legislatures can you point out that have supported these laws? It’s Christians who are spearheading these laws and demagoguing them constantly.

          Muslims don’t support the trans community, but they are not going out of their way to demonize them and put forth laws against them in this country. They know what it’s like to be on the receiving end of Christian conservatives. Remember how they were treated after 9/11? multiple laws and calls to restrict their rights and they were being demonized for who they were. At least they have the perspective of being in their place.

          Hullbobby, you are one whiny fella. You are using examples that are rare and far between as excuses to support Christians behaving like dictators. You don’t get to determine who is what and why. That is the problem. You can’t grasp the idea that someone else can be who they believe to be. You have to force them to be who YOU believe they should because you think it’s wrong. What really bothers you is that it is really out of your control and not your call. But you want it to be. Deep down you what you really want is an authoritarian running things so that they don’t allow things like same sex marriage, trans people, or anything you don’t like. You would be much more comfortable if an authoritarian figure would make everyone everywhere comport to YOUR comfort level in what you think society should be. That is, liberty for you, but not for others.

          1. That’s why moslems throw gay men off the tops of buildings.

        3. They don’t go after Muslims because unlike followers of Jesus

          Muslims do not turn the other cheek….

      3. Where is this legislation against “trans people” ?

        No one is restricting the consensual conduct of adults with adults.

        I personally do not like the TN law.
        I do not trust government to disctate decisions that belong to parents.

        I would rather have parents make bad choices that Government make one size fits all choices.

        But that is Bidirectional.

        Paternalistic government is more a feature of the left than the right.
        And an absolute ban of drugs and surgeries on children that have not even been possible until recently is clearly less harmful than anything goes and teachers and government can push children into choices with lifelong negative consequences.

      4. You do not seem to grasp that the issue is not “indoctrinating children”.

        That happens all the time. It is an unavoidable facet of child rearing.

        The issue is WHO is indoctrinating children – when the answer is Government, that is immoral and unconstitutional.

        Blocking indoctrination by GOVERNMENT is NOT also indoctrinating children.

      5. Beleive what you will the danger of something stupid altering public perception is by far greatest on the left.

        For many reasons.

        Not the least of which is that conservatism inherently means resisting changes to established NORMS.

        What is the worst that we can expect of the right – a return to the oughts ? the 80’s ? the 60’s ?

        Even if regressing to the past would be harmful, it unarguably means returning to an arrangement that was NOT massively societally disruptive.

        The left is demanding rushing headlong into the unkown. The odds of success are ZERO.

        You are waiting for the right to do something egregious ?
        Like What ? Behave like you did in TN ?

        The firebombings arsons and violence are almost exclusively on the left.

        Humans have managed for 300K years without sex change surgery on Teens and injections of sex hormones.
        We KNOW what ending that would be like. It might be harmful to a few, but it would not infringe on any actual rights,
        and the harms would be limited.

        What the left seeks is a potential tsunami of harm.

    3. It’s easier to persuade an adolescent than an adult. Money lies behind this: for the medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies. The DEI bureaucracy also benefits, through the illusion of increased need. There are now big financial and career interests vested in this madness. It’s not quite as advanced as the constellation behind climate catastrophism but it’s heading in that direction, though it is unlikely ever to get the same level of international support. A number of European countries have now put on the brakes.

    4. “NOBODY is against trans “

      Very true. What we see are people who wish to protect females, children and families along with trans as long as the trans is doing the same for females, children and families.

  5. Corporate enterprises that try to force their audiences to go down radical pathways run the risk of turning away stakeholders & consumers…it’s the old ‘money talks and BS walks…’ it’s up to the audiences to show their displeasure of the enterprises’ ‘BS’ by divesting themselves of any association, and literally not drinking the new kool-aid of the enterprise………. Simply.. no more ‘Bud Light, etc…’ or.. no more Disney this or that.. or.. no more Nike anything…. There are so many other choices…!!!

  6. When I was pretty young, my friend Ronny and I got kicked out of a local store where I usually bought model airplane kits. The guy that kicked us out claimed we were stealing. I wasn’t, nor would I have, but it’s possible that my friend Ronny had pocketed some candy or something. Anyway, I went whining to my dad about it not being fair, etc., and instead of being sympathetic, my dad respond by offering me advice that has lasted a lifetime:

    If you don’t like the way someone does business, you can whine about it all you want, but your first, BEST course of action is to not give that person your business.

    Translated to today’s issue: Disney, Nike, and Bud can do whatever they want — and if I don’t like it, I’m free to have nothing to do with them. As long as that system is still in place, it’s still my first, BEST course of action.

  7. Now this is getting ridiculous.

    We get a post about this Twinkie, but still nothing on the Mackey meme verdict. Surely a man facing 10 years for telling an old election joke on line has larger First Amendment implications.

  8. When Gillette decided to make a commercial which crapped all over its customers (men), it did not work out well for Gillette as I recall.

    Elon Musk has said ESG is the devil, and he’s right.

    The confused male in the ads is also being used to promote tampons. There is no better illustration of clown world:

  9. Nothing could be more perfect than for these stockholders to vote with their pocketbooks, sell, and reinvest elsewhere. This flake
    Is in it for the gain, as long as it will, last, much like Dame Edna, Tiny Tim, and RuPaul, all now relegated to the dustbin of distant memory. Corporate will continue to ride the train as long as the bottom line proves that the juice is worth the squeeze that’s the nature of business and the Benjamins.

  10. I already don’t give any of those companies money (Disney was greedy and mediocre under Roy long before woke came along, Nikeys are still made by exploited children and wage slaves in other countries, oh the irony and idiocy, and that – that is NOT ‘beer’), but it really is nothing short of breathtaking the extent to which these real world temper tantrums that will have real world consequences have sunk even just these past few months. Unreal. Slap the babies back, consumers and shareholders. I haven’t missed any of these products over the past couple of decades, I doubt you will either. Oh, kicked Gillette to the curb a few years ago, too.

  11. I’m on the left, but as a woman, I find Dylan Mulvaney’s misogynistic portrayal of women as stupid, air-headed, klutzy bimbos incredibly offensive. I choose not to purchase products from any company that employs him to shill their goods, which at this point is becoming a long list. I am just one person and these companies certainly aren’t noticing much difference in their bottom lines because of me. Are there others like me out there? Will we collectively make a difference? I don’t know. Maybe Mulvaney is so beloved that because of his endorsement, these companies will pick up more customers than they lose. Again, I don’t know. But any company using Mulvaney to promote their brand is the opposite of “woke.” Mulvaney depicts the same old misogyny we’ve seen for centuries.

    1. @apieceof blue

      Actually, Gilette, Disney, certain media and tech groups, and Hollywood have lost a TON of money these past number of years, they will simply never be publicly honest about it. The financials do not lie, however. Much of higher management is now made up of the millennial cohort, and they are displaying the same idiocy at work that was formerly reserved for their younger, personal lives. Keep it coming, I say. It IS unsustainable, and it WILL crash.

      1. When a company is publicly traded, management works for the shareholders. These managers undoubtedly know these campaigns will lose money. They are promoting their own ideology at the expense of the shareholders — i.e., using other people’s money without their permission for their own personal objectives — which violates their fiduciary duty. The only remedy lies with action by the shareholders, or possibly a tender offer by an outsider to buy the company and take it in a different direction.

        1. The management works for the customers. Not the shareholders. The shareholders are only there for the returns on their investments. There are always going to be other shareholders to replace those who choose to leave. That’s especially true with companies that are supported by the majority of the population.

          Look at Fox News. They were losing shareholders because they were telling the truth briefly. Their brand is lying to their viewers and if that keeps their shareholders happy then that’s what they need to do. However, it’s reliant on keeping its shareholders in a state of gullibility to stay afloat. That is not a sound business strategy. After the dominion Trial starts it’s likely they will lose shareholders permanently after they learn they have been taken for a ride.

    2. “Dylan Mulvaney’s misogynistic portrayal of women”

      The left is ditching women. Is that surprising? Democrats are no longer the party of JFK. It’s noticeable and to them JFK would be a right-winger that they would try and cancel.

      Democrats need to switch parties because the Dems of today are kooks who only satisfy global interests at the expense of normal hard-working Americans.

      1. Just read a news article about a NC Democratic legislator switched to the Republicans, saying,
        “If you don’t do exactly what the Democrats want you to do, they will try to bully you. They will try to cast you aside,”
        “They have pushed me out.”
        “The party wants to villainize anyone who has free thought, free judgment, has solutions and wants to get to work to better our state,”
        -Tricia Cotham

        The Democrat party has become toxic.

        1. Upstatefarme, republicans are no different. In Tennessee republicans wanted to expel three democrats because they protested fro gun control. Two who were black were expelled one who was white was not. Tennessee just robbed a couple of districts of their representation because they wouldn’t toe the line for the majority. Clearly Tennessee is racist to it’s very core. Those two democrats should run again. Their increased exposure and popularity would make them a shoo in for another term. Nothing prevents them from running again. Clearly the repbublicans. In Tennessee love authoritarianism.

          1. Those Representatives were being expelled because they attempted to enable rioters to disrupt the legislature.

            One brought a bullhorn and used it to silence efforts to end the chaos.
            The other encouraged protesters to violence.
            It is my understanding that the Third was not expelled. She did not have a history of violence – the other two did.
            And while she sided with rioters she did not actively encourage rioting.

            Regardless, a consequence for this legislators was necescary. Typically legislatures are allowed their own rules regarding their members.

            I am waiting to see how this plays out. I fully support the TN legislature imposing consequences.
            But in my view expulsion is too draconian.
            I am not sure what the right consequences are – because there MUST be consequences that meanigfully impeded legislators
            But those consequences can not harm the people of the districts being Representative.

            These legislators have attempted to Silence others – I have no problems with draconian consequences for them PERSONALLY.
            But those consequences can not be draconian for the members of their district.

            I would further note that what happened in TN is what you CLAIM was attempted on J6.

            Except in TN protestors WERE out of Control and DID actually thwart the legislature from going about its business.
            Protestors went Beyond protesting to actual disorderly conduct.

            You can compare and contrast video from inside the Capitol on J6 and that inside the TN capitol last week (or 2 other such protests in state capitols)

            It was quite clear from the conduct of left wing nut protestors in these state capitols that they have no expectations of having to conform to the same standards as were imposed on those protesting the election.

            All you have done is made CLEAR that the message of J6 protests is NOT you may not be disruptive.
            It is that you may not disrupt the LEFT.

        2. Upstate Farmer, NC legislature now has complete control of veto. Governor Cooper can no longer control us. I have had a smile on my face since Wednesday. 😆

      2. Yeah, I’ve been on the left my whole life but no longer vote Dem because of the trans issue. Dems are happy to give away female-only bathrooms and locker rooms to any man who claims to have “girlie feelings,” and they think it’s wonderful to allow males to cheat in female sports. Worst of all, Dem lawmakers are locking violent male criminals in cells with vulnerable female prisoners in women’s prisons. I cannot vote Dem any longer.

        1. Blue Sky: Thanks, it’s refreshing to see a liberal that actually sees what’s happening, and understands the damage it’s causing to women and women’s rights.

          In your experience, what percentage of liberals actually realize this? From the news we don’t see it much but perhaps it’s more common that we realize.

        2. apieceofblueksy,
          I heard a NPR report about male criminals claiming to be trans, and being placed in women’s prisons in CA.
          They did mention a women’s group who were against it.
          What they failed to mention was not only the part where the male criminals were violent, but also raped and even got a few of the actual women pregnant.

          Seems the Democrat party is anti-women.

  12. I never did like Nike. I don’t drink AB products.

    Now my family likes Disney, so there’s the rub

    1. We loved Disney, too. But, “Disney” is no longer Uncle Walt’s creation but a gatekeeper on the doors of perdition. Walk away.

    1. Anheuser is owned by Interbrew, so the boycott has to include more that AB products (Busch, Bud, Budweiser, Corona) but include IB products as well (notably Stella and Becks). We’re having guests and I bought Stella one day before this news, and it will be the last Stella I ever buy.

  14. Professor Turley,

    Instead of writing click bait for bigoted readers (i.e., commenters like monumentcolorado), perhaps a legal discussion of ESG on a legal blog would be more appropriate. I was hoping you frame the discussion against the classic corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature, such as AP Smith Manufacturing v. Barlow, which held back in 1952 that a private company’s donations to Princeton University were not a breach of fiduciary duty. It and it’s progeny led many statutes to codify common law cases that allow a business to take actions, which benefit the community rather than the bottom line.

    This is why that idiotic pillow guy can spend lots of money on wild goose chases to support Trump. How is a socially minded commercial any worse?

    Of course there are limits to CSR and ESG. Now a few years removed from law school, I was hoping you would get into the legal debate. Instead you created a platform for a bunch of monumentcolorados to attack transgender folks.

      1. Anonymous would not agree with Prof. Turley if they were standing together in the pouring rain and the professor said “it is raining.” Anonymous (at least this one, there are many) thinks calling people names and refusing to respect other opinions is the way forward. It is the way backward into repeating the very dark era of the 1930s Germany and Italy.

          1. So neither of you care to respond to the substance of the post? Instead, assuming without evidence, my positions on other topics?

            Calling out as bigoted another post that uses derogatory names for a group of people is literally the definition of “bigoted” remark.

            Perhaps that word is too advanced for some to understand, however. My apologies for assuming a certain education level of posters

        2. The anonymous blogger you refer to above has been thrown off the list numerous times because of his four letter vocabulary. He used to sign his name but perhaps he no longer knows how.

          1. Anonymous, if you hate the bad “Anonymous” as much as the rest of us do why don’t you actually pick a darn name and end all of the different people going by Anonymous?!?!

            1. IMO, There are two bad anonymous characters.

              1) ATS (Anonymous the Stupid) deceives and lies. He wastes time with links that frequently do not prove what he says and uses quotes from some crazies he cannot defend.

              IMO he is an ideologue wedded to leftism and has significant Stalinist traits with a little bit of Mao. He is the dominant writer for the leftists on the blog. He has no concern for people and is willing to use them like chess pieces.
              2) Elvis Bug or bug. Basketball is his thing, but his basketballs are flat, and his knowledge is low. He likes to write more flowery pieces. His knowledge of numbers and statistics and how to use them is nearly nil. He is good, however, with four-letter words

              ATS is malignant. He goes by anonymous to create plausible deniability. At times he has pretend friends and is known to post under an address that deletes his post and everything that follows.

              He will waste time. Satisfy his ten objections, and there will be ten more. He shouldn’t be treated with respect because he laces his argument of the day with disrespect. In fact, being a bit rude to him is quite proper when one considers what he is.

              Bug is relatively benign, like a flat basketball.

              1. In fact, being a bit rude to him is quite proper when one considers what he is.

                Seth,
                I’ve said it before, if these people were physically in a room making the comments they do, no rational person would give them the time of day. Especially if they showed up with a reputation for it. The best way to be rude to them is to ignore them.

                1. One has to consider their objective. That leads to multiple methods but none work without consitency.

                  In my younger days I met real life people like ATS. They used the naive who listened to them, and some of those innocents ended up getting their heads cracked open.

      2. I don’t think he understands the differences between a public corporation and a private one. Many comments demonstrate total ignorance of fiduciary responsibilities.

    2. So why not come out of the closet of anonymity and write your own blog? It find it so amusing–and deeply disturbing–that you brand anyone who finds the idea of someone making something-so merely by identifying with it. If the concept of transgenderism hadn’t been shoved down American’s throats as it has been and anyone criticizing it labeled a whole host of names perhaps the pushback would not have been so great. Sexualizing children is merely another form of pedophilia and if it’s so good for them, why the push to do it without parents’ consent. But you obviously only see one side of the coin and those who don’t agree with you are vilified.

    3. So My Pillow is your Straw Dog argument? Why bring up a private company management while in a discussion applicable to publicly traded companies?

      1. The difference between a public company and a private one is beyond the intellectual capacity of left-wing ideologues. They have proved that a thousand times over in comments like the one you’re reacting to.

        1. I’d love to see the case law supporting the idea that CSR is prohibited when a company is publicly-traded.

          If that doesn’t exist, then what’s your point?

        2. No response?

          Perhaps that is because public companies can donate just like private companies.

          So what’s the reason for your comment? To deflect from my original post rather than actually respond to it substantively?

          1. ” public companies can donate just like private companies.”

            That is incorrect. The public company is responsible to the shareholder. The private company is not. That is a major difference.

            “Instead of writing click bait for bigoted readers”

            If you are the same anonymous then again you are incorrect there as well. Your understanding of the law and business practices is superficial. You make statements an experienced lawyer like Turley, most inexperienced lawyers, and laypeople would never make.

            1. Ok. Please provide the case law or statutes that prohibit CSR for public corporations…. I can wait.

              (hint – they do not exist.) I asked for support for this categorically false claim earlier, but still — nothing.

              1. You sound like ATS sea lionizing. Look it up yourself. You think in narrow bands, but when those bands merge you don’t think at all.

                My contention is easy to prove, but then you will say that is different, request another example, or you will run away.

                Most of the time, you do not know what you are talking about. You are a time waster. I don’t know why anyone gives you their time or tries to be polite responding to your useless requests.

                There are multiple things involved civil, criminal and IRS.

    5. The transgender issue has morphed from a social movement into a bowel movement. The brain dead radicals in their midsts, many of whom appear to have a far-reaching agenda when it comes to this question, have been more than instrumental in firing up the opposition. These hybrids, which is what they are notwithstanding, how they see themselves, need to be helped to find a place in society within their own ranks, instead, of encroaching or outright, forcing themselves into a space, which is already occupied, and to which they have no place.
      Let them compete athletically within their own ranks and leave the rest to the others.

  15. “. . . who did not want Mulvaney on their beers.”

    Here’s an idea: Make a good product. Sell it at a reasonable price. Make money. Enjoy your success. Your brand is your product; not your politics.

    If you want to push propaganda, buy a newspaper. If you use your product to proselytize me, I’m shopping elsewhere. Just as I did with the NFL, NBA, Coke, et al.

  16. Disney’s move was incredibly stupid and need never have happened if they had simply gone to the state and talked. The cratering of their stock price over the past year seems to give some credence to the wrath of their previous supporters. Movies by them are vastly underperforming in sales, or never even make it to the cinema. Their Disney+ streaming service is bleeding billions and ESPN is on the verge of disappearing from their streaming packages. Need I say more. Most of good movies for children now are NOT Disney
    Budweiser decision making is insane. It’s not as if there are not tremendous competitors out there. I’m sure it will be greeted with great approval by Coors and Sam Adams, As well as many microbreweries throughout the land.
    Nike-well I am past the point where I use any of their material-Strange to have a spokesman like Colin who has not played in years, trashes his country, and calls his adoptive parents racists after making $millions. Maybe he and Prince Harry should get together and form a twosome. Could call it 2 Spares-Will work for Headlines and Insults..

  17. Shareholders have control if they use it wisely…..dump the stocks in those companies and invest in the competition and start using the brands produced by those competitors.

    Then when the Bud Stock and similar stocks crash….buy back in and ride the rise and when it is right….sell it again and stay gone.

    Sometimes one can prosper financially when publicly traded companies Management confuse politics and business.

    Hit the culpable in their wallets…..make those bonuses cost them…..and put their stock options in the toilet.

    1. Anheuser-Busch was acquired by a Belgium/Brazilian global beer corporation (InBev) about 15 years ago. I believe at the time of the acquisition that InBev was already the largest brewer in the world. After acquiring Anheuser-Busch, InBev markets over 400 beer brands on every inhabited continent.

      The Bud Light brand is a rounding error to its consolidated operations. Even if they’ve managed to ruin the Bud Light brand by making this freak its mascot (which I doubt is true), it could write off the entire Bud Light brand to $0 and it would barely impact it’s global financial performance.

  18. “‘hate speech, bullying . . .'”

    In other words: Criticism.

    Do those PR departments really believe that anyone falls for those intimidation tactics? Do they sincerely believe that people are so naive that they cannot recognize an intellectual bully?

    Since they are not open to rational discussion and debate: Vote with your wallet and your scorn.

  19. If conservatives are as concerned about this growing culture of perversion then they would, on a given day, in the center of each city, town or whatever, hold a bonfire that consumes their personally paid for Anheuser-Busch, Nike and Disney products and pledge to boycott these producers and any and all others that participate in capitulating to these culturally depraved aberrations and then wait to see how the market reacts. Mind you, it would need to be as vociferous and any drag-queen parade or transgender protest, but they must take a visual and ECONOMIC stand.

  20. I don’t think that Bud Light damaged their brand at all.

    It has always been the preferred beer for budget minded girliemen.

    And pinkos wanting to display the “common touch”.

    Now if had been Pabst Blue Ribbon…

    1. I was on board and perfectly willing to tolerate.
      I am not willing to participate.

Comments are closed.