You have not viewed any products recently.


The New York Times Applauds The Party of CEOs

View all posts from this blog

By:Tom Piatak | April 08, 2015

Last week's furor over the version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act approved in Indiana and awaiting only the governor's signature in Arkansas was illuminating. Once again, the contemporary left demonstrated that it values conformity, not tolerance. Indeed, the left is now committed to using the full power of the state and the culture to secure approval of what was controversial only a few years ago and unthinkable a few decades ago.  

Even more interesting, though, is what brought about the surrender to the left in Indiana and Arkansas. On April 2, CNN Money ran an article by Charles Riley about Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce. Benioff was one of the most outspoken opponents of the Indiana law, threatening to pull investment from the state and offering to provide monetary assistance to employees who wanted to leave the state because of the new law. Riley quoted Benioff as stating, "This is a really important point that, you know, CEOs have a lot of power and control on investment in states and we want to invest in states where there is equality. One thing that you're seeing is that there is a third [political] party emerging in this country, which is the party of CEOs." One would think that CEOs like Benioff would be satisfied with the two parties they now substantially control, but even the small possibility that ordinary Americans might be able to enact laws displeasing to him is more than Benioff can bear.

Even more interesting is the fact that The New York Times applauds the rise of the party of CEOs. In an editorial on April 3, the Times opined that "Big corporations like Walmart, Apple, and General Electric and their executives have done the right thing by calling on Indiana and Arkansas to reject 'religious freedom' laws designed to give businesses and religious groups legal cover should they deny services to gay couples."

But the Times wants even more from progressive plutocrats like Benioff. Big corporations "should refuse to finance the campaigns of lawmakers who want to deny civil rights to gays" and they should also "make clear that they want lawmakers in all states to pass anti-discrimination protections for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people." Indeed, the Times noted with approval that dozens of Silicon Valley companies have already banded together to demand such legislation.

In other words, Big Business and Big Media are now openly colluding against Middle America. So far, no one running for president in either party has seen fit to take note of this dangerous combination, much less offered to resist it. If one were to do so, he would be pleasantly surprised to discover how many Americans there are who don't want to sign up for Marc Benioff's party of CEOs.



4/8/2015 02:38 PM

  Big business is always anti-small business, anti-small town, or in this case, anti-small state. My father is a small business owner and hopeless Republican. I've tried to explain to him hundreds of times that "pro-business" Republicans are only pro-big business. They hate small businesses, view them as competition and seek to destroy them. At the state level, here in Western PA, when the shale gas drilling began, many small townships passed zoning ordinances banning drilling, limiting it to small areas, or forbidding the drilling companies from using the town's water supply, sewage treatment plant, etc. What did big business do? They threatened or filed massive lawsuits. In the cases where they couldn't bankrupt or scare off the small towns, they appealed to the great pro-business Republican governor Tom Corbett, now out of office. The governor sought to have the local bans lifted, and in the cases where this didn't work, he tried to buy off the local towns with community development grants, and other handouts. Far from being anti-regulation, or anti-government, these large corporations welcome government regulation, as it creates barriers to entry for smaller companies and increases the cost of doing business, which drives out the smaller companies. The big businesses will always do this under the guise of consumer protection, or safety, etc., but what they really want is to limit or eliminate competition. When the competition is sufficiently limited and they are the only game in town, they simply pass off the increased costs to the consumer.

4/8/2015 03:45 PM

  A foreign pool of money large enough to counter the influence of domestic wealth along with potentially significant advantages from doing so is the only practical solution to this problem. You need to outsource the outsourcers.

Michael Jones
Rockford, IL
4/8/2015 05:18 PM

  Tom, Another insightful article. MD is right; there is little surprise here. Big vs little is nothing new; maybe just ramped up a bit and more and more obvious. I add that there are not three parties, there are two: The Power Party (Democrats/Republicans/CEOs/Beneficiaries), and the rest of us. It is, ever more starkly, "Them" and "Us". And "Them" have most of the power. If we really have One Thing left - moral rectitude - will we use it, and if so, how, and to what purpose?

Andrew G Van Sant
Annapolis, MD
4/8/2015 05:28 PM

  I recently had a couple of emails in my spam folder indicate that was charging my credit card 1600D. That could be how they are funding their activities. Will have to closely monitor my next statement to see if they did charge my card. As far as I know, I have done no business with them.

Patrick Kealey
Concord, CA
4/8/2015 06:35 PM

  Not surprising..why? Socialism (liberal progressives) seeks to make people slaves. Big Business +Big Media (Corporations) seek to make people cowards. Government Bureaucratism accomplishes both.


You have not viewed any products recently.


To comment on this article, please find it on the Chronicles Facebook page.