News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[donsullivan]

For a little perspective in this dialog. I don’t know how much they actually ended up getting.

Universal Orlando seeking $350 million in corporate tax breaks | Special Report

Universal Orlando is in line for nearly $350 million worth of state tax breaks to build a new headquarters for the division that designs its theme parks, rides and hotels, according to records obta…

www.orlandosentinel.com

And look about two-thirds the way down on this one for some details on what the other theme park operators receive for tax benefits.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article260783972.html

 

[The Grand Inquisitor]

What taxes do they not pay? I’m interested to hear what you think. I know you haven’t read the thread, but would it surprise you to know that Disney pays the same real estate taxes to Orange and Osceola counties as any other taxpayer including competitors like Universal and Sea World? Would it surprise you to know that the taxes Disney pays to RCID are in addition to those taxes so dissolving the district doesn’t change the amount of taxes paid to the counties? I hear what you are saying and you are repeating what the Governor has stated publicly that Disney doesn‘t pay their fair share and he has a plan. If you are actually interested I could summarize what’s already been discussed.

Thank you for your response. I wasn't attempting to be trolling. Just wanted to state my opinion after doing a bit more of research I do agree with some of you are saying. Personally, I just wish Disney stayed apolitical and didn't comment on the bill. I do think Desantis went a bit far. I'm very much happy to have a discussion with you all sans the snarky and troll comments.

 

[flynnibus]

Isn’t Florida a state with no income tax?

No PERSONAL income tax

Key word capitalized

 

[GoofGoof]

Thank you for your response. I wasn't attempting to be trolling. Just wanted to state my opinion after doing a bit more of research I do agree with some of you are saying. Personally, I just wish Disney stayed apolitical and didn't comment on the bill. I do think Desantis went a bit far. I'm very much happy to have a discussion with you all sans the snarky and troll comments.

Good to hear. Sometimes people are quick to assume stuff online without knowing people’s motives so I always give the benefit of the doubt that someone has a sincere interest in discussion.

Back to your original statement about Disney paying their fair share, dissolving RCID alone doesn’t achieve that. Right now Disney pays real estate taxes to Orange and Osceola counties at the same rate as every other tax payer. Those taxes pay for schools and roads and emergency services and other general expenses of the county. In addition Disney pays taxes to RCID where they are the primary taxpayer. RCID covers all of the cost of emergency services, utilities and roads for the area it covers which is essentially all of WDW. So by eliminating RCID without doing anything else Orange and to a lesser extent Osceola counties would absorb the assets and liabilities of RCID and then need to absorb the costs for services like Emergency response, road repairs, etc. There is no legal way to make Disney pay more taxes than anyone else so to pay for that increase in costs the counties would need to raise taxes on all taxpayers. If nothing else is done Disney would see a decrease in their overall real estate taxes since they would pay higher taxes to Orange County (like every other taxpayer) but no taxes to RCID which would be gone. This is why people objected to your statement that Disney should pay their fair share in taxes. That is not the end result of this action. A nice way of saying it would be to call that ”political spin” but it would be fair to just call it a lie too.

So why does Disney care if RCID exists if they actually pay more in taxes with it? The 2 major benefits to Disney are control over projects and the ability to borrow money off balance sheet. Control allows Disney to dictate the level of service they receive and avoid government red tape. As an example, if a guest at WDW receives medical treatment from RCID emergency personnel and needs to be transported to a hospital they receive no bill. If those services were provided by Orange County instead there would be a charge just like if you need an ambulance ride from downtown Orlando. Same goes for roads. Since RCID pays for road maintenance and improvements as soon as Disney decides they want a pot hole filled or a new turning lane added they tell RCID and they do it. Eventually Disney pays for all of that through taxes but they have control. If the county was in charge of roads they get to it when they get to it.

Off balance sheet debt is the other advantage. RCID can issue bonds to pay for projects and then pay the bonds back using tax income (paid by Disney). That debt is never reflected on the balance sheet of TWDC. It’s Reedy Creek’s debt. The Disney Springs parking garages come to mind as a good example. Instead of Disney borrowing $100M to build a parking garage and carrying that debt on their balance sheet they had RCID issue municipal bonds and are paying that off through tax payments. It was a big advantage when Disney was a much smaller company with a higher cost of debt like back when they were building EPCOT in the 80s. It’s still a good perk. The billion of debt that RCID currently has will go to the counties when the district is dissolved.

The main point is neither of the primary benefits RCID has for Disney is a big negative impact to the taxpayers and citizens of FL. The Governor has spun this as Disney doesn’t pay their fair share and now he’s fixed that but it’s simply not true. That’s political spin to justify an act of revenge against a political foe. I think this captures the major points of discussion over the past 250 pages.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Good to hear. Sometimes people are quick to assume stuff online without knowing people’s motives so I always give the benefit of the doubt that someone has a sincere interest in discussion. This is just my opinion but Disney staying apolitical is a separate issue from the Governor’s reaction. I think it is fair to say you want Disney to stay out of politics and focus on entertaining us. I don‘t disagree that entertainment should be their primary focus and for the most part it is. As far as the Governor‘s reaction, I don’t believe it‘s ever appropriate for elected officials to use the power they were given by the people to attempt to silence or damage their political rivals who have spoken out against them. That’s something we see in China or Russia but not here in a democracy. Very disturbing behavior.

Back to your original statement about Disney paying their fair share, dissolving RCID alone doesn’t achieve that. Right now Disney pays real estate taxes to Orange and Osceola counties at the same rate as every other tax payer. Those taxes pay for schools and roads and emergency services and other general expenses of the county. In addition Disney pays taxes to RCID where they are the primary taxpayer. RCID covers all of the cost of emergency services, utilities and roads for the area it covers which is essentially all of WDW. So by eliminating RCID without doing anything else Orange and to a lesser extent Osceola counties would absorb the assets and liabilities of RCID and then need to absorb the costs for services like Emergency response, road repairs, etc. There is no legal way to make Disney pay more taxes than anyone else so to pay for that increase in costs the counties would need to raise taxes on all taxpayers. If nothing else is done Disney would see a decrease in their overall real estate taxes since they would pay higher taxes to Orange County (like every other taxpayer) but no taxes to RCID which would be gone. This is why people objected to your statement that Disney should pay their fair share in taxes. That is not the end result of this action. A nice way of saying it would be to call that ”political spin” but it would be fair to just call it a lie too.

So why does Disney care if RCID exists if they actually pay more in taxes with it? The 2 major benefits to Disney are control over projects and the ability to borrow money off balance sheet. Control allows Disney to dictate the level of service they receive and avoid government red tape. As an example, if a guest at WDW receives medical treatment from RCID emergency personnel and needs to be transported to a hospital they receive no bill. If those services were provided by Orange County instead there would be a charge just like if you need an ambulance ride from downtown Orlando. Same goes for roads. Since RCID pays for road maintenance and improvements as soon as Disney decides they want a pot hole filled or a new turning lane added they tell RCID and they do it. Eventually Disney pays for all of that through taxes but they have control. If the county was in charge of roads they get to it when they get to it.

Off balance sheet debt is the other advantage. RCID can issue bonds to pay for projects and then pay the bonds back using tax income (paid by Disney). That debt is never reflected on the balance sheet of TWDC. It’s Reedy Creek’s debt. The Disney Springs parking garages come to mind as a good example. Instead of Disney borrowing $100M to build a parking garage and carrying that debt on their balance sheet they had RCID issue municipal bonds and are paying that off through tax payments. It was a big advantage when Disney was a much smaller company with a higher cost of debt like back when they were building EPCOT in the 80s. It’s still a good perk. The billion of debt that RCID currently has will go to the counties when the district is dissolved.

The main point is neither of the primary benefits RCID has for Disney is a big negative impact to the taxpayers and citizens of FL. The Governor has spun this as Disney doesn’t pay their fair share and now he’s fixed that but it’s simply not true. That’s political spin to justify an act of revenge against a political foe. I think this captures the major points of discussion over the past 250 pages.

Perfectly said. What many dont think about and you see less talk about is this was a win/win fir Disney and Florida. In face, when you look at it, Florida probably made out better when it started back in the 60’s and continues to benefit in so many ways. This isnt a Florida is getting a raw deal and Disney is making out like bandit's situation that many try to make it out to be.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

View attachment 636489

5000! 5000 comment Disney puzzle, lol.

Pocahontas always looks like she really doesn't want to be there for these things. Here, she seems to be hanging by the door to make a speedy exit as soon as possible.

 

[GoofGoof]

Perfectly said. What many dont think about and you see less talk about is this was a win/win fir Disney and Florida. In face, when you look at it, Florida probably made out better when it started back in the 60’s and continues to benefit in so many ways. This isnt a Florida is getting a raw deal and Disney is making out like bandit's situation that many try to make it out to be.

In reality there are over $500M of state tax credits that Disney has that gets them out of paying some of the 5.5% state corporate tax. If someone wants to argue Disney does not pay their fair share of state taxes that would be the place to look. If I open a hardware store the state won’t give me tax credits. It’s something Disney gets that other businesses don’t necessarily receive. However, those credits were given to Disney to bring jobs into FL. A bulk of those credits come from the 2,000 jobs moving from CA to Lake Nona FL that have a reported average salary north of $120K a year. That works out to $2.4B pumped into the local economy over 10 years as employee salaries alone without accounting for the benefits to the real estate market and the fact that many of these people will bring families that will also contribute to the economy. The project itself is estimated to cost over $800M so that’s a lot of temporary construction jobs as well.

So while Disney gets a big tax break they are more than making up for it in economic impact. It’s a great investment for the state. Looking at this through a political lens someone could say Disney is getting a tax break all businesses aren’t entitled to but looking at the big picture long term it’s a huge win for the state and residents of the state. As far as I have read the Governor has said they are not considering revoking those state tax credits at this point.

 

[flynnibus]

In reality there are over $500M of state tax credits that Disney has that gets them out of paying some of the 5.5% state corporate tax. If someone wants to argue Disney does not pay their fair share of state taxes that would be the place to look. If I open a hardware store the state won’t give me tax credits. It’s something Disney gets that other businesses don’t necessarily receive

Not quite. The Lake Nona deal was not some Disney-specific deal. It's simply Disney getting credits under a state ran economic development program that everyone is eligible for as long as the project meets the criteria.

The criteria are:

https://www.enterpriseflorida.com/wp-content/uploads/incentive-capital-investment-tax-credit.pdf

• Operate within designated high impact portions of the following sectors: Clean Energy, Corporate Headquarters, Financial Services, Information Technology, Life Sciences, Semiconductors, Advanced Manufacturing, and Transportation Equipment Manufacturing;
• Create at least 100 new jobs in Florida in connection with the project; and
• Make a cumulative capital investment of at least $25 million in connection with the project during the period from the beginning of construction to the commencement of operations.

Notable, Universal is ear marked for a similar 350M tax break under the same program. The biggest factors are the specific industries and the size of the project.

This deal - far more than RCID is what provides "tax-free living" for Disney in that the tax credits for Lake Nona will probably far exceed Disney's state income tax for the near future. Of course this is only a state income tax offset... but since we're talking about the Governor's role in what taxes corporations play

 

[GoofGoof]

Not quite. The Lake Nona deal was not some Disney-specific deal. It's simply Disney getting credits under a state ran economic development program that everyone is eligible for as long as the project meets the criteria.

The criteria are:

https://www.enterpriseflorida.com/wp-content/uploads/incentive-capital-investment-tax-credit.pdf

Notable, Universal is ear marked for a similar 350M tax break under the same program. The biggest factors are the specific industries and the size of the project.

This deal - far more than RCID is what provides "tax-free living" for Disney in that the tax credits for Lake Nona will probably far exceed Disney's state income tax for the near future. Of course this is only a state income tax offset... but since we're talking about the Governor's role in what taxes corporations play

I agree. The only way the state could go after those credits would be to try to cancel the overall program (not sure that’s even legal but he doesn’t seem to care much about that) and/or create a new state tax that would offset the credits. Neither will happen and both would be a nuclear option that would have devastating impacts on the economy of the state.

My only point in bringing up those credits is that the only way anyone could make a factual argument that Disney is not paying their “fair share” of taxes is to point to this program that only really benefits large employers investing money in the state. In my example, if I opened a hardware store I wouldn’t be eligible for those credits. Instead the Governor is saying he’s going to make Disney pay their fair share and then he’s saying he won’t go after those credits but is going after RCID which doesn’t reduce Disney’s tax payments. Double talk.

For the record I am not saying the state should go after those credits. Those types of programs are critical to growing the economy.

 

[Brian]

The reason why I said this discussion was thought-provoking in the first place is the idea that Disney has been given special privileges beyond what they would have a right to under law (such as the right to free speech).

Do other entities in Florida enjoy some of the same special privileges? Yes. As many have pointed out, there are nearly 2,000 special districts in Florida.

That does not change the fact that Disney is in no way entitled under the law to the special privileges that RCID affords them.

If the state decides to remove the special privileges from Disney, or anyone else, that is their prerogative, just as it was to grant them in the first place. Again, this is because no company/person has a right under any law, state or federal, to the privileges a special district affords them. The act alone of stripping a company of it's special district does not deprive Disney of any rights.

The question then becomes, , when a court examines this on first amendment grounds, can the case be made that Disney was retaliated against by removing something which they are not entitled to under law? I don't think that is as clear cut as some would claim on this thread.

If the state were to, for example, deny Disney the tax incentive for the Lake Nona campus because the GOP majority/governorship wasn't happy with their opinion on the parental rights bill, that would be depriving Disney of something they are entitled to under the law. If you meet the criteria for the tax credit, you are entitled to the tax credit. That isn't the case here. Special districts are generally created by the legislature; there is nothing in the statutes that says that when an entity meets the criteria for forming a special district that they are entitled to become one, as it requires the approval of (generally) the legislature.

Again, when push comes to shove, the courts will likely side with RCID/Disney, given just how much is on the record regarding the motivation behind dissolving the district (and the various complaints about wokeness and such), and Ellis' citation of 1A jurisprudence which holds that the "chilling of speech" can be the basis for proving that one's 1A rights were violated.

The only questions on my mind are: can taking away something Disney has no right to in the first place be considered "chilling of speech?" and if so, if Disney isn't RCID, but RCID is what was taken away, can Disney still prove they were wronged? That's why we have courts, and stranger opinions have been rendered.

 

[flynnibus]

The reason why I said this discussion was thought-provoking in the first place is the idea that Disney has been given special privileges beyond what they would have a right to under law (such as the right to free speech).

Do other entities in Florida enjoy some of the same special privileges? Yes. As many have pointed out, there are nearly 2,000 special districts in Florida.

That does not change the fact that Disney is in no way entitled under the law to the special privileges that RCID affords them.

And this entire point is MEANINGLESS to the concern being raised

If the state decides to remove the special privileges from Disney, or anyone else, that is their prerogative, just as it was to grant them in the first place. Again, this is because no company/person has a right under any law, state or federal, to the privileges a special district affords them. The act alone of stripping a company of it's special district does not deprive Disney of any rights.

This is a point that no one contests - It's brought up time and time again as if it establishes something. But it doesn't --- because it's not the point under debate!

Sorry - this is completely and utterly false. There is no such requirement that someone be 'entitled' to something to be be a violation of free speech. This whole 'entitled' discussion is pointless and is only a distraction because people are trying to use it to disqualify the idea that the company is being retaliated against.

When the government tries to punish someone for their protected speech by punishing that person or impacting them in a way to deter their actions... there is no standard of depriving them of something they were ENTITLED to. This whole standard is made up and baseless.

Talking heads can keep bringing it up but it's a smoke screen. It literally has nothing to do with the evaluation if something is a violation of free speech.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The question then becomes, and I think this is what Klavan was getting at, when a court examines this on first amendment grounds, can the case be made that Disney was retaliated against by removing something which they are not entitled to under law? I don't think that is as clear cut as some would claim on this thread.

It is clear cut because whether or not the thing being taken is special doesn’t matter. It’s being taken in retaliation. And it’s incredibly frightening that people supposedly in favor of limited government don’t recognize this very common tactic of authoritarianism, I’m giving you something “special” and if you don’t do as I say I will take it away.

 

[Prince-1]

Thank you for your response. I wasn't attempting to be trolling. Just wanted to state my opinion after doing a bit more of research I do agree with some of you are saying. Personally, I just wish Disney stayed apolitical and didn't comment on the bill. I do think Desantis went a bit far. I'm very much happy to have a discussion with you all sans the snarky and troll comments.

Disney has never been apolitical. Never. This time they just really mishandled their response.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

The reason why I said this discussion was thought-provoking in the first place is the idea that Disney has been given special privileges beyond what they would have a right to under law (such as the right to free speech).

Do other entities in Florida enjoy some of the same special privileges? Yes. As many have pointed out, there are nearly 2,000 special districts in Florida.

That does not change the fact that Disney is in no way entitled under the law to the special privileges that RCID affords them.

If the state decides to remove the special privileges from Disney, or anyone else, that is their prerogative, just as it was to grant them in the first place. Again, this is because no company/person has a right under any law, state or federal, to the privileges a special district affords them. The act alone of stripping a company of it's special district does not deprive Disney of any rights.

The question then becomes, and I think this is what Klavan was getting at, when a court examines this on first amendment grounds, can the case be made that Disney was retaliated against by removing something which they are not entitled to under law? I don't think that is as clear cut as some would claim on this thread.

If the state were to, for example, deny Disney the tax incentive for the Lake Nona campus because the GOP majority/governorship wasn't happy with their opinion on the parental rights bill, that would be depriving Disney of something they are entitled to under the law. If you meet the criteria for the tax credit, you are entitled to the tax credit. That isn't the case here. Special districts are generally created by the legislature; there is nothing in the statutes that says that when an entity meets the criteria for forming a special district that they are entitled to become one, as it requires the approval of (generally) the legislature.

Again, when push comes to shove, the courts will likely side with RCID/Disney, given just how much is on the record regarding the motivation behind dissolving the district (and the various complaints about wokeness and such), and Ellis' citation of 1A jurisprudence which holds that the "chilling of speech" can be the basis for proving that one's 1A rights were violated.

The only questions on my mind are: can taking away something Disney has no right to in the first place be considered "chilling of speech?" and if so, if Disney isn't RCID, but RCID is what was taken away, can Disney still prove they were wronged? That's why we have courts, and stranger opinions have been rendered.

Its very clear cut in my mind and others why it was done. We aren’t guessing at retaliation, we are listening to what he is actually saying. In rallies..in interviews.. on tv.. along with others in his cabinet. Nothing is more “clear cut” then when you basically say why you are doing it. Happened right after Chapek opened his mouth. Was the cery next day I believe if not the same day. Florida has had 55 years to dissolve it if they wanted and they didn’t. Disney opened their mouth and what they thought was a wrong and was immediately punished for saying something. Not actually punished as of yet but the intent is there to make them pay.

 

[GoofGoof]

The reason why I said this discussion was thought-provoking in the first place is the idea that Disney has been given special privileges beyond what they would have a right to under law (such as the right to free speech).

Do other entities in Florida enjoy some of the same special privileges? Yes. As many have pointed out, there are nearly 2,000 special districts in Florida.

That does not change the fact that Disney is in no way entitled under the law to the special privileges that RCID affords them.

If the state decides to remove the special privileges from Disney, or anyone else, that is their prerogative, just as it was to grant them in the first place. Again, this is because no company/person has a right under any law, state or federal, to the privileges a special district affords them. The act alone of stripping a company of it's special district does not deprive Disney of any rights.

The question then becomes, and I think this is what Klavan was getting at, when a court examines this on first amendment grounds, can the case be made that Disney was retaliated against by removing something which they are not entitled to under law? I don't think that is as clear cut as some would claim on this thread.

If the state were to, for example, deny Disney the tax incentive for the Lake Nona campus because the GOP majority/governorship wasn't happy with their opinion on the parental rights bill, that would be depriving Disney of something they are entitled to under the law. If you meet the criteria for the tax credit, you are entitled to the tax credit. That isn't the case here. Special districts are generally created by the legislature; there is nothing in the statutes that says that when an entity meets the criteria for forming a special district that they are entitled to become one, as it requires the approval of (generally) the legislature.

Again, when push comes to shove, the courts will likely side with RCID/Disney, given just how much is on the record regarding the motivation behind dissolving the district (and the various complaints about wokeness and such), and Ellis' citation of 1A jurisprudence which holds that the "chilling of speech" can be the basis for proving that one's 1A rights were violated.

The only questions on my mind are: can taking away something Disney has no right to in the first place be considered "chilling of speech?" and if so, if Disney isn't RCID, but RCID is what was taken away, can Disney still prove they were wronged? That's why we have courts, and stranger opinions have been rendered.

You are still missing the point though. It’s not that Disney has a right to a special district and taking it away is a violation of their rights that creates a problem it’s the “why the privilege is being removed” that is the problem.

Why was RCID created in the first place? There were some very good reasons the state did it. They weren’t obligated to create a special district and Disney had no claim to a right to have one, but they decided to move forward with it anyway. At that point the state has every right to remove the special district at any time. Special districts have come and once they met their purpose have gone. If the state decided based on the merits of the district that RCID was no longer needed or beneficial to the state then they could and likely would have removed it. That’s not what has happened and any attempt to spin it that way is just a flat out lie. The Governor has told anyone who will listen this is only being done to punish Disney. That ”why” is the basis for any 1st amendment lawsuit. Nobody is arguing Disney has a right to the district and if the Governor and bill sponsors kept their mouths shut there would be no basis for a lawsuit but they wanted the political benefit of a public feud so that’s what they got.

 

[Minthorne]

The corporate income tax rate in Florida is 5.5%.

So then no person in FL paid more than Disney for income tax. I guess I misunderstood you post saying most people paid more state income tax in FL than Disney.

 

[Brian]

Sorry - this is completely and utterly false. There is no such requirement that someone be 'entitled' to something to be be a violation of free speech. This whole 'entitled' discussion is pointless and is only a distraction because people are trying to use it to disqualify the idea that the company is being retaliated against.

If you get fired from your job because of your political speech.. your employer doesn't get to say "well, he was never ENTITLED to that job". When the government tries to punish someone for their protected speech by punishing that person or impacting them in a way to deter their actions... there is no standard of depriving them of something they were ENTITLED to. This whole standard is made up and baseless.

Talking heads can keep bringing it up but it's a smoke screen. It literally has nothing to do with the evaluation if something is a violation of free speech.

What are you talking about? Employees get fired for their political speech on a regular basis - just look at the who scour the internet looking for something "problematic" to report to the poster's company in the hopes of getting them fired. There's no first amendment right to free speech in the workplace, and in most states, your political speech outside of the workplace is not protected either, because of at-will employment law, and because political affiliation is not a protected class (like religion or sex).

Back to the topic at hand, I do think you and some others are presenting an overly simplistic view of the situation. The reason why many constitutional law court opinions are so lengthy is because they are complex issues wherein the judges weigh several competing arguments and factors. If I were a betting man, I would be willing to guess that a judge or judges would take into consideration the difference between being deprived of something one is entitled to under law versus something one is granted by the state without obligation under law and that they were entitled to take away.

 

[Lilofan]

What are you talking about? Employees get fired for their political speech on a regular basis - just look at the jacka***s who scour the internet looking for something "problematic" to report to the poster's company in the hopes of getting them fired. There's no first amendment right to free speech in the workplace, and in most states, your political speech outside of the workplace is not protected either, because of at-will employment law, and because political affiliation is not a protected class (like religion or sex).

Back to the topic at hand, I do think you and some others are presenting an overly simplistic view of the situation. The reason why many constitutional law court opinions are so lengthy is because they are complex issues wherein the judges weigh several competing arguments and factors. If I were a betting man, I would be willing to guess that a judge or judges would take into consideration the difference between being deprived of something one is entitled to under law versus something one is granted by the state without obligation under law and that they were entitled to take away.

If one is a state or federal employee they are protected by 1A. Looks like cannot be fired.

 

[mikejs78]

I would be willing to guess that a judge or judges would take into consideration the difference between being deprived of something one is entitled to under law versus something one is granted by the state without obligation under law and that they were entitled to take away.

That would be going against most first amendment jurisprudence. This "under the law" concept has no basis in any case law and was strictly invented in the last week.

Courts have previously and consistently ruled that government can not take action, even lawful action, in retaliation for speech. This whole under the law concept is an invention of the moment.

 

[Brian]

That would be going against most first amendment jurisprudence. This "under the law" concept has no basis in any case law and was strictly invented in the last week.


Courts have previously and consistently ruled that government can not take action, even lawful action, in retaliation for speech. This whole under the law concept is an invention of the moment.

That may be, but courts have also held that there is a distinction between a right and a privilege.

From a TownHall.com editorial:

To overturn Florida’s revocation of Disney’s RCID, Disney must show that the act of the Florida government is based on the content of Disney’s speech or the content of its expressive activities. The state may decide that a quasi-government entity, like Disney under the RCID, may not create an environment that jeopardizes parental rights or the innocence of youth and still receive special district status. In like measure, the constitutionality of federal law to cease government funding for abortion services did not run afoul of the First Amendment’s protection for religious liberty (Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)). That is because there is no constitutional right to a government privilege and, so long as revocation of the privilege does not deprive a party of a right, there can be no sound argument that it violates the Constitution. In other words, the First Amendment stands as a barrier to government action that forbids speech; it does not create an affirmative right to a state sponsored platform for speech.