mikejs78
Premium Member
Just to add, I think even if the courts uphold the law because of the legislative intent issue, I think they rule in favor of Disney against the governor's and the board's application of the law. There's no question of intent there.You are pointing to dissents, which aren't considered case law. Again, though, Stevens dissent is geared against corporate *money* expenditures in *elections*. That's very different than making a statement about a bill.. I imagine that must justices who would be OK with legal limitations on Disney *spending* on lobbying against the bill would be opposed to limits on *statements*, which are the purist form of speech imaginable.
Another point of difference in most of the case law is that it has to do with laws on the books that regulate corporate expenditures. Here, we don't have a law on the books that prohibited Disney's statement. There was no FL law that said that Disney couldn't speak out. Everything was done after the fact. And I doubt the conservatives would want to overturn Citizens, as that case is something that is very important to their donor class.
The big question mark for me is still if the justices will want to make the leap to legislative intent. I think the three progressives will - not sure if they can get two of the Roberts/Kavanaugh/Gorsuch/Barrett to join them. Of course, by the time this case reaches the court, if it does, it's possible the makeup of the court will have changed.
That's irrelevant because it didn't actually happen.
Disney World is a completely different beast than Disneyland or any other park. The infra needs of Disney World are orders of magnitude higher than DL. Besides, the new board is intent on *punishing* Disney, not just taking oversight.
And regardless of that, no one should be comfortable about the government retaliating against anyone for their constitutionally protected speech, whether or not one agrees with that speech.