Today there is discussion over whether or not to ban the President of the United States from a popular channel of communication and to disallow other individuals from participating in financial transactions. Previously these topics were taboo, however these are in fact real world examples of modern-day ideological warfare. This is life in the current day for those disaffected by expressing contrary views. The consequence of such actions is to radicalize those who have become “the other.”

Certainly similar events occurred in the past, but the normalization of this pattern of behavior is extremely troubling. One is likely to engage with such behaviors when times are difficult. As politicians have been unable to advance legislation in traditional outlets, they have applied pressure on businesses to act, says conservative commentator, Dan Bongino. Much has been written about political polarization and its origins. This subject is extremely complex, but the challenge for our lawmakers has taken a hold of everyday business and financial markets.

Businesses understand that in order to combat allegations of discrimination and bigotry, they must resort to embracing popular cultural ideals; today they stem from left-wing ideology. Whether or not the public takes seriously the businesses’ actions is unknown. Employees, especially young employees, however, believe that a workplace should embody their values.

The aura within corporate America is that embracing certain social activist causes deters activist groups from embarking on a smear campaign against that corporation; Chick Fil-A is the most notable example of a company unwilling to cater to the social activists. While these advocates have every right to influence public opinion, this behavior can become overwhelming for those of the opposing viewpoints. At times, this behavior borders on outright censorship.

As social activism becomes more present in corporate culture, the issue of deplatforming those with dissenting viewpoints becomes more common. Deplatforming is a tool used by activists to combat ideas by denying a means of communication. Despite being authoritarian, deplatforming is entirely contrary to the cherished American principle of “freedom of speech.” While not absolute, freedom of speech allows minority viewpoints to be expressed. According to the American Bar Association, “the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” In short, the government must have a very strong rationale for interfering into one’s right to speak, including the freedom of association.

Deplatforming

At Reason, Declan McCullagh writes about deplatforming. The issue McCullagh addresses is a controversy between Amazon executives and employees with regards to a transaction with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As McCullagh states, “the first problem with this strategy is that deplatforming won’t solve the issues…workers are upset about.” McCullagh is correct. Amazon may refuse to provide ICE with their facial recognition technology, but it is likely that a competitor will fill the void. Further, “there’s another problem with deplatforming, which is that it’s open-ended. If ICE can be denied contracts with tech companies, why not the Republican Party.” Clear boundaries are necessary in order to combat informally defined rationales for censorship.

House Democrats Call to Action

Financial institutions have been threatened by partisan politicians to “enforce legislation that doesn’t exist.” In February, conservative-favorite Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said, “We’re going to hold oversight hearings to make these banks accountable for investing in and making money off of the detention of immigrants.” House Financial Services Committee Democrats held a public shaming of the now-former Wells Fargo CEO, Tim Sloan. Representative Ocasio-Cortez grilled Sloan over the bank’s supposed involvement in “the caging of children.” The freshman Congresswoman then addressed, “If there was a leak from the Dakota Access Pipeline, why shouldn’t Wells Fargo pay for the cleanup of it, since it paid for the construction of the pipeline itself?”

Aside from her ignorance of legal liability, Representative Ocasio-Cortez seems to believe that any business that is not only directly implicated in a politically-charged activity but is also tangentially involved should be held to some degree of liability, an unlikely possibility under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

“We just don’t believe it is a good idea for banks to enforce legislation that doesn’t exist.”

Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) joined the pile-on with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez asking why Wells Fargo finances manufacturers of weapons. CEO Tim Sloan answered these questions, “We just don’t believe it is a good idea for banks to enforce legislation that doesn’t exist.”

Obama DOJ’s Operation Choke Point

These interrogations by Democrat legislators ring similar to the underlying mission of the 2013 Obama Department of Justice initiative, Operation Choke Point. In sum, Operation Choke Point sought to target industries, often manipulated by fraudsters, and to ensure maximum possible compliance with specific laws and regulations. However, unsealed emails and court depositions prove “government officials illegally targeted lawful businesses in an ideological crusade based on personal disdain. If there were other reasons at play, these regulators would not have needed to resort to backroom pressure tactics, including threatening the jobs of…bank executives with criminal prosecution unless they cut off banking relationships with small-dollar lenders and other lawful businesses.” Documents demonstrate a very clear underlying partisan motive by bureaucrats to exert raw government force on businesses. Dennis Shaul clearly describes the underlying problem, “if government regulators under one administration can target businesses they personally disfavor, any subsequent administration can do the same.”

For now, it remains clear that partisan gridlock in Washington, D.C. is having a lasting effect on business. Partisan politicians and regulators pressure corporations to engage as de facto government pawns, and corporations fearful of negative publicity may succumb to the mob. According to a SurveyMonkey poll, “68% of respondents said it’s ‘important for corporations to take a stand on important political issues facing the nations.’” A positive takeaway is that politicians and consumers seek for powerful entities to do more than expected; this is likely a byproduct of elected officials being unable to govern effectively. What is necessary in these times is to remind one another of our unifying principles and to seek a mutually beneficial solution.

Mitchell Nemeth has a Master in the Study of Law from the University Of Georgia School Of Law.