Friday evening, in a last-ditch effort to save its Memorial Day weekend profits, Publix, “one of the 10 largest-volume supermarket chains in the country,”  announced it would no longer make contributions to the campaign of Republican gubernatorial candidate Adam Putnam.  The news came minutes before a scheduled “die-in” organized by David Hogg, a survivor of last February’s mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.  Publix’s alliance with Putnam was targeted based on his bragging about being a proud “NRA sellout” (his words).  Congratulations to the Parkland students and their peers around the country who have kept their word they will not go away.

But that’s not what I came here to talk with you about.  The media coverage associated with the student protest uncovered just one more glaring example of a much larger issue in our body politic.  Publix is not supporting Adam Putnam for Florida governor because he is a Second Amendment zealot even though the chain allows employees and customers with concealed carry permits to bring firearms into their stores.  (That’s why one should never take the last artichoke in the produce section.) The real reason?  Since 2010, Putnam has been the state’s elected Agriculture Commissioner.  Among its constitutional duties, the office of the Agriculture Commission is in charge of (drum roll) regulating grocery outlets.

In a 2016 report by WFTS-TV in Tampa,  the station identified seven Publix facilities which had failed health inspections.   The day after Channel 28 aired the story, Putnam had the information deleted from the department’s website.  According to an article in yesterday’s Miami Herald, this was not the end of the Commission’s Publix-friendly actions.

Months later, a friendlier new system was put in action. Now, thanks to Putnam, if a storage room at a Publix is found freckled with rat droppings, the worst rating the store can receive is “re-inspection required.”   (Source:  “Putnam keeps his deep-pocketed friends happy,”  Miami Herald, May 25, 2018)

In the past three years, Publix has contributed in access of $670,000 directly to Putnam’s campaigns as well as an untold sum to business organizations which are Putnam’s financial backers.  I point this out as only one example to show why these unholy alliances should have been used as evidence to pinpoint the major flaw when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, the single most significant event which un-leveled the political playing field.   In the most “liberal” spin of Constitutional language by so-called conservative, strict constructionists, the 5-4 majority claimed corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to influencing political discourse.  To do otherwise, would be a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression.

But here’s the difference.  Suppose I, as an individual, donate not just thousands, but millions of dollars to every candidate who supports net neutrality because, as a blogger, I want to ensure readers have equal access to my “profound wisdom.”  And all the candidates I support win and, on day one of the next Congress, overturn the recent FCC regulations related to this issue.  Yes, I benefit.  But so does every other blogger and, more importantly, EVERY other company regardless of industry which is dependent of reaching its customers via the Internet.  In classic economics, this is what we used to call a public good.  Those who chose not to financially support the cause get the same benefit as those who did.

In contrast, a private, for-profit corporation making an equally large donation to candidates who promise to protect the FCC ruling do so in anticipation of a private benefit.  Internet service providers (ISP), such as Comcast and Verizon, if successful have surely calculated the return on investment if their campaign donations produce the desired outcome.

Furthermore, when I donate to a political campaign it comes out of my personal funds.  And the opportunity cost likewise is personal.  I may forego a vacation or a new smart phone.  Equally important, my choice is tempered by my ability to convince other stakeholders.  Imagine the following conversation.

ME: Honey, instead of that cruise we were going to take for our anniversary, what would you think if I gave the money to support candidates who favor reinstating net neutrality?

SPOUSE:  What would you think about sleeping on the living room couch?

In contrast, private corporations will argue they are making a similar choice.  Corporate donations are usually handled through a political action committee (PAC) which raises money from what is known as a “restricted class.”  For PACs associated with for-profit business, this designation is generally limited to mangers and stockholders.  The extent to which these individuals contribute to a given PAC often depends on the size of one’s salary or the share value of the company’s stock, both dependent on (drum roll) customers.  Customers who have no say or are unaware their purchases are supporting not only the business’ bottom line, but indirectly underwriting a political agenda which may be contrary to their self-interests (e.g. in the case of Publix and Adam Putnam, food safety).

But we are not helpless as proven again by the Parkland students.  If the Supreme Court, by its actions, is more interested in the Publix interest than the public’s interest, all it takes is an industrious high school student to remind us the preamble of the U.S. Constitution begins with the words, “WE THE PEOPLE.”  Now that’s something to “die-in” for.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP