here to discuss the broader implications of this move
is Ben means Professor of law and the john
t Campbell chair in business and professional ethics at
the University of south Carolina School of Law.
Professor,
how could this new law that florida has signed into legislation impact the company
moving forward?
Well, it's nice to be here.
In theory, it could
reduce Disney's ability to manage its own land use
at the walt Disney world
area,
um, but it will also save the company some money.
It will impose higher costs on taxpayers
florida taxpayers in Orange and Osceola counties.
So
it's not clear to me how much of a difference it will make.
That's an interesting development, Right?
Because I think when we look at Disney's, uh, you know,
special kind of self governing status,
many have pointed to it as an opportunity to
kind of save fees and taxes under the agreement
and there could be a more substantial impact to the bottom line.
How do we understand that?
That will be if, if florida taxpayers, you know, take over some portion of the taxes,
that would mean that Disney is going to have to pay
for florida taxpayers or just the state of florida central florida.
However, it's, it's kind of, you know, vetted out um, to service their lands.
Well, in theory, I mean, Disney is already taxing itself.
So I'm not sure how much that would change from what I've read,
it seems like as a practical matter,
the costs imposed on the adjoining counties
would add to the florida taxpayer burden,
but either way, it strikes me as mostly theoretical
as a practical matter.
I'm skeptical whether this law will actually go into effect in a year's time,
at least as it's in its current form.
Um, for one thing, it's,
as I understand florida law and I haven't really done the research,
but I understand that when you create a special district,
you need under florida law.
Majority of vote of those in the special district to dissolve it,
which we don't have.
Um, also in your previous segment, you were talking about the First Amendment.
Well, here, I think we would have a significant First Amendment issue that
the governor and other Republican lawmakers have made plain that what they're
doing is to retaliate against Disney for speaking out on these issues.
So we have government taking these steps,
whatever the merits might be otherwise as retaliation.
And that would strike me as a real First Amendment issue.
Um, so
again, I'm skeptical that we'll see this law actually take effect
to that end. What does Disney plan to do? Do you think they file a lawsuit?
And what's their course of action in preventing this from from going into effect?
And and some of those kind of, you know, arguments that you mentioned,
they're coming to light.
Um, well, I'm not Disney, but if I were them,
I would suspect that their their first approach will
be to try to de escalate the situation.
I don't think it's in their interest to continue on
in a public way, unnecessarily if they can work it out
and I suspect they can,
they may also take into account the possibility that the current
governor of florida could be the next president of the United States
and stranger things have certainly happened.
But if it comes to it, I would,
and if they care about this issue,
I would think that they would seek to vindicate their rights in court.
You know, let's go with the thought that that all proceeds as is.
And this law goes into effect. Is there any concern in terms of,
you know, how this potentially changes Disney's core business?
I live in central florida and I know that Disney runs a lot of the
land there and they have a lot of say there if they start to lose
some of that flexibility that they enjoy.
I mean,
I look at investors and obviously we focus focus on investors for our show here.
And I say, hey,
listen to streaming side of the business that is also challenging mid
kind of earnings that we saw from netflix and the streaming challenges
that we're seeing more broadly. And now you have the parks and recreation service
potentially having some challenges there as well.
Um,
possibly I'm sure that Disney would prefer to hang
on to the controls of over land use.
But the other theme parks,
including Disney theme parks in California and
other places that don't enjoy this special.
And
frankly, I was unheard of. I had no idea that Disney had this power until recently.
Um,
and the other theme parks seemed to do just fine and
florida lawmakers have every reason to try to keep Disney happy.
So at the end of the day,
it's probably some transaction costs making the transition,
it's probably a little more headache going forward,
but I don't know if it's that big a deal.
Um, and Disney is a global, as you suggest, a diversified entertainment company.
So it's, it cares about what happens at walt Disney world,
but that's not the entire company.
So even if this were material with respect to walt Disney world,
it's not clear how much of an impact it has on
Disney's global business,
I would say
continues to be the case. That florida needs Disney
more than Disney needs florida.
I mean, going into the,
the initial stages of this kind of argument
or spat between Disney and Rhonda Santis.
That was the thought process.
Yet, you know,
Rhonda Santis clearly doesn't see it to be the case and
and he's kind of calling the bluff on that idea.
But, but I think the broader kind of context here is important to talk about, right,
when, when you are another business in florida,
looking at what's happening between Disney and Ron de Santis
or Disney and the state of florida right now,
is this an example that,
that other companies should keep in mind when thinking about
doing business in florida and their potential kind of caution
for what you would think is free speech of a company,
but now getting this retaliatory kind of action against it?
Well, I'm not sure if it
it matters all that much and it strikes me as a performative slap, it's
will smith at the Oscars. I'm not sure that it hurts Disney that much.
I'm not sure it's meant to hurt Disney that much.
And as for other companies, they're going to look at their own situation. Disney is
distinctive in that you literally cannot
pick up walt Disney world and put it somewhere else,
but other companies can relocate.
So if they feel that florida's
lawmakers are no longer focused on economic development.
If there is a growing rift between conservative lawmakers and corporations,
many corporations can move elsewhere. So I would expect to see corporations
continuing to protect their own interests and
advocate for the issues they care about.
Um, so I don't know that it really changes anything
in the time that I have spent in
courtrooms covering various cases throughout my career.
One thing that I've always paid close attention to is what
a judge or court brings up a chilling effect in case,
potentially having a chilling effect or sending setting some some sort of
president and I almost think that could be a concern here.
Do you think that's the case.
If it gets that point?
Well, I think it's intended to push corporations back into their lane, and
my view is that it's not really going to have
that impact if florida wanted to go after Disney,
there are ways that could attack the bottom line that they're not doing here.
So it doesn't strike means mostly for show,
but more broadly, it strikes me. I think corporate involvement in politics is
the way I think about it. It's part of politics.
We have advocates, we have in this case,
Disney employees pushing Disney to take a stand.
Um, so I think corporations have become part of our political process.
Ben really appreciate your insight.
We're coming up against the bell, so we're gonna have to leave it there. Ben means
Professor of Law and the
and the john T. Campbell, Chair in business
and Professional ethics at the University of south Carolina School of Law.