Missouri Bill Would Ban Many Companies From "Refusing To Deal With" Anti-Trans Businesses
The new bill comes after Andrew Bailey vowed to investigate companies pulling business from X, formerly Twitter over hate speech.
A new bill in Missouri could significantly curtail the ability of companies in the state to pull business with other companies over anti-trans, anti-abortion, or other policies. The bill, Senate Bill 1061, would ban companies doing business with the state from engaging in “economic boycotts” over a large list of issues, including transgender care and abortion. The boycott ban includes “refusing to deal with” or “terminating business with” other companies over these policies. This recent move comes after recent high-profile cases of companies pulling business with X, formerly Twitter, over rising hate speech on the platform.
The bill stipulates that companies doing business with the state of Missouri cannot engage in economic boycotts targeted at other companies over issues traditionally supported by conservative politicians. Notably, the ban applies not only to companies doing business with the state of Missouri but also to companies doing business with any political subdivision of the state. Typically, this includes counties, city governments, public schools, public libraries, and more. This would affect the nearly 700 businesses that have direct contracts with the state, and countless more that have contracts with school boards and local governments.
Under this law, companies that enter into contracts with any of the aforementioned entities would be barred from “refusing to deal with,” “terminating business with,” or otherwise engaging in economic activities designed to penalize a company over that company’s views relating to “not facilitating sex or gender change” or not facilitating “access to abortion.” It also includes other topics, such as boycotts over environmental policies and firearms.
You can see the provisions targeting economic boycotts of other companies, including the abortion and trans provision, here:
The issue of economic boycotts over anti-LGBTQ+ policies has gained rising attention in recent months. Companies have “terminated business activities with” X, formerly Twitter, over its support for hate speech, which, for some, has included anti-LGBTQ+ hate speech. New policies on X include ending a previous policy that protected transgender people from harassment on the platform, including targeted misgendering. It is unclear if this policy would bar businesses from terminating business with X - companies boycotting the social media platform over Elon Musk’s declaration that he would lobby to criminalize gender affirming care, for instance, might violate the law if they have contracts with Missouri or any city government, school, or library. For example, IBM pulled advertising on X and currently has an open contract with the state.
This bill is not the only one like it in the United States. Over the last year, several others have been proposed with the same language, although all of them have failed to pass. Bills with similar wording have been proposed in South Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Ohio, and Iowa. This approach could, in part, stem from an earlier law targeting a different boycott target: last year, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a law requiring companies that do business with public entities in Arkansas to not engage in boycotts of Israel could be enforced.
This approach to targeting companies over their commitment to rejecting hate speech is likely to be repeated in several states this year. Increasingly, Republicans are mobilizing state law and enforcement efforts against corporate activism when it does not agree with the Republican platform. Despite claiming to be in favor of “absolute free speech” and “less regulations,” these supposed values do not clearly apply when companies choose to protect LGBTQ+ people.
How weird. The party of economic freedom telling business where they can or can not spend their money when they want to dissociate themselves from bigotry.
The problem that made the anti-Israel-BDS law pass muster was that it applies to what the government wanted to associate itself with. The problem with this proposed law is that it explicitly bars private entities from disassociating themselves from whatever entities they wish, and methinks it’s a first amendment violation on account of the right to peaceably assemble. Does any lawyer back me up or contradict me?