Orlando Disney

Depew NY

Description

I am not up to date on Disney in Florida and how Disney's special deal came about. I assume it came about the same way we do things here in Western NY. A company with funds or the ability to bring together investors to raise sufficient funds goes to local or state govt and indicates a project it wants to take on and requests special priviledges for their project. In theory, if the governing body sees an overall benefit to granting special priviledges to the project to make it happen then it grants that. Think of the current stadium controversy in the buffalo area. Think the failed Fast Ferry to Canada in Rochester and especially think of Donald Trump and his wheeling and dealing in NYC in the 70's and 80's. Also think amazon and its special deals wherever it locates a facility. Some of these deals have real public benefit. Such as jobs, taxes, development of unused property that might currently be a liability. Some of these deals are just corrupt officials wheeling and dealing to line their own pockets. With respect to Disney in Florida the current controversy is NOT about whether the deal Disney struck with the government was good or bad for the public. The controversy is about the Governor trying to silence Disney's freedom of speech solely because Disney dared to speak out against the Governor's crazy mandates and laws. It is a form of pay to play. Disney would not play the game the way the Governor wanted so now he is making them pay the price. It is funny since the supreme court said money is free speech (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). It seems people like the Koch Brothers can buy all the free speech they can afford but when Disney speaks out it gets silenced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the relationship between campaign finance and free speech. It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010. The court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.