Corporations

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Southwest Airlines Agrees to Board Changes After Pressure From Elliott

      by

      The airline has been under pressure from the hedge fund Elliott to replace its top management and make other changes to increase its profits.Southwest Airlines on Tuesday announced an overhaul of its board of directors, including the planned departure of its executive chairman, Gary Kelly, after a meeting with a hedge fund that has called for sweeping changes at the company.The board announced the changes while expressing unanimous support for the airline’s chief executive, Bob Jordan, who with Mr. Kelly had been the target of sharp criticism from the hedge fund, Elliott Investment Management. In a statement, the airline said its board was “confident that there is no better leader” for Southwest than Mr. Jordan, who became chief executive in February 2022.“Bob has a proven track record over decades and, most importantly, he has what it takes to lead Southwest through a significant transformation and usher in a new era of profitable growth, innovation and industry leadership,” Mr. Kelly, who was chief executive before Mr. Jordan took over, said in a letter to shareholders.Southwest presented its plan to Elliott at a meeting in New York on Monday. It was not clear whether the overhaul would satisfy Elliott, which has a roughly 11 percent stake in the company. Elliott has called for both Mr. Kelly and Mr. Jordan to step down and has sought to replace most of the directors on the company’s board.Shares of Southwest were down nearly 3 percent in morning trading on Tuesday.“We are pleased that the board is beginning to recognize the degree of change that will be required at Southwest, and we hope to engage with the remaining directors to align on the further necessary changes,” Elliott said in a statement. “The need for thoughtful, deliberate change at Southwest remains urgent, and we believe the highly qualified nominees we have put forward are the right people to steady the board and chart a new course for the airline.”Mr. Kelly, who was the airline’s chief executive for nearly two decades before Mr. Jordan took over, said that he planned to retire after the airline’s annual meeting in the spring. Six other mostly longstanding board members plan to step down after a meeting in November.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump Doesn’t Have the Support of Corporate America

      by

      Stephan DybusRecent headlines suggest that our nation’s business leaders are embracing the presidential candidate Donald Trump. His campaign would have you believe that our nation’s top chief executives are returning to support Mr. Trump for president, touting declarations of support from some prominent financiers like Steve Schwarzman and David Sacks.That is far from the truth. They didn’t flock to him before, and they certainly aren’t flocking to him now. Mr. Trump continues to suffer from the lowest level of corporate support in the history of the Republican Party.I know this because I have worked with roughly 1,000 chief executives a year, running a school for them, which I started 35 years ago, and I speak with business leaders almost every day. Our surveys show that roughly 60 percent to 70 percent of them are registered Republicans. The reality is that the top corporate leaders working today, like many Americans, aren’t entirely comfortable with either Mr. Trump or President Biden. But they largely like — or at least can tolerate — one of them. They truly fear the other.If you want the most telling data point on corporate America’s lack of enthusiasm for Mr. Trump, look where they are investing their money. Not a single Fortune 100 chief executive has donated to the candidate so far this year, which indicates a major break from overwhelming business and executive support for Republican presidential candidates dating back over a century, to the days of Taft, and stretching through Coolidge and the Bushes, all of whom had dozens of major company heads donating to their campaigns.Mr. Trump secured the White House partly by tapping into the anticorporate, populist messaging of Bernie Sanders, who was then a candidate, a move that Mr. Trump discussed with me when I met him in 2015. The strategy may have won voters but did little to enhance Mr. Trump’s image with the business community. And while a number of chief executives tried to work with Mr. Trump as they would with any incumbent president, and many celebrated his move to cut the corporate tax rate, wariness persisted. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Tesla Settles Lawsuit Over a Fatal Crash Involving Autopilot

      by

      A Tesla driver’s family had sought damages for the 2018 crash, which happened while the carmaker’s driver-assistance software was in use.Tesla on Monday settled a lawsuit that blamed the automaker’s driver-assistance software for the death of a California man in 2018, averting a trial that would have focused attention on the company’s technology several months before it plans to unveil a self-driving taxi.The trial stemming from the death of Wei Lun Huang, an Apple software engineer who went by Walter, was scheduled to start Monday with jury selection. The case was one of the most prominent involving Tesla’s Autopilot software, attracting significant public attention and prompting an investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board.Terms of the settlement with Mr. Huang’s children and other members of his family were not disclosed, and Tesla filed court documents seeking to prevent them from being made public.Testimony in the trial would have put Tesla’s autonomous driving software under close scrutiny, further fueling a debate about whether the technology makes cars safer or exposes drivers and others to serious injury or death.Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla, has said the company’s self-driving software will generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue. Investors have used his claims to justify the company’s lofty stock market valuation. Tesla is worth more than any other carmaker even though its shares have plunged in recent months.Mr. Musk said on X last week that Tesla would introduce a self-driving taxi, Robotaxi, in August. If Tesla has in fact perfected a vehicle that can ferry passengers without a driver — which many analysts doubt — the development will help answer criticism that the company has been slow to follow up its Model 3 sedan and Model Y sport utility vehicle with new products.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Lawsuits Accuse 2 Michigan Jails of Banning Family Visits to Increase Revenue

      by

      The suits contend that two counties entered into agreements with telecommunications companies that would bring more money because of increased use of phone calls and electronic messaging.Two county jails in Michigan banned in-person family visits for inmates several years ago as a way to boost county revenues from the increased number of phone calls and electronic messaging that resulted, a pair of lawsuits filed this month claim.The bans on in-person visits leave “electronic communications — phone and video calls and electronic messaging — as the sole way for the families of people detained in the jail to talk with their loved ones inside,” according to the lawsuits, which were filed on behalf of the families. The suits claim that officials in St. Clair County and Genesee County entered into a “quid pro quo kickback scheme” with Global Tel*Link Corporation and Securus Technologies.Both companies denied any wrongdoing.Jennifer Jackson-Luth, a spokesperson for Securus, called the lawsuit in which that company is named “misguided and without merit.”“We look forward to defending ourselves, and we will not let this suit detract from our successful efforts to create meaningful and positive outcomes for the consumers we serve,” she said.Global Tel*Link, which changed its name to ViaPath Technologies in 2022, said that it “denies the allegations in the complaint and looks forward to the opportunity to defend the claims made against it.”Phone messages left with the Genesee County Sheriff’s Office and to the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Office this week were not returned.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      The Teacher Shortage: Why, and What to Do?

      by

      More from our inbox:Mr. McCarthy, Put Country Before EgoDebate, Yes, but Without an AudienceReauthorize PEPFARHow Unions Help Companies Eleanor DavisTo the Editor:Re “People Don’t Want to Be Teachers Anymore. Can You Blame Them?,” by Jessica Grose (newsletter, nytimes.com, Sept. 13):As a retired teacher, I read this with heartfelt interest. Ms. Grose noted the cost of getting a degree, low pay and lack of respect as leading causes for our current shortage of teachers.Then again, when I entered the College of Education at the University of Minnesota in 1980, my friends thought I was crazy. There was little respect even then. Pay was even worse.I began as a pre-law student my freshman year in college. And then it happened. I saw the light. I remembered those teachers who had saved me. Teachers who had seen potential in me that I could not see for myself. My life was transformed by teachers.The courtroom seemed like a selfish ambition. The classroom felt like a journey of love, an opportunity to be inspired and to inspire each and every day. I walked into my college guidance counselor’s office and asked to transfer into the College of Education.No regrets. The 35 years I spent in the classroom taught me so many important lessons. I learned the importance of believing in excellence. I learned that I could help others become excellent. And most important, I discovered that belonging to a professional learning community was eternally gratifying.I understand that people don’t want to be teachers anymore. That was true in the 1980s, too. But for many of us who did become teachers, bliss. Can you say the same in your job today?Dan LarsenBarrington, Ill.To the Editor:Jessica Grose is spot on that financial barriers, mental wellness, culture wars and a profession that is out of step with the wants and needs of this generation are all contributing to teacher shortages across the country, especially in low-income communities.She also notes that people who consider teaching later in life could be a source of optimism. Don’t count Gen Z out. We just welcomed over 2,200 new Teach for America teachers — 40 percent more than last year, and most are recent college graduates.This generation is giving us so much optimism: They understand the experiences and needs of today’s students, and want careers that have meaningful impact, align with their values and foster community. Collectively we have to create the conditions for this generation to say yes to careers in education.Jemina R. BernardStamford, Conn.The writer is president and chief operating officer of Teach for America.To the Editor:I agree with everything Jessica Grose has to say in this piece about the current decline in the number of college graduates who choose to become teachers. I would, however, suggest an additional reason for this decline. Simply put, women graduates today have more career choices than in the past.When I graduated in 1962, most of my friends and I became teachers. What were our choices? Teaching, nursing, or go to Katharine Gibbs and learn to type. Today I have two 24-year-old granddaughters; one is an architectural engineer, the other is enrolled in a graduate program that will enable her to become a clinical researcher.Neither even considered a career as a teacher. Nor did my 51-year-old daughter, who is an attorney.Beverly StautzenbachVenice, Fla.Mr. McCarthy, Put Country Before Ego Kenny Holston/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Hard Right in Congress Sows Havoc,” by Carl Hulse (news analysis, front page, Sept. 25):Mr. Hulse’s article is deeply disturbing insofar as 20 or so radical conservative Republicans can force a government shutdown.There is a simple solution if Speaker Kevin McCarthy would choose to put the country before his own political ego and his party: Walk across the aisle with willing Republicans and speak with Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic minority leader, to vote with the Democrats to approve the budget.Mr. McCarthy should ask himself what a leader and patriot like Senator John McCain would do in a similar situation. Mr. McCarthy’s constituents might surprise him with their support if he demonstrates some real courage.Brian HousealBrunswick, MaineDebate, Yes, but Without an Audience Brian Snyder/ReutersTo the Editor:My suggestion to improve the debates being broadcast on TV would be to get rid of the audience. Then candidates would no longer waste time throwing out these sound bites for the applause and cheers.Perhaps that may help them to listen to the question posed to them by the moderator and possibly answer it.In addition, getting rid of the audience might even force people watching the debates at home to think for themselves when making a decision regarding a candidate, since they would have no idea what everyone else is thinking.Imagine that.Laura KleinPinecrest, Fla.Reauthorize PEPFARAdministering an H.I.V. test in 2012 at a Johannesburg clinic supported by PEPFAR.Foto24/Gallo Images, via Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Will Republicans Abandon This Medical Triumph?” (column, Sept. 21):Nicholas Kristof’s piece about PEPFAR is spot on: PEPFAR’s work to prevent and treat H.I.V. and AIDS around the world has saved over 25 million lives, and should absolutely be reauthorized by Congress.But even beyond that extraordinary achievement, PEPFAR has ushered in a culture of accountability and efficiency across virtually all sectors of global health, not just H.I.V. and AIDS care.PEPFAR’s accountability standards require foreign governments and implementing NGOs to use data, evaluations (such as randomized control trials), and advanced analytics to measure results and demonstrate value for money.The result: It now costs PEPFAR dramatically less to save each life. In 2014, it cost $315 to give lifesaving treatment to one person for one year. By 2022, that had fallen to $59. Those are industry-changing results.Countries are now using tactics developed by PEPFAR for other health programs, from disaster response to seasonal outbreaks.With PEPFAR’s focus on efficiency and results, the American people can be confident that another five-year authorization would be money well spent.Hannah CooperTyler SmithThe writers are the co-founders of Cooper/Smith, an organization focused on using data to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of foreign aid programs.How Unions Help Companies Evan Cobb for The New York TimesTo the Editor:What has been missing in articles about the current United Auto Workers strike at General Motors, Ford and Stellantis is that having a union is not just about fighting for good wages and benefits but also about fighting for its important role in helping companies.Having a union, whether it’s at G.M., Starbucks or a hospital, can help management avoid making bad decisions, create innovative changes by utilizing the skills and knowledge of the frontline staff, and optimize the use of new technologies.Having a “collective voice” to pressure management to avoid making bad decisions and consider alternative approaches has resulted in improving productivity and the quality of products in companies and hospitals up to 30 percent, reducing costs and at times creating new jobs and additional revenue.Maybe the current strike can help U.S. managers realize that unions can be of benefit to them, too, rather than view them as a burden?Peter LazesWest Stockbridge, Mass.The writer is a visiting professor at the School of Labor and Employment Relations, Penn State, and co-author of the book “From the Ground Up: How Frontline Staff Can Save America’s Healthcare.” More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Who Are Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, the Debate Moderators?

      by

      The role of debate moderator carries prestige, but it also brings exacting demands and inherent risks: personal attacks by candidates, grievances about perceived biases and, for the two moderators of Wednesday’s Republican primary debate, a tempestuous cable news network’s reputation.Enter Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, the Fox News Channel mainstays who drew that assignment and will pose questions to the eight G.O.P. presidential candidates squaring off for the first time, absent former President Donald J. Trump.The party’s front-runner, Mr. Trump will bypass the debate in favor of an online interview with Tucker Carlson, who was fired from Fox News in April.But that doesn’t mean the debate’s moderators will be under any less of a microscope.Here’s a closer look at who they are:Bret BaierHe is the chief political anchor for Fox News and the host of “Special Report With Bret Baier” at 6 p.m. on weeknights. Mr. Baier, 53, joined the network in 1998, two years after the network debuted, according to his biography.Mr. Baier, like Ms. MacCallum, is no stranger to the debate spotlight.In 2016, he moderated three G.O.P. primary debates for Fox, alongside Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace, who have since left the network. He was present when Ms. Kelly grilled Mr. Trump about his treatment of women during a 2015 debate, an exchange that drew Mr. Trump’s ire and led him to boycott the network’s next debate nearly six months later.During the 2012 presidential race, Mr. Baier moderated five Republican primary debates.At a network dominated by conservative commentators like Sean Hannity and the departed Mr. Carlson and Bill O’Reilly, Mr. Baier has generally avoided controversy — but not entirely.After Fox News called Arizona for Joseph R. Biden Jr. on election night in 2020, becoming the first major news network to do so and enraging Mr. Trump and his supporters, Mr. Baier suggested in an email to network executives the next morning that the outlet should reverse its projection.“It’s hurting us,” he wrote in the email, which was obtained by The New York Times.Mr. Baier was also part of a witness list in the defamation lawsuit that Dominion Voting Systems brought against Fox News over the network’s role in spreading disinformation about the company’s voting equipment. Fox settled the case for $787.5 million before it went to trial.Martha MacCallumShe is the anchor and executive editor of “The Story With Martha MacCallum” at 3 p.m. on weekdays. Ms. MacCallum, 59, joined the network in 2004, according to her biography.During the 2016 election, Ms. MacCallum moderated a Fox News forum for the bottom seven Republican presidential contenders who had not qualified for the party’s first debate in August 2015. She reprised that role in January 2016, just days before the Iowa caucuses.She and Mr. Baier also moderated a series of town halls with individual Democratic candidates during the 2020 election, including one that featured Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.Before joining Fox, she worked for NBC and CNBC.When Fox projected Mr. Biden’s victory over Mr. Trump in Arizona, effectively indicating that Mr. Biden had clinched the presidency, Ms. MacCallum was similarly drawn into the maelstrom at the network.During a Zoom meeting with network executives and Mr. Baier, she suggested it was not enough to call states based on numerical calculations — the standard by which networks have made such determinations for generations — but that viewers’ reactions should be considered.“In a Trump environment,” Ms. MacCallum said, according to a review of the phone call by The Times, “the game is just very, very different.” More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      A Bipartisan Plan to Limit Big Tech

      by

      More from our inbox:DeSantis Admits the Inconvenient Truth: Trump LostScenarios for a Trump Trial and the Election‘Thank You, Mr. Trump’Mushroom CloudsMacho C.E.O.s Erik Isakson/DigitalVision, via Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “We Have a Way for Congress to Rein In Big Tech,” by Lindsey Graham and Elizabeth Warren (Opinion guest essay, July 27):The most heartening thing about the proposal for a Digital Consumer Protection Commission is its authorship.After years of zero-sum legislative gridlock, to see Senators Warren and Graham collaborating is a ray of hope that governing may someday return to the time when opposing parties were not enemies, when each party brought valid perspectives to the table and House-Senate conference committees forged legislation encompassing the best of both perspectives.David SadkinBradenton, Fla.To the Editor:Senators Lindsey Graham and Elizabeth Warren propose a new federal mega-regulator for the digital economy that threatens to undermine America’s global technology standing.A new “licensing and policing” authority would stall the continued growth of advanced technologies like artificial intelligence in America, leaving China and others to claw back crucial geopolitical strategic ground.America’s digital technology sector enjoyed remarkable success over the past quarter-century — and provided vast investment and job growth — because the U.S. rejected the heavy-handed regulatory model of the analog era, which stifled innovation and competition.The tech companies that Senators Graham and Warren cite (along with countless others) came about over the past quarter-century because we opened markets and rejected the monopoly-preserving regulatory regimes that had been captured by old players.The U.S. has plenty of federal bureaucracies, and many already oversee the issues that the senators want addressed. Their new technocratic digital regulator would do nothing but hobble America as we prepare for the next great global technological revolution.Adam ThiererWashingtonThe writer is a senior fellow in technology policy at the free-market R Street Institute.To the Editor:The regulation of social media, rapidly emerging A.I. and the internet in general is long overdue. Like the telephone more than a century earlier, as any new technology evolves from novelty to convenience to ubiquitous necessity used by billions of people, so must its regulation for the common good.Jay P. MaillePleasanton, Calif.DeSantis Admits the Inconvenient Truth: Trump Lost Rachel Mummey for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “DeSantis Acknowledges Trump’s Defeat: ‘Of Course He Lost’” (news article, Aug. 8):It is sad to see a politician turn toward the hard truth only in desperation, but that is what the failing and flailing Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis has done.Mr. DeSantis is not stupid. He has known all along that Joe Biden was the legitimate winner of the 2020 presidential election, but until now, he hedged when asked about it, hoping not to alienate supporters of Donald Trump.Now Mr. DeSantis says: “Of course he lost. Joe Biden is the president.”In today’s Republican Party, telling the inconvenient truth will diminish a candidate’s support from the die-hard individuals who make up the party’s base.We have reached a sad point in the history of our country when we have come to feel that a politician who tells the truth is doing something extraordinary and laudable.Oren SpieglerPeters Township, Pa.Scenarios for a Trump Trial and the Election Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Layered Case in Indictment Reduces Risk” (news analysis, front page, Aug. 6):It may well be that the special prosecutor, Jack Smith, has fashioned an indictment ideally suited for achieving a conviction of Donald Trump. However, even in the event that the trial comes before the election, there is little reason to believe that it will relieve us of the scourge of Mr. Trump’s influence on American life.First, there is the possibility of a hung jury, even in Washington, D.C. Such an outcome would be treated by Trump supporters as an outright exoneration.A conviction would not undermine his support any more than his myriad previous shocking transgressions. While the inevitable appeals would last well past the election, his martyrdom might improve his electoral chances.And were he to lose the election, he would surely claim that he lost only because of these indictments. Here he would have a powerful argument because so many of us hope that the indictments will have precisely that effect.The alternative, that he wins the election, either before or after the trial, is too dreadful to contemplate.If there is anything that can terminate the plague of Trumpism, it is for a few prominent Republicans whose seniority makes their voices important — Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney and George W. Bush — to speak out and unequivocally state that Donald Trump is unfit for office. That they all believe this is generally acknowledged.If they fail to defend American democracy at this time, they will be complicit in what Trumpism does to the Republican Party and to the Republic.Robert N. CahnWalnut Creek, Calif.‘Thank You, Mr. Trump’Former President Donald Trump has made his 2024 race principally about his own personal grievances — attempting to convince supporters to see themselves in him.David Degner for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Playing Indicted Martyr, Trump Draws In His Base” (news article, Aug. 9):Thank you, Mr. Trump, for sacrificing yourself for the greater good. And when you spend years and years and years in prison, we will never forget what you did to (oops, I mean for) us.Winnie BoalCincinnatiMushroom Clouds U.S. Department of DefenseTo the Editor:Re “A Symbol Evoking Both Pride and Fear,” by Nicolas Rapold (Critic’s Notebook, Arts, Aug. 1):Richland High School in Washington State is in an area, highly restricted during World War II, where plutonium essential to building the first atomic bombs was produced. As in areas of New Mexico, there have been numerous “downwind” cancer cases, as well as leakage of contaminated water into the Columbia River basin.Bizarrely, Richland High’s athletic teams are called the Bombers; a mushroom cloud is their symbol on uniforms and the gym floor. This must be the worst “mascot” on earth.Nancy AndersonSeattleMacho C.E.O.s Illustration by Taylor CalleryTo the Editor:Re “We’re in the Era of the ‘Top Gun’ C.E.O.” (Sunday Business, July 30):The propensity of the current class of business leaders to grab at team-building gimmicks knows no bounds. Simulating the role of fighter pilots at $100,000 a pop might give a C.E.O. a fleeting feeling of exhilaration, but it is a poor substitute for actual team-building.That happens when organizations and compensation levels are flattened to more down-to-earth levels. With some C.E.O.s pulling in pay rewards that are hundreds, if not thousands, of times more than their median employee, team-affirming commitment in the boardroom is far from genuine.Employees are not fooled by C.E.O.s trying to play Top Gun for a day, and making more in that short time than most employees will earn in a year.J. Richard FinlayTorontoThe writer is the founder of the Finlay Center for Corporate and Public Governance. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Ron DeSantis and Other Republicans Desecrate What Their Party Long Championed

      by

      In 2010, the Supreme Court held that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection ‘simply because its source is a corporation.’” The case was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and the conservative justices sided with a group barred by the government from airing a political documentary.Republicans used to celebrate that decision. “For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process,” said Mitch McConnell, then the majority leader. The Supreme Court, he added, “took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups.”Mr. McConnell was standing up for a principle: People have a bedrock right to form associations, including corporations, and to use them to speak their minds.In the last few years, however, as large companies have increasingly agitated for left-of-center causes, many Republicans have developed a sudden allergy to corporate political speech, one that will have vast consequences for both the party and the nation.Disney’s Magic Kingdom Park in Florida.Ted Shaffrey/Associated PressConsider the recent drama in Florida. The evident retaliation by Gov. Ron DeSantis and his Republican allies against Disney, a major corporate player in their state, is part of a larger trend: What critics once called the party of big business is now eager to lash out at large companies and even nonprofits it deems inappropriately political — which in practice means anti-Republican.Conservatives angry at technology platforms over what they see as unfair treatment of right-of-center viewpoints have found a champion in a Republican senator, Josh Hawley of Missouri, who has introduced bills to reform legal protection for certain social media platforms and offered the Bust Up Big Tech Act. J.D. Vance, running in the Ohio Republican Senate primary, has suggested that we “seize the assets” of the Ford Foundation and other progressive NGOs; he also called for raising the taxes of companies that showed concerns about state-level voting legislation favored by Republicans last year. Leading right-wing commentators, from Tucker Carlson of Fox News to Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire, cheer the efforts on.Too many conservatives seem to have no qualms today in wielding state power to punish their political opponents and shape the economy to their whims. This is not just a departure from the Republican consensus of the last half-century. It is a wholesale rejection of free markets and the very idea of limited government. It will make America poorer and the American people more vulnerable to tyranny.Republicans’ reversal is easy enough to explain: As companies increasingly accede to activist demands to make themselves combatants in a culture war, they have alienated broad swaths of the population. Twenty years ago, according to Gallup, fewer than half of Americans said they were somewhat or very dissatisfied with “the size and influence of major corporations.” Today, that number is 74 percent. Defending economic liberty is now passé. Taking on “big business” has become an effective way to score political points on the right, at least when the businesses are also seen as “woke.”The change may be politically expedient, but it will have grave costs. Conservatives once understood that free markets are an engine that produces widespread prosperity — and that government meddling is too often a wrench in the works. Choosing winners and losers, and otherwise substituting the preferences of lawmakers and bureaucrats for the logic of supply and demand, interferes with the economy’s ability to meet people’s material needs. If Republicans continue down this path, the result will be fewer jobs, higher prices, less consumer choice and a hampering of the unforeseen innovations that make our lives better all the time.But conservatives are turning on more than markets; they may be turning on the rule of law itself. The First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging people’s ability to speak, publish, broadcast and petition for a redress of grievances, precisely because the American founders saw criticizing one’s rulers as a God-given right. Drawing attention to errors and advocating a better path forward are some of the core mechanisms by which “we, the people” hold our government to account. The use of state power to punish someone for disfavored political speech is a gross violation of that ideal.The American economy is rife with cronyism, like subsidies or regulatory exemptions, that give some businesses advantages not available to all. This too makes a mockery of free markets and rule of law, transferring wealth from taxpayers and consumers to politically connected elites. But while ending cronyism is a worthy goal, selectively revoking privileges from companies that fall out of favor with the party in power is not good-government reform.One might doubt the retaliatory nature of Republicans’ corporate speech reversal, but for their inability to quit stepping in front of cameras and stating the quiet part aloud. In the very act of signing the law that does away with Disney’s special-purpose district and several others, Mr. DeSantis said this: “You’re a corporation based in Burbank, Calif., and you’re gonna marshal your economic might to attack the parents of my state. We view that as a provocation, and we’re going to fight back against that.”But if government power can be used for brazen attacks on American companies and nonprofits, what can’t it be used for? If it is legitimate for politicians to retaliate against groups for political speech, is it also legitimate to retaliate against individuals? (As Senator Mitt Romney once said, “Corporations are people, my friend.”) And if even the right to speak out is not held sacred, what chance do the people have to resist an authoritarian turn?Conservatives, confronting these questions, once championed free markets and limited government as essential bulwarks against tyranny. Discarding those commitments is not a small concession to changing times but an abject desecration, for cheap political gain, of everything they long claimed to believe.For decades, the “fusionist” governing philosophy — which, in bringing together the values of individual freedom and traditional morality, charges government with protecting liberty so that the people will be free to pursue virtuous lives — bound conservatives together and gave the Republican Party a coherent animating force. That philosophy would reject the idea that political officials should have discretion over the positions that companies are allowed to take or the views that people are allowed to express.The G.O.P. today may be able to win elections without fusionism, but it cannot serve the interests of Americans while wrecking the economy and undermining the rule of law.Stephanie Slade (@sladesr) is a senior editor at Reason magazine.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More