The most important vote Americans make next month will not be for the president.
No that’s not a typo.
Contrary to common belief, voting for the president of the United States does not signal a change in leadership that will suddenly make the country a better place.
The women and men sitting in our state legislatures, on the other hand, will.
Just below that box for president, ballots across the nation will include options for candidates running for local office – everything from city councilpersons and police commissioners to mayors and governors. And arguably, these people (and their policies) affect the lives of Americans much more tangibly than the president ever will.
This is no more poignantly demonstrated than on the topic of civil rights.
Let’s face it, no matter who is president, human rights and civil liberties are the social and political nuts America just can’t crack.
From the Flint water crises the Flint water crisis and police brutality acquittals to gender inequality and bathroom laws, America continues to struggle to provide the “liberty and justice for all” it promised way back in 1776.
We often forget that these struggles stem not simply from some misgiving on the part of the president, but on the failure of the American public to engage more critically on who’s running the show in their own backyards and how.
It is not shocking, then, that citizens find themselves protesting legislation they oppose after they’re signed into law, rather than before. And ultimately the result has been a number of laws – such as Indiana’s religious restoration act or Arizona’s anti-gay bill – that threaten civil liberties.
Luckily, an unlikely hero has emerged to save the day.
Its name is the US corporation and its influence has truly changed the political game.
The National Basketball Association made national news this year when it announced its decision to relocate the 2017 All-Star Game from North Carolina in response to the egregiously discriminatory HB2 bill – the most notable statute requiring individuals use only the public facilities that match the sex assigned to them at birth.
Ben & Jerry’s, the popular ice cream maker, recently announced its support of the Black Lives Matter Movement, urging its customers to help the company and other advocates overcome systemic and institutionalized racism and prevent future deaths of unarmed African Americans.
Such corporate actions on human rights issues are impactful and telling. Here are three reasons why:
- They’re timely.
Race relations are a nationwide issue on the American social agenda. Ben & Jerry’s advocacy for the rights of African Americans reflects a historical break away from the typical corporate silence on systemic racism and injustice. It also shows that corporations are aware of and have opinions on current social issues. The line between the public and private sectors are greying.
Interestingly, this awareness is the direct aim of the second pillar of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The Principles, which celebrate their 5-year anniversary this year, state corporations have a corporate responsibility to respect human rights in their operations. And it looks like companies are starting to not just walk the walk, but talk the talk too.
- They’ve got the power of the purse.
The NBA’s decision to remove the All-Star basketball tournament from Charlotte was not simply a symbolic move. The removal also meant the state of North Carolina would lose out on an estimated $100 million dollars in hotel and concessions revenue.
Need more proof? When politicians in the state of Georgia attempted to enact a North Carolinian-like law violating the right to freedom of religion, the National Football League (NFL) threatened to remove the highly anticipated Super Bowl from its capital city, Atlanta – a negative economic impact estimated at $1 billion dollars. It took the Georgia legislature less than two days to nix the bill.
- (Sometimes) They’re political game changers.
When the Supreme Court took Hobby Lobby to court for refusing to cover contraceptive care for its workers, the company’s owners argued the mandate violated their deeply held (and constitutional) religious principles on abortion – and they won.
Though it proved to be quite the contentious issue, the 5-4 ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby sets the precedent that corporations are also entitled to their views on civil liberties issues and can apply those views to their business conduct.
So what can we conclude?
- No matter what shade of political opinion, it is clear that when there is a convergence of corporate and civic viewpoints, it can be a powerful force shaping future legislative agendas.
- The nature of civil liberties across the country is not just dependent on who sits in the Oval Office but who runs the show in state legislatures.
- In an era of mounting pressure from civil society, NGOs, corporations, and even the international community to address America’s human rights record, the next leader of the free world must be prepared to tackle the very underpinning of America’s social fabric.
Ultimately, though, securing and respecting the civil rights of women, immigrants, minorities, and others is the duty of the 50 governors, 532 congressman, and countless mayors, sheriffs, and police commissioners that the American public is constitutionally responsible for electing.
And that’s a lot more imperative to the future of the nation than who’s sitting in the west wing.