MOVING BASEBALL’S ALL-STAR GAME: THE DILEMMA OVER BOYCOTTS

When Major League Baseball pulled this year’s

All-Star game from Atlanta in protest of Georgia’s restrictive new voting law and moved it to Denver, the decision provoked a debate that divides both

defenders and opponents of the law. That debate pits those who see MLB’s decision, and potential boycotts by other corporate entities in Georgia, as a powerful tool in the fight for voting rights against those who lament the loss of income by black and

brown businesses and employees from events like the All-Star game.  MLB’s summer classic annually produces $84 million in economic activity. Cobb County, Georgia had expected $100 million in tourism revenue from the game.

 

The Rationale

Certainly, some saw MLB’s decision as an easy call. Those in that camp argue boycotts bring pressure on legislators who pass laws like the one in Georgia to undo the damage by repealing or modifying the measure. They point out the goal is getting decision makers to enact policies in the best

interest of the boycotters (or, in this case, black and brown citizens potentially disenfranchised by the election law). Sometimes, boycotts mostly serve the purpose of discouraging others from the behavior being protested. MLB’s move of the game, and potential action by other corporations, could dissuade other states from going down the same road (over 40 states have similar bills pending in their legislatures).

Advocates of actions like MLB’s argue boycotts represent a form of political warfare. Wars produce

casualties. Boycotters, as other warriors, do a cost benefit analysis about the value of what they might win in the war when compared with the likely losses. As Woodson reminds us, destroying public transportation wasn’t the goal of

the 1955 Montgomery bus boycotters; they just wanted better transportation services for African Americans in that city. Labor unions that utilize boycotts of a business in their organizing activities aren’t out to destroy the business, they just want better wages and/or working conditions for their members.   

 

The Other Side

Despite the force of these arguments, this debate has two sides. In the Georgia situation, opponents of moving the All-Star game note that small businesses and employees like stadium vendors and parking lot attendants will lose financial opportunities as a result of the game leaving Atlanta. Many, no doubt, are the very people who need the Georgia voting law repealed or modified, as it will impact their communities most.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a strong advocate

of the law, pushed this argument. Kemp said black and brown vendors who lose money this summer can blame Democrats, like President Joe Biden and his likely opponent in his race for re-election next year, former state Representative

Stacy Abrams. Kemp has hardly been a friend of black voters in Georgia, so his “support” of black businesses probably requires a sizeable grain of salt.

Abrams, however, is another matter. Despite expressing her “respect” for boycotts, Newsweek reported she tried to stop MLB from pulling the All-Star game from Atlanta. The magazine said she talked with a high MLB official and urged that the game remain there. She later issued a statement that said she didn’t want to see “Georgia families hurt by lost events and jobs.” Whatever political motivation Abrams might have had for coming down on the issue as she did, her action represented the thinking of some progressives as well as of conservatives.   

Corporate Dilemmas

The pressure on corporations to take a stand on issues like the Georgia voting rights law puts them

in several binds. First, they must consider the possibility of boycotts by progressives who oppose legislation like the Georgia bill. Coca-Cola, for example, certainly wouldn’t

enjoy a boycott of its products by blacks and browns who want the law repealed or changed. On the other hand, siding with opponents of the law risks alienating conservative supporters of such measures. Already Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has worn out the airwaves complaining about “woke corporations” that express support for progressive legislative actions.  

To some extent, corporations and their supporters in legislative and judicial halls, created this dilemma. They’ve argued, as the Supreme Court in effect said in the Citizens United case, that corporations are people too. If that’s the case, they’re subject to the same pressures as every other actor on the political stage, meaning they’re accountable for the disproportionate power they have in our society due to their wealth and political influence.  Boycotts may just become part of the cost of doing business.

 

A National Solution

Congress has under consideration the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, a comprehensive bill  that

would fix many of the problems the Georgia law created and head off at the pass many measures now under consideration elsewhere.  Corporations could support a national voting rights standard, arguing that’s better for the country than the hodgepodge of laws we have now.

Abrams isn’t alone in opposing bills like the one in Georgia, while seeing the potential detriment to black and brown citizens who suffer economic harm as a result of well-meaning civic actions. The Georgia debate simply kicked off the fight over this issue. It’s thorny and implicates differing interests. It’s the kind of thing some see as easy. Others believe reasonable minds could reach different conclusions.  What’s your thought?