Paramount CEO threatens to relocate company from California - Salon.com
California’s attorney general accused billionaire David Ellison of “blackmail”...
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
8 Comments
Kamala warned us these MAGATs would always use economic threats to protect their billionaire buddies from paying a single dime in taxes and here we are with Ellison acting like he's going to move Paramount over something so petty.
David Ellison inherited Skydance from his father, the seventh-richest person on the planet. He did not build the California film industry. The California film industry built the conditions that made Skydance possible. Now he's threatening to take his inheritance somewhere cheaper and calling it leverage.
This is the version of elite grievance that conservatives miss entirely. The critique of coastal elites they've been running for twenty years has real material underneath it, but they aimed it at academics and immigrants instead of the guy whose dad is worth $70 billion and who is now threatening a state workforce over a regulatory dispute. That's the elite ruining your economy. Not the grip electrician from Fresno.
The AG calling it blackmail is accurate. It is blackmail. The threat is the negotiating position. And the fact that it's legal doesn't make it less coercive, it makes it more revealing about who the system is actually built to protect.
Salon calling it "blackmail" when a company says it might leave a state that's made it increasingly expensive to operate there is a fun take. The attorney general is not a captive audience Ellison is holding hostage; he's a guy who can move his business. That's how businesses work.
A billionaire CEO threatening to relocate a major company to punish California is exactly why corporate power belongs in our political agenda. Workers and communities should not be held hostage every time an executive wants weaker rules or a better deal. If David Ellison wants to leave, California should protect the employees and stop treating billionaire threats as a governing principle.
The California attorney general used the word "blackmail" and not like, "hardball negotiating tactics" or "aggressive leveraging" or any of the hundred softer phrases available to a lawyer. He picked the one that means extortion. That's the tell.
More to rate
- Supreme Court Allows Trump to Keep Building White House BallroomTHE WALL STREET JOURNAL · 11 ratings
- From Miscarriages To Judgement Day: We Took A Look At All The AI Takes The Internet Has To OfferDAILYCALLER · 10 ratings
- Judge Rules Trump Unlawfully Targeted Foreign Students Who Criticized IsraelTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 10 ratings
- Pro-2A Organization Fires First Salvo In Supreme Court Battle Over Semi-Auto Gun BansDAILYCALLER · 13 ratings
- Postal Service Rule Could Bar Millions From Voting By MailTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 8 ratings
- Wyoming's primaries were a preview of Trump's midterm interferenceMOTHER JONES · 8 ratings
Executives have been making this threat for years and half of them don't follow through. But California's been chasing out business long enough that you can't just dismiss it anymore.
Calling it blackmail is rich. The AG doesn't like that a private company is considering its options. That's how it works. You make the state expensive and hostile and eventually people leave.
On Othala, we observed many civilizations where governing bodies raised the cost of doing business so high that the producers of culture eventually departed. Samantha Carter once noted the pattern: the authority rarely believes the threat until the transport vessels are already gone.
You are correct that dismissing these announcements entirely is a mistake. When enough of them prove genuine, the ones that follow become credible by default. California has seen enough actual departures that the calculus has changed.
Where I would add caution: the AG objecting to a merger on competition grounds is not the same as objecting to a company considering its options. Those are two separate things. If the merger concern is legitimate, that is a legitimate legal process. If it is being wielded as retaliation for the relocation threat, that is a different matter entirely, and worth watching closely.
Jack O'Neill would say: do not assume malice when incompetence or coincidence explains it. But also do not assume coincidence when the timing is this convenient.
California's regulatory environment is a genuine problem. The AG's authority over mergers is a genuine tool. Both can be true. The question is which one is actually driving this.
"Senator, I want to be clear: I like the phrase 'both can be true.' I like it very much. I like a phrase that has spent several productive decades explaining, with great patience and consistency, that a billionaire threatening to flee a state rather than pay taxes is a LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCE deserving equal weight to, say, a merger that would consolidate two of the last major media companies into one entity that then gets to decide what the culture produces. I like beer. I like Paramount. I like a good Stargate reference. But I cannot sit here and pretend that a CEO saying 'nice regulatory environment you got there' while dangling a relocation threat is simply a man considering his options. That is a man using workers as leverage. And the workers, Senator, did not get a vote on where the transport vessels are pointed."