Chair Of The GQP House ‘Pro-Putin Caucus,’ Rep. Andy Biggs, Tries To Smear Disney As Being Communist, Reviving McCarthyism

Above: “Putinistas” Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar.

Arizona’s insurrection leaders, Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, are members of the GQP’s House “Pro-Putin Caucus” in Congress. Who’s Soft on Russia? Meet the Republican Anti-Ukraine Caucus! (excerpt):

Since Russia invaded Ukraine, the House of Representatives has voted on three measures specific to the war. The first vote, taken on March 2, was on a resolution that endorsed sanctions against Russia, reaffirmed Ukrainian sovereignty over territory seized by Russia, advocated military aid to Ukraine, and pledged to support the Ukrainian resistance. Three Republicans voted against the resolution: Reps. Paul Gosar, Thomas Massie, and Matt Rosendale.

On March 9, the House passed a bill to suspend oil and gas imports from Russia.  15 Republicans voted against the bill. In addition to Gosar and Massie, this time the list included Reps. Andy Biggs, Dan Bishop, Lauren Boebert, Madison Cawthorn, Scott DesJarlais, Matt Gaetz, Louie Gohmert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Glenn Grothman, Clay Higgins, Bill Posey, Chip Roy, and Tom Tiffany [i.e., the GQP House Freedom (sic) Caucus – more accurately described as the GQP House Fascist Caucus, and in this case, the GQP House “Pro-Putin Caucus.” Same difference. Rep. Biggs is Chair of the Caucus.]

On March 17, the House passed a bill to end favorable trade relations with Russia and its accomplice in the war, Belarus. Eight Republicans voted against the bill: Reps. Andy Biggs, Dan Bishop, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Glenn Grothman, Thomas Massie, and Chip Roy.

Several Republicans have gone further. Cawthorn and Gosar are pushing legislation that would prohibit the U.S. military from deploying “by reason of the situation in Ukraine” any more troops than are stationed at the Mexican border. No sensible military planner would want more troops guarding a friendly border than deterring an imminent threat to our most important alliance, but that’s what this bill would do: It would block deployments to NATO countries in Eastern Europe. It’s a gift to Vladimir Putin.

Meanwhile, 10 Republicans have signed on to a bill that would bar any delivery of military aid to Ukraine until “a border wall system along the United States-Mexico border is completed.” The cosponsors include Reps. Andy Biggs, Bob Good, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Jody Hice,  Mary Miller, Ralph Norman, Bill Posey, Eandy Weber. (Don’t bother trying to square this demand with Trump’s insistence that he has basically built the wall, except for a couple of tiny spots.)

Altogether, that’s 21 Republicans who have opposed, or at least sought to constrain, aid to Ukraine or sanctions on Russia. That’s a group three times the size of “the Squad,” which Republicans claim is in control of every aspect of Democratic policy. Imagine how much power those 21 Republicans would wield in a GOP-controlled House.

The piece of shit Chair of the GQP House Pro-Putin Caucus, Rep. Andy Biggs, actually had the nerve to post this to Twitter this week:

pic.twitter.com/IYLSVKAf7W

— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) April 21, 2022

That’s right, the Soviet hammer and sickle, in a pathetic attempt to accuse an American icon, Disney, of being a communist organization. Andy Biggs wants to cancel Disney.

Hey Sen. Kysten Sinema, is Andy Biggs still your best bud?

Note: Republicans now accuse anyone who opposes their white Christian Nationalist authoritarianism of being a “communist.” The word no longer has any meaning. It is simply used to smear opponents. It is a transparent attempt to revive McCarthyism, the “term has since become a byname for defamation of character or reputation by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations, especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges.”

Walt Disney himself was an enthusiastic supporter of McCarthyism. The cruel reality of Disney’s world:

Walt Disney had a ferocious temper, especially against people he saw as left-wing. He testified enthusiastically before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and detailed what he saw as communist plots to take over Hollywood. He branded some former animators communists, said the Screen Actors Guild was a communist front and labelled a 1941 strike that hit his studio a communist plot. He even contacted the FBI about alleged communist infiltration.

And why would this “Putinista” Arizona congressman want to cancel Disney?

Because Disney and its employees at Disney World in Florida are opposed to Gov. Ron “DeathSantis” and his Don’t Say Gay law. Disney vows to help repeal ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law, says Florida Gov. DeSantis shouldn’t have signed it:

After Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill into law on Monday, the Walt Disney Companycondemned the legislation and vowed to help have it repealed.

“Florida’s HB 1557, also known as the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill, should never have passed and should never have been signed into law,” the company said in a statement. “Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that.”

Disney’s public opposition to the new law comes after CEO Bob Chapek was criticized for not speaking up sooner and with more fervor ahead of the bill passing through the Florida Senate. Employees staged a walkout in protest of the company’s lackluster initial response and Disney has been rushing to make amends with its staff and the LGBTQA+ community ever since.

The company has already vowed to donate $5 million to organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, that work to protect LGTBQ+ rights. Executives have begun speaking to employees in town hall meetings about how it can better serve this community in the future.

Pixar employees, in particular, have been vocal in recent weeks, asking the company to “take a decisive public stand” against the legislation and others like it. The company paused donations in Florida earlier this month and said it would reevaluate its strategy for advocacy going forward.

“We are dedicated to standing up for the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ members of the Disney family, as well as the LGBTQ+ community in Florida and across the country,” Disney said in its statement Monday.

In retaliation against Disney and its employees for exercising their First Amendment rights of free speech, assembly (political organization), and to petition the government, the autocratic governor of the supposedly “Free State” of Florida, Ron “DeathSantis,” summoned his authoritarian minions in the Florida legislature to dissolve Walt Disney World’s long-standing private government. Disney Government Dissolution Bill Signed By Florida Governor:

The law would eliminate the Reedy Creek Improvement District, as the 55-year-old Disney government is known, as well as a handful of other similar districts by June 2023. The measure does allow for the districts to be reestablished, leaving an avenue to renegotiate its future.

The move could have huge tax implications for Disney, whose series of theme parks have transformed Orlando into one of the world’s most popular tourist destinations, and serves to further sour the relationship between the Republican-led government and a major political player in the state.

For DeSantis, the attack on Disney is his latest salvo in a culture war waged over policies involving race, gender and the coronavirus, battles that have made him one of the most popular GOP politicians in the country and a likely 2024 presidential candidate.

Conservative columnist Henry Olsen notes, The long-standing alliance between the GOP and big business is no more: “More broadly, [this] heralds an unavoidable political development: the sundering of the over-150-year alliance between big business and the Republican Party.”

At the bill signing ceremony Friday, DeSantis said that he viewed the company’s vow to fight the law as unacceptable.

“You’re a corporation based in Burbank, California, and you’re gonna marshal your economic might to attack the parents of my state me! We view that as a provocation, and we’re going to fight back against that,” DeSantis said. [The royal “we.”]

Note to Ron “DeathSantis”: Same-sex marriage was legally recognized by a Republican-majority U.S. Supreme Court, and same-sex couples have children too. Their families enjoy going to Disney World just as much as white Christian Nationalist families. “It’s a small world after all…”

Supreme Court reporter Ian Millhiser explains, Ron DeSantis’s attack on Disney obviously violates the First Amendment:

At the urging of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, the Florida legislature voted this week to punish one of the world’s biggest producers of entertainment and pop culture, because DeSantis and his fellow Florida Republicans disagreed with that producer’s First Amendment-protected speech. DeSantis signed the bill into law on Friday.

Florida’s decision to strip a government benefit from Disney because, in DeSantis’s words, Disney expressed “woke” opinions and “tried to attack me to advance their woke agenda,” is unconstitutional. And it’s not a close case.

As the Supreme Court said in Hartman v. Moore (2006), “official reprisal for protected speech ‘offends the Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right.’” Nor does it matter how the government retaliates against a person or business who expresses an opinion that the government does not like — any official retaliation against someone because they engaged in First Amendment-protected speech is unconstitutional.

The conflict between DeSantis and Disney arose after Disney denounced Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law, an unconstitutional law which allows parents to sue their local school district if topics such as sexual orientation or gender identity are mentioned in the classroom. The law is unconstitutional because it is so vaguely drafted that teachers cannot determine what kinds of instruction are permitted and what kinds are forbidden — although it remains to be seen whether a federal judiciary dominated by Republican appointees will strike the law down.

Florida plans to strip Disney of an extraordinarily unusual benefit it receives from the state. Walt Disney World is located in a nearly 40-square-mile area that Florida has designated the “Reedy Creek Improvement District.” Within this district, Disney essentially functions as the primary landowner and the local government.

This provides Disney with several advantages — among other things, if it wants to build a road or a new hotel, it can approve that project itself rather than going through the ordinary permitting process run by local Florida governments, though Disney still must comply with state building codes. This Reedy Creek arrangement also allows Disney to tax itself at a higher rate to pay for governmental services like sewage and a fire department — according to one analysis, property taxes on non-Disney landowners in Florida’s Orange County could go up by as much as 25 percent if Disney loses its ability to tax itself.

Few Floridians, and, indeed, few major companies, receive this kind of benefit from their state. But the fact that Florida only plans to strip a special benefit from Disney — rather than, say, tossing its executives in prison — does not mean that it can punish Disney for its protected speech.

Think of it this way: Imagine that José owns a bar in Orlando. One day, José tells the local paper that he dislikes Ron DeSantis and plans to vote for DeSantis’s opponent in the upcoming election. The next day, the state sends him a letter informing him that “because you disparaged our great governor, we are stripping your business of its liquor license.”

José does not have a constitutional right to sell liquor for profit. And the overwhelming majority of Florida businesses do not have a license permitting them to do so. But if Florida strips José of his liquor license because the government disapproves of José’s First Amendment-protected speech, it violates the Constitution.

Disney’s ability to govern the Reedy Creek Improvement District is no different from Florida’s hypothetical decision to take away José’s liquor license. If Florida has a legitimate reason to strip away this benefit from Disney, the Constitution most likely would permit it to do so.

But no one can be punished because they express a political opinion.

Florida’s best defense is to pretend they are punishing Disney for legitimate reasons

While existing law is crystal clear that the government may not sanction someone because it disagrees with their political views, First Amendment retaliation cases are often difficult to win because the plaintiff must prove that they were targeted because of their speech. As the Court explained in Hartman, such a plaintiff “must show a causal connection between a defendant’s retaliatory animus and subsequent injury in any sort of retaliation action.”

But in this case, the evidence that Florida targeted Disney because of its protected speech is overwhelming. DeSantis called upon Florida lawmakers to consider “termination” of Reedy Creek on Tuesday. On Wednesday, he sent a fundraising email to supporters where he denounced Disney for being “woke” and for criticizing him personally.

The email was explicit that DeSantis wants to punish Disney for its political views and because the governor believes that Disney is too close to the opposition party. “Disney and other woke corporations won’t get away with peddling their unchecked pressure campaigns any longer,” DeSantis said in his email. “If we want to keep the Democrat machine and their corporate lapdogs accountable, we have to stand together now.”

By Thursday, both houses of the Florida legislature had passed legislation retaliating against Disney. That’s also the same day that DeSantis’s lieutenant governor, Jeanette Nunez, told Newsmax’s Eric Bolling that the state could reverse course if Disney stopped producing art that the Florida government finds objectionable.

Disney, Florida’s second-highest-ranking government official informed Bolling, is being targeted because it has “changed what they really espouse.” Nunez complained that Disney used to support “family values” but that it now produces art that emphasizes topics that Nunez deems “very inappropriate.’

And yet, despite this and other evidence indicating that the Florida government is retaliating against Disney because it criticized the governor’s policies and produced works of art that high-ranking government officials find objectionable, there is a possibility that the Republican-controlled federal judiciary will give DeSantis a pass — much as it did when former President Donald Trump committed a similar violation of the First Amendment.

As a presidential candidate, Trump bragged about his plans to bring about a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Such a proposal violates the First Amendment’s safeguards against religious discrimination.

And yet, in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the Court’s Republican majority permitted Trump to ban travel from several majority-Muslim nations — even after Trump confessed his plans to give his Muslim ban a patina of legitimacy by presenting it as a ban on travel from certain foreign nations. The majority opinion in Hawaii leaned heavily into the fact that the Trump administration offered a national security justification for the policy that “says nothing about religion.”

The Trump administration’s proclamation announcing this travel ban, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the Court’s Republicans, “is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices.” And the Court accepted this national security justification for the policy, despite considerable evidence that the Trump administration came up with this justification as a pretext to justify religious discrimination.

In the likely event that Disney raises a First Amendment challenge against Florida, Florida’s lawyers will undoubtedly spin a similar narrative to the one that the Trump administration came up with in Hawaii. Though those lawyers won’t be able to claim that abolishing Reedy Creek is justified by national security concerns, their brief will undoubtedly offer legitimate-sounding policy justifications for punishing Disney — some of which may actually be persuasive. There are, after all, plenty of legitimate reasons why a for-profit corporation shouldn’t be allowed to exercise governmental authority.

A Republican judiciary may uphold DeSantis’s attacks on Disney by claiming that Florida’s government was motivated by legitimate concerns about giving Disney so much control over the Reedy Creek Improvement District, much as the Supreme Court thumbed its nose at the evidence in Hawaii that Trump was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

A Republican judiciary may uphold DeSantis’s attacks on Disney by claiming that Florida’s government was motivated by legitimate concerns about giving Disney so much control over the Reedy Creek Improvement District, much as the Supreme Court thumbed its nose at the evidence in Hawaii that Trump was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

But, again, if the courts follow what the law says, it doesn’t matter if there are legitimate reasons why Florida could have chosen to strip Disney of a valuable government benefit. What matters is whether Florida targeted Disney because it disapproves of the company’s First Amendment-protected speech.

This is why Republicans packed the courts with unqualified ideologues selected by the Federalist Society and the [Confederate] Heritage Foundation to provide a veneer of legality for their white Christian Nationalist overthrow of American democracy and to replace it with a theocratic authoritarian GQP tyranny of the minority.