In late November, the well-known American sustainable outdoor clothing company Patagonia reacted vehemently to the news that two National Park reserves in Utah were being drastically reduced in size in order to develop more land for industries such as fossil fuel and cattle grazing. Patagonia’s founder, Yvon Chouinard, threatened to sue. North Face, the Canadian company Arc’teryx, and the Outdoor Industry Association, are also allying with Patagonia in attempt to challenge Trump’s plan.  

Patagonia is far from the only company that has taken a strong and visible political stance in recent years. Chick-Fil-A garnered much attention for its denouncement of gay marriage and Silicon Valley technology companies pushed back after the anti-immigration bill was passed as they are dependent on foreign talent. These companies have found that supporting a political cause, as long as it fits with the values it represents as a company, can gain the favor and trust of customers, contributing to increased sales. Research has shown that how effectively and quickly a company responds to a controversy drives public opinion and perception about that company. The cost of remaining silent on an issue is that customers mistakenly believe that they’re deceitful and resent that they’re not upholding the values that they claim to represent.

Brands don’t exist to advocate for certain political views; they exist to make money. The fact that they are making a profit from influencing politics and public policy is unacceptable. By catering to the political views of a specific group of customers, companies are reaping the benefits. In 2016, Chick-Fil-A appealed to the anti-gay community by hosting a “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day” that attracted over 600,000 visitors. Companies also spend an exorbitant 2.6 billion dollars a year in lobbying ventures to promote their own interests (more than the 2 billion dollars used to fund the House and Senate each year). A 2012 California law permitted Patagonia to advocate for social and environmental controversies, showing that more and more legislation is being passed that allow companies to get away with more blatant political speech than ever before.

It is certainly true that government corruption can be counteracted by the efforts of private businesses and corporations; Patagonia’s attempt to preserve the beauty of the American wilderness for future generations can be regarded as such. One must remember, however, that Patagonia and the U.S. government make decisions based around money. They’re only coming into conflict because their methods of obtaining that money directly oppose each other. Patagonia and other outdoor recreation companies depend on American national parks for their survival and future success in the same way the U.S. government depends on exploited land in order to further grow the economy.

Even if companies did not have ulterior motives when advocating for political views, taking political stances is always incredibly risky. There are no hard and fast rules, and companies must be careful lest they suffer rather than benefit from voicing their beliefs about a certain controversial issue. However, sometimes doing so is unavoidable. The NFL attempted to punish their players for being politically outspoken, but they are now being pressured by the public to take on their players’ views. In this case, it may be necessary for the company to assume their views of those they are representing rather than suppress free speech.

Ultimately, however, there are other better ways of influencing politics. Private advocacy groups, progressive organizations, and NGOs clearly and consistently advocate for certain issues and are without bias. They exist for the purpose of conducting political change, unlike major corporations.