'Nike' means ‘victory’ no more
[September 12, 2003]
By Nicholas Provenzo
Justice is delayed is justice denied, so the saying
goes. These words wring sadly true today with news of Nike’s settlement
with political activist Marc Kasky. Kasky, acting under a broadly written
California law that permits anyone to act as a “private attorney general,”
sued Nike, claiming the company’s political statements in defense of its
labor policies amounted to illegal false advertising. Despite not alleging
any injury to himself, or even direct knowledge that Nike ever lied, the
California Supreme Court ruled Kasky could proceed with his case. Nike’s
last hope of avoiding trial was dashed when the U.S. Supreme Court
abruptly dismissed the company’s appeal, after agreeing to decide the case
and accepting more than 30 briefs (including one from CAC) in support of
Nike. The Court never decided the merits, preferring to hide behind a
tortured reading of jurisdiction to avoid deciding whether Nike’s speech
was protected under the First Amendment.
To most of us, Nike’s right to defend itself publicly is
clear. The right of free speech is first in the Constitution for a reason;
without the freedom to express oneself to others, the ability to think,
act, and live is fatally compromised. The individual right of speech,
moreover, is not lost or diminished when men join together to form
corporations or other associations. Nor is the right of speech dependent
on a speaker’s motive. The Supreme Court, unfortunately, believes that
“economic” motives are less worthy of First Amendment protection than
“political” motives. This false dichotomy has caused much judicial
mischief over the years, culminating in Kasky’s lawsuit based on the
theory that speech that might influence a consumer’s purchasing decision
is “commercial,” thus not constitutionally protected.
In settling with Kasky, Nike has ratified the
constitutional segregation of commercial speech, even if the settlement
technically admits no legal fault and establishes no formal legal
precedent. We have seen time and again how a single settlement empowers
the parasites of the American trial bar to file greater and bolder
complaints. It is only a matter of time, perhaps just days or weeks,
before other major companies (including those that filed briefs in support
of Nike) find themselves at the mercy of California’s citizens, each of
whom possess the power under state law to sue any company they dislike for
Defenders of Nike’s decision will offer pragmatic
arguments. They’ll claim the cost of refuting Kasky’s claim through
discovery, trial, and another round of appeals is too much for Nike to
bear, and that it’s in the best interest of Nike and its shareholders to
pay Kasky off now and live to fight another day. This form of pragmatism
is known as appeasement: If we give our enemy what he wants now, maybe
he’ll leave us alone.
Yet reason dictates that appeasement almost always leads
to more appeasement, and ultimately to wholesale capitulation. Whatever
short-term benefit Nike gained from this settlement will be lost under the
weight of the numerous lawsuits that are sure to come from other opponents
of the company. Nike’s own press release justifying its settlement with
Kasky underscores this point: Nike says that due to the difficulties posed
by the California law, it has decided not to issue its corporate
responsibility report externally for 2002 and will continue to limit its
participation in public events and media engagement in California. What
could possibly be more important to Nike than its freedom to participate
in public events and media engagement in California, or any other state in
The particular form of Nike’s settlement provides
another disturbing harbinger of what is likely to come. Nike agreed to
give $1.5 million to the Fair Labor Association, a Washington interest
group that promotes “international labor standards.” What is disturbing is
not that FLA is getting this money, but that Nike’s financial generosity
does not extend to the businesses and interest groups, (frankly, like
CAC), that supported the company’s rights before the Supreme Court. With
just a fraction of what FLA received, pro-freedom groups could mount a
serious campaign to repeal the California law that Nike was forced to
settle under. They could renew the legal battle before the Supreme Court.
They could expand the coalition of businesses and groups that support free
speech rights. They could do all that and more. Yet Nike doesn’t seem to
care much about defending principles, only with settling the
The group that should be most outraged by this
settlement, however, is the same group Nike will claim its protecting—the
company’s shareholders. Now Nike’s shareholders are faced with a
diminished company that is subject to future legal attacks. Had Nike
defended itself to the end, it would likely have prevailed over Kasky, and
projected an image of corporate strength; as things stand now, Nike is a
wounded animal ripe for the picking by other sundry activists. After all
the recent talk about improving corporate management, shareholders must
demand greater accountability from managers when it comes to fighting
meritless litigation. At a minimum, managers must stand up for a company’s
basic constitutional rights.
The business community as a whole must also reassess how
they deal with bankrupt regulatory regimes like those in California. The
“private attorney general” statute is one of the worst excesses of
California’s infamous anti-business culture; no other state employs a
statute that broad in scope and potential for damage. Obviously business
leaders must immediately begin the fight for the statute’s repeal. But
that may not be enough. The immorality of California’s regulatory culture
is so entrenched, that bold, decisive action ought to be on the table.
One immediate step worth considering would be a refusal
by businessmen to engage in any business advertising within the state, (a
move that might actually please Marc Kasky, since his goal was to stop
Nike from defending itself in print), but would strike terror in the
hearts of California legislators. A boycott of paid advertising would
inflict enough economic damage to get California officials to rethink
their failure to defend economically motivated speech.
Now that Nike has abandoned its case before the courts,
decisive action of some sort is necessary if businesses are to have a
fighting chance in the Golden State. The only other option is to follow
Nike’s example of appeasement.
up for CAC's Newsletter
Keep up with the latest news—type
in your e-mail address and click Go!
You ask the
tough questions and we answer them.
The Moral Basis of Capitalism
the only moral social system. Learn why.
The Moral and the Practical
practical for the same reasons that make it moral.
Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential
texts on capitalism.
Learn about the
News mentions, press releases and speakers.
Send us a comment or
ask a question—we want to hear from you!