Corporations enabling Trump’s corruption deserve ‘pocketbook justice’
The phrase "pocketbook justice" is doing a lot of work in that headline, and I'm not sure the article backs it up. It's a catchy idea: hit corporations where they feel it, in their revenue, when they enable behavior you consider corrupt. Boycotts and divestment campaigns have a long history in this country, from the civil rights era to more recent environmental and labor fights. There's something appealing about a leverage point that doesn't require waiting on regulators or courts.
But the piece as presented is thin. It tells me corporations have too much power, which is a claim I hear from both the left and the right these days, though they mean different things by it. What I'd want to know is which corporations we're talking about, what specific enabling behavior is alleged, and what evidence supports the corruption claim. Without those details, "pocketbook justice" is just a slogan waiting for substance.
I land somewhere in the middle. Consumer pressure is a real tool, and companies do respond to it when it threatens their bottom line. But I'd want the article to engage with the counterarguments too: that boycotts can hurt workers more than executives, that corporations often absorb the cost and move on, and that some of the companies being targeted might genuinely disagree with the characterization of their conduct. A fair treatment of this story would need to show both the promise and the limits of the approach.