Apparently, the political ads didn’t end when the election did! The 113 million fans who tuned into Sunday’s Super Bowl thriller found that out the hard way, getting an earful of a lot more than Tom Brady’s comeback. For once, the biggest controversy in football’s championship game had nothing to do with the half-time show. A different kind of exposure grabbed headlines this time, as corporate executives bared their political agendas in provocative ads. Despite the $5 million price tag, a surprising number of companies chose to inflame instead of entertain, a major break from tradition for most brand’s biggest PR moment of the year.

For corporate heavyweights like Google, Coca-Cola, 84 Lumber, Budweiser and Airbnb, staying on the sidelines in the early days of the Trump administration wasn’t an option for Super Bowl LI. They left product placement in the rearview and opted for controversial statements on everything from immigration to sexuality. While some companies kept it light (Terry Bradshaw in a golf cart), a parade of liberal businesses proved that the real clash in our country isn’t on the field but off it. “We all belong. The world is more beautiful the more you accept,” Airbnb insisted. Google squeezed in plenty of subliminal messages — and some not-so-subliminal rainbow flags.

Then there was 84 Lumber, which didn’t win over a lot of conservatives with its attack on Trump’s immigration crackdown in its commercial bashing a Mexican border wall. “There is an example of an unsophisticated advertiser making a political statement, and not really caring whether it helps them sell any lumber,” said Allen Adamson, founder of Brand Simple Consulting. Then, of course, there was Audi, which tried to make a statement about equal pay — only to be outed for having an all-male board.

Just as in football, there are winners and losers from Sunday’s corporate blitz. Like me, most people tuning into the Super Bowl were probably hoping for a break from Washington. Instead, they got a front-row seat to an all-out political assault from some of America’s best known brands. As most experts will tell you, these companies took a huge risk using one of the world’s largest stages to throw their lot in with the liberal crowd. If you want to know how badly that hurts businesses, ask Target, Starbucks, GrubHub, Kellogg’s and others. “When it comes to politics, most brands prefer to [stay neutral], for good reason,” said Kelly O'Keefe, a marketing professor at Virginia Commonwealth University. “Brands used to worry about whether their ad could be interpreted as right or wrong. Now they have to worry about whether it will be interpreted as right or left.”

While a lot of executives are busier than a laundry machine spinning the reviews of Sunday’s crusade, the results weren’t nearly as positive as they’d like you to believe. As Fox News pointed out [Monday], the YouTube version of some of these commercials had more thumbs downs than thumbs up. Either these executives haven’t learned their lesson or they’re willing to tank their revenue to make a political point (which isn’t exactly a popular option with shareholders). They underestimated the power of the consumer before the election — and even now, after watching the stocks of outspoken CEOs freefall, they’re stubbornly plowing ahead with a business model destined to alienate half of their customers. If CEOs want to enter the culture wars, that’s their prerogative. But they shouldn’t be surprised when shoppers settle the score.

Originally published here.

The (Title) X Factor

In his last Christmas as president, Barack Obama made sure he played Santa for at least one group: Planned Parenthood. With just weeks to go in the White House, the abortion industry’s best friend did what it could to protect the industry from an administration sure to be bad for business. Using his power at Health and Human Services, President Obama issued a rule that not only locked down federal grants for Cecile Richards’s group through the Title X “family planning” program, it also blocked states from defunding Planned Parenthood. It was, as two women in Congress said, the ultimate parting gift to an organization so corrupt that it’s been referred for criminal prosecution by the U.S. House.

Returning that gift to sender is the goal of Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), who’ve both introduced repeals of the eleventh-hour rule. “State legislatures around the country have spoken out about their preference for prioritizing more comprehensive primary and preventative care providers for the receipt of Title X funding,” the duo wrote in a joint op-ed for The Washington Examiner, “and their voice should be respected by bureaucrats in the federal government.” Obviously, the point of the rule was to strong-arm states into giving their hard-earned money to abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood. That’s not only a violation of states’ rights but of taxpayers’ trust. “According to its 2014-2015 annual report, Planned Parenthood performed 323,999 abortion procedures in just one year. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the abortion industry in this country. Nor should they be forced to foot the bill for an organization like Planned Parenthood that has displayed such blatant disregard for human life.”

They didn’t mention the fact that Planned Parenthood’s political arm spent more than $38 million in November’s election. In my view, an organization that directly receives taxpayer funding should not be able to spend money to influence the outcome of elections.

As for Obama’s parting gift to Planned Parenthood, every state should be free to decide how it spends its dollars — especially if it’s choosing positive alternatives to Cecile Richards’s “abortion-as-health-care” model. Obama’s HHS rule on Title X is an executive overreach and a handout to the abortion industry that has no basis in law. “With a pro-life president in the White House and pro-life majorities in the House and Senate, we will continue to work together this year to undo the damage done by the Obama administration,” the women write. Help us keep President Trump busy by encouraging your members of Congress to send a bill to his desk zeroing out Planned Parenthood from Title X funding!

Originally published here.

A Mandate With Destiny

While Congress is racing to overturn the biggest mistake of President Obama’s two terms, plenty of Americans are still suffering the effects of it. Obamacare continues to cost Americans — not just in finances, but freedom. The courts are still bogged down with lawsuits over the HHS mandate, which orders employers — under the threat of crushing fines — to ignore their beliefs and cover pills or procedures they morally oppose.

That battle has been especially fierce on the West Coast, where even churches are suing for the right to exercise their First Amendment rights in insurance policies in California. A little north in Washington State, a group of legislators are part of the endangered species of Obamacare supporters and are fighting not just to keep the law’s grip on locals but its suffocating, conscience-crushing mandate too. FRC’s Arina Grossu, director of the Center for Human Dignity, was on hand to reinforce what a terrible decision this would be for the Evergreen State. [Yesterday], she testified against the bill that would make it all possible, H.B. 1523. Apart from the obvious problems with the measure, there are some concerns that because of how the legislation is drafted, it could actually be expanded to include things like elective abortion in the future. As Arina told lawmakers:

“FRC objects to both federal and state government mandates on drugs and devices that can destroy human life. H.B. 1523 is one such oppressive mandate, drafted in a way that can make it even more dangerous than the federal HHS Mandate when it comes to conscience violations. Whether or not you agree with the scientific facts presented about how drugs and devices such as Ella, Plan B, and some IUDs can destroy a human embryo, and whether or not you believe killing unborn human life is morally problematic, it is essential that the Washington government not force its residents who do have these objections to violate their conscience. We must protect religious liberty in Washington and all across America.”

To check out her full testimony, click here. And if you live in Washington State, get busy contacting your leaders! Tell them that a vote for H.B. 1523 is a vote against the First Amendment.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.