Actually, I am exactly on point, these were the exact type of analogies that SCOTUS considered during arguments on Citizens United: What is the difference between a company spending money in a State to promote policies that it favors and making donations directly to causes and candidates?
As many of the posters have either intentionally or unintentionally touched upon...not much.
#25 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER
Thats a good point. Though most posters were concentrating on Netflix "reconsidering investments in Georgia", while you are talking about them "supporting the ACLU", and assigning that position to other people's posts even though they are clearly talking about the first point.
But, other than you intentionally muddying the debate by conflating the two aspects of Netflix's position, you do make a good point. They SHOULD NOT be able to support the ACLU (at least not financially). That they are able to is because Republican activist judges decided that they should be able to. I would be HAPPY to make it illegal for them (a business) to financially support political groups. If you don't like what they are doing (Boaz definitely doesn't) then maybe you should get some Republicans to, you know, fight against the bad decisions of the Republican activist judges.
Businesses should be making business decisions... such as decisions about where, who, and when they want to do business. I am sure you would agree that Netflix has every right to pull investments in Georgia based upon the political climate there.