Appearing on Morning Joe Wednesday, MSNBC founder and current Newsweek editor-at-large Tom Rogers proposed a bizarre scheme in which corporations would relocate liberal employees to swing states across the country with the explicit goal of getting Democrats elected in those states. Rogers touted his corrupt plan as the best way to defeat Republicans and force through far-left legislation to manipulate future elections.
“Now to longtime media executive, editor-at-large at Newsweek, and founder of CNBC and MSNBC, Tom Rogers....looking at the relationship between corporate America and politics,” co-host Mika Brzezinski declared as she welcomed him on the show. The leftist host then eagerly read from the latest unhinged column from Rogers, which demanded companies use their workers as political pawns to help the Democratic Party:
Essentially, I am proposing creating a corporate initiative to turn demography into political destiny for key swing states. If corporate America decided that it would support a new Corporate Great Migration to swing states of women, young and diverse employees – those most likely to vote against Big Lie candidates – especially when we’re talking about the very thin voter margins for Biden we saw in Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin, this could reshape the voter demography of those states in a short period of time. This is a somewhat radical proposal for a corporation to consider, but if corporations truly believe that the future of our democracy is at stake, is it really too radical to attempt?
In the blatantly partisan piece, Rogers openly campaigned for Democrats: “In order to pursue this approach, corporate America is going to have to come to terms with the fact that, at least for the short-term, large corporations are going to need to tacitly support the Democratic Party in order to help defeat a Republican Party apparatus that is bent on continuing to push an election narrative falsehood, the goal of which is to lower voter participation and enable state legislatures to overturn legitimate future election results.”
The plot was so hair-brained even Brzezinski’s co-host and husband Joe Scarborough dismissed the idea:
I think it’s too radical to attempt....And isn’t their job, Tom, first and foremost, not to affect social change or change political maps but to make money for their shareholders? But more importantly, to hire Americans and make sure they remain profitable. I mean, things are tough enough out there without corporations moving their locations to affect a thousand or two votes in a swing state here or there.
Rogers defended his left-wing fantasy by pointing to another recent Morning Joe guest who colluded with CEOs to push the Democratic Party’s agenda: “You had Jeffrey Sonnenfeld on this show, from Yale, who did a phenomenal job in organizing CEOs to speak out about voting rights and voter participation. And those efforts have had some effect.”
Ironically, he proceeded to talk up the appeal of businesses sending their workers to live in red-leaning swing states because of the conservative policies there: “...you could easily give incentives to people to move to Florida, to Texas, to North Carolina, to Georgia, to Arizona. Nice weather, lower cost of living, lower taxes, and in so doing, probably accomplish a whole lot more in terms of demography and its ultimate impact without at all affecting profits of corporations...” Rogers failed to comprehend that turning such states blue would wreck the “lower taxes” benefit.
He bemoaned that Republicans opposed Democrats attempting to rig elections with federal legislation and asserted that his scheme was the only way force the radical policy through:
And while CEOs wanted this to be a bipartisan issue, it doesn't look like it’s going to be one. And I just don’t see them coming in heavy guns to overturn the filibuster rule in order to get federal legislation to protect voting rights. So, what else can they do? And giving incentives to women, younger employees, diverse employees, who may well want to have this kind of change of lifestyle that moving to these other states may involve, and at the same time, being able to more directly effect change in terms of not having the kind of slim margins where these Republican state legislatures still using the Big Lie as a rationale, ultimately setting up what could be a steal of election in 2024 by allowing state legislatures to overturn the popular vote. We’ve got to do something and the question is, would this be a way for corporations to affect a more democratic end...
Brzezinski swooned: “Good debate, Tom Rogers, thank you very much for your radical proposal. Really appreciate it.”
There’s no plan to get Democrats elected that is too crazy for some in the liberal media. Would employees for these companies be required to make some kind of loyalty pledge to the Democratic Party before being relocated to swing states?
This nonsense was brought to viewers by TD Ameritrade and American Express. You can fight back by letting these advertisers know what you think of them sponsoring such content.
Here is a full transcript of the May 19 segment:
7:51 AM ET
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Now to longtime media executive, editor-at-large at Newsweek, and founder of CNBC and MSNBC, Tom Rogers. And Tom, you’re looking at the relationship between corporate America and politics. And in your new column for Newsweek, you write in part, “Essentially, I am proposing creating a corporate initiative to turn demography into political destiny for key swing states. If corporate America decided that it would support a new Corporate Great Migration to swing states of women, young and diverse employees – those most likely to vote against Big Lie candidates – especially when we’re talking about the very thin voter margins for Biden we saw in Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin, this could reshape the voter demography of those states in a short period of time. This is a somewhat radical proposal for a corporation to consider, but if corporations truly believe that the future of our democracy is at stake, is it really too radical to attempt?” Joe, what do you think?
JOE SCARBOROUGH: I think it’s too radical to attempt and, Tom, what I always say when people go, “Oh, this corporation shouldn’t do this” or “Oh, this corporation shouldn’t do that” or “Oh, they shouldn’t ban that sort of speech.” That’s their decision , that’s their call. It’s called free enterprise. And isn’t their job, Tom, first and foremost, not to affect social change or change political maps but to make money for their shareholders? But more importantly, to hire Americans and make sure they remain profitable. I mean, things are tough enough out there without corporations moving their locations to affect a thousand or two votes in a swing state here or there.
TOM ROGERS: Well, Joe, as I said, some will consider it too radical. But let’s step back a minute. You had Jeffrey Sonnenfeld on this show, from Yale, who did a phenomenal job in organizing CEOs to speak out about voting rights and voter participation. And those efforts have had some effect. But it’s very clear that if we’re going to pass something, it is not going to be the bipartisan effort that CEOs would like to see. Republicans push back really hard to get something at the federal level. It’s going to have to be over the filibuster rule. And I don’t really see CEOs coming in and lobbying hard to overturn the filibuster rule to get voting rights through.
So, I ask myself, what could be done that doesn’t involve having to push state legislatures or engage with Congress but could actually accomplish more? And while you think it may be radical, we had great migrations in this country before. Starting in 1916, the first great migration of African-Americans from the south to the north, again starting in 1940, a second great migration. And what was this really based on? Racism, of course, which is at the heart of a lot of the Big Lie voting rights issues, but what really drove it was northern labor shortages and companies in the north giving incentives to African-American employees to move to the north for those reasons.
What we learned from the pandemic is corporate employees can work from home. And you could easily have in the S&P 500, which employs 24 million employees in the United States, you could easily give incentives to people to move to Florida, to Texas, to North Carolina, to Georgia, to Arizona. Nice weather, lower cost of living, lower taxes, and in so doing, probably accomplish a whole lot more in terms of demography and its ultimate impact without at all affecting profits of corporations, which as you say, is the main job number one of corporations.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, Mike Barnicle, I think we are having a great migration. I think there are a lot of Republicans from the northeast that are moving down to Florida and a lot of Republicans or a lot of business people from California moving to Texas and they are leaving liberal areas and, actually, I think they’re probably going to be making Florida a more conservative, more Republican state and making Texas more Republican in many ways, as well. Even though the demographic changes seem to be shifting Democratic there.
MIKE BARNICLE: Yeah, Joe, I don’t know about Texas. I assume you’re talking about a lot of tech companies moving personnel to Texas, around the Austin area, which is happening, obviously.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah.
BARNICLE: But people moving to Florida, the only people I know who are moving to Florida, or the people who I’ve read about, the groups of people I’ve read about moving to Florida, they’re going there to avoid taxes. So I don’t know what this does in terms of the development of further democracy or larger voting blocs who would tend to be more moderate or liberal, Tom. But were you not impressed from the number of American CEOs, heads of large companies which are traditionally – they think of anything involving politics as touching the third rail, but many, many CEOs signed on to anti-voter suppression ads, saying, you know, “This is terrible what’s happening, we can’t have voter suppression in this legislation in this state or nationally is not good for America.” And business finished second in that. Do you not agree with that?
ROGERS: I totally agree with what the CEOs did and Jeffrey Sonnenfeld was able to get 130 CEOs together in a matter of a few days to come together and voice that sentiment behind Ken Chenault and Ken Frazier, the two most prominent black CEOs in America, who really took this upon themselves to totally drive the CEO community. But the question is, has it been impactful enough to really get the job done? And while CEOs wanted this to be a bipartisan issue, it doesn't look like it’s going to be one. And I just don’t see them coming in heavy guns to overturn the filibuster rule in order to get federal legislation to protect voting rights. So, what else can they do? And giving incentives to women, younger employees, diverse employees, who may well want to have this kind of change of lifestyle that moving to these other states may involve, and at the same time, being able to more directly effect change in terms of not having the kind of slim margins where these Republican state legislatures still using the Big Lie as a rationale, ultimately setting up what could be a steal of election in 2024 by allowing state legislatures to overturn the popular vote. We’ve got to do something and the question is, would this be a way for corporations to affect a more democratic end, which in the end is all about capitalism, too. CEOs came forward because at the heart of this, it’s how do you protect American capitalism?
BRZEZINSKI: Good debate, Tom Rogers, thank you very much for your radical proposal. Really appreciate it.
