Increasingly, as a result of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision (which, aside from equating money to speech, found it legal for employers to compel their employees to participate in political campaigns even if the employee does not personally believe/support that candidate), corporations are increasingly telling their employees how to vote.
And not only are they telling employees how to vote, some CEOs are making the suggestion that if the "wrong" candidate gets elected, there may be repercussions to their career.
Essentially, CEOs are threatening employees in order to get them to put their short term economic interests of those who do not have their economic interests at heart over their own long-term economic interest.
Recently, in a conference call to the conservative National Federation of Independent Businesses, Mitt Romney encouraged this, by saying:
"I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope, I hope you pass those along to your employees. ... Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision, and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well. I particularly think our young kids ... they need to understand that American runs on a strong and vibrant business and we need businesses growing and thriving this country."
And Romney's right. It's legal.
Westgate Resorts CEO David Siegel warned employees that a re-elected Obama would threaten their job security.
Arthur Allen, CEO of ASG Software Solutions, emailed his employees telling them there would be economic fallout should Obama be reelected.
Bob Murray, CEO of Murray Energy expects his employees to give money to his own PAC, and if you don't someone will call you and ask why not.
The problem with this, of course, it that you have an authority figure telling those they have authority over to not only vote a certain way, but implying there will be economic consequences of voting the wrong way.
Since Republicans seem to be okay with this type of voter coercion, I wonder, would they also be okay with, say, college professors telling their students how to vote and suggesting their grades may depend on the right candidate being elected?