Part of what makes corporate political spending so fraught is the how valuable brand identity is to the average firm, the heterogeneous political views of customers and shareholders, as well as the increasing political polarization of the many segments of the America public. This means that corporate political spending which associates a brand with one political party is likely to alienate customers or shareholders who feel strongly affiliated with the opposite political party. American consumers have a long tradition of boycotting goods or services for political reasons and American shareholders have a history of divesting to make a political point. Thus there is a nontrivial risk that customers and investors will vote with their dollars when they discover corporate political activity. Furthermore, the ability to boycott or divest has been given a technological boost with the advent of multiple smartphone applications that provide end-users with instantaneous data about the politics behind mass marketed brands. This technology empowers a consumer to buy goods that are more closely aligned with the consumer’s political views and for investors to do the same with stocks. Finally this piece explores how consumer groups and investors have both coordinated efforts to pressure firms to leave the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). This type of orchestrated one-two punch could be the wave of the future for politically active firms.

Evidence of the inadequacy of our current legal system in dealing with the corporate role in slavery can be found on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court from 2015. Tucked in among the blockbuster cases about abortion, affirmative action, and political corruption in the 2015–2016 Supreme Court term was a little‐noticed certiorari petition from Nestlé U.S.A. asking, essentially, to be dismissed from a case that alleged the company had aided and abetted the slavery of children in Côte d’Ivoire. One of the troubling things about Nestlé U.S.A.’s asking to be let out of the suit was that its legal argument was not an outrageous request given recent Supreme Court cases that make it nearly impossible for human rights plaintiffs to bring successful suits against multinational corporations in U.S. courts.

This Article argues that, at a minimum, U.S. courts need to be reopened as proper fora for hearing civil human rights cases brought against multinational corporations that do significant business in the United States, regardless of where the harm occurred. The reason that American courts should be reopened is not just to give financial relief to victims, but also to change the calculus within corporations to make slave labor as financially unattractive as possible. But, further, this Article argues that we need to get back to the moral clarity of the Nuremberg trials of the industrialists and have the fortitude to actually prosecute corporate actors that knowingly perpetuate slavery.