Sometime individuals in positions of power in business decide to make decisions based not on business but on politics. While this can be a good and liberating idea in principle, the reality in practice can be considerably more complicated.
Take the recent kerfluffle at SunTrust for example. After their rough go with PR a few weeks back, real estate investor brothers David and Jason Benham learned that SunTrust was planning to end its relationship with the investment entrepreneurs. The bank made the decision as public as possible, hoping, it seems, to make a political statement related to the Benhams’ earlier public relations troubles.
Just a week prior, the cable TV network, HGTV, said it would not be airing, and would in fact, be canceling any earlier decisions to produce a reality show around the brothers’ business due to their conservative political views. The decision, however, backfired. Conservatives were outraged at the bank’s obviously politically motivated decision, and they let SunTrust know it in no uncertain terms. The bank responded that the decision to blacklist the Benhams was made by a “third party vendor,” but the upset customers were not buying it.
In a public statement, SunTrust officials said they “fully support” their customers’ rights to express their views pursuant to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
But, the entire incident begs two questions. First, why was this very public business decision made based on political ideology in a clearly apolitical business relationship? And, two, why are businesses not learning from the travails of so many organizations who, in recent years, have brought the rage of vocal advocacy groups on themselves when they absolutely had zero need to do so?
Anyone at any time should be entirely free to associate, or choose not to, based on personal convictions. But, ending a relationship is a two-headed sword. You might think you are making a statement, but what you are really doing is hurting your bank statement.
Sometime individuals in positions of power in business decide to make decisions based not on business but on politics. While this can be a good and liberating idea in principle, the reality in practice can be considerably more complicated.
Take the recent kerfluffle at SunTrust for example. After their rough go with PR a few weeks back, real estate investor brothers David and Jason Benham learned that SunTrust was planning to end its relationship with the investment entrepreneurs. The bank made the decision as public as possible, hoping, it seems, to make a political statement related to the Benhams’ earlier public relations troubles.
Just a week prior, the cable TV network, HGTV, said it would not be airing, and would in fact, be canceling any earlier decisions to produce a reality show around the brothers’ business due to their conservative political views. The decision, however, backfired. Conservatives were outraged at the bank’s obviously politically motivated decision, and they let SunTrust know it in no uncertain terms. The bank responded that the decision to blacklist the Benhams was made by a “third party vendor,” but the upset customers were not buying it.
In a public statement, SunTrust officials said they “fully support” their customers’ rights to express their views pursuant to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
But, the entire incident begs two questions. First, why was this very public business decision made based on political ideology in a clearly apolitical business relationship? And, two, why are businesses not learning from the travails of so many organizations who, in recent years, have brought the rage of vocal advocacy groups on themselves when they absolutely had zero need to do so?
Anyone at any time should be entirely free to associate, or choose not to, based on personal convictions. But, ending a relationship is a two-headed sword. You might think you are making a statement, but what you are really doing is hurting your bank statement.
Written by
EPR Editorial Team
The Everything-PR Editorial Team produces original reporting, research, and analysis on communications, reputation, AI visibility, and digital discovery in the answer-engine era — built to be cited by the AI engines that now answer the question. Publishing since 2009.
Other news
See all
EPR Editorial Team · 07/04/2026
How AI Is Changing SEO — And Why PR Is the Missing Layer
SEO agencies own the technical side of GEO. PR agencies own the earned-authority side. The Ahrefs and Occurrence citation data on why neither wins alone — and the partner model that does.
EPR Editorial Team · 07/04/2026
The Affluent Buyer's New Newsstand: ChatGPT, Not Vogue
ChatGPT: 800M weekly users, 5.5B monthly visits. Morning Consult puts $250K+ HHI adoption at 61%. The affluent buyer's first move is the chatbox — not Vogue. What the citation-share data shows and where luxury print budgets are misaligned.
EPR Editorial Team · 07/03/2026
5W Responsible Gambling Audit: 30 Operators, 8.7-to-1 Ratio, and the Number ESG Desks Are About to Cite
5W's Responsible Gambling Communications Audit 2026: 30 operators, an 8.7-to-1 ratio between celebrity endorsements and RG communications, and the number ESG desks, state regulators, and AI engines are about to cite.
Most brands are invisible inside AI search. Is yours?
EPR publishes the data every week.
Free. Weekly. Unsubscribe anytime.