In recent years, Louisiana has taken the lead in protesting viewpoint discrimination by government proxy through the private sector. Its policy-makers should do so again and expand those efforts to cover cases in which the private sector does business with state government.

In the Murthy v. Missouri case, Louisiana played a major role taking up the cause of one of its then-citizens, who faced discrimination from social media companies over viewpoints on health decision-making. The companies’ actions, in isolation, would have been uncontroversial, except that the government actively steered them in that direction. The judiciary held this to be state-sponsored speech suppression, but it also determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. A narrower case, filed later without the state’s involvement, produced a settlement under which certain federal government agencies could not engage in that discrimination.

There are other ways in which Louisiana has fought viewpoint discrimination. A few years ago, the State Bond Commission, then led by Treas. John Schroder, declared it would not do business with entities that discriminated by viewpoint, specifically with those that refused to do business with gun manufacturers. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, in the year he took office, issued an executive order covering higher education institutions and prohibiting state agencies and public institutions from discriminating against students, faculty, or staff based on their political ideas and aiming to foster a culture where individuals do not face retribution for their speech or political beliefs.

Unfortunately, Louisiana state government now, unknowingly and indirectly, subsidizes viewpoint discrimination. A cottage industry has developed in which firms that “rate” media outlets for alleged “disinformation” proclivities offer this data to advertisers, who may use it to determine in which outlets to advertise.

The problem is that “disinformation” often becomes conflated with ideological preferences unmoored from objectivity, if not reality. Two such agencies, the American-based NewsGuard and Britain-based Global Disinformation Index, show clear bias in their assessments by favoring leftist media outlets over outlets that run more stories where the facts lead to conclusions more in line with conservative policy preferences. Problematically, that creates an incentive to suppress those viewpoints.

State governments employ advertising agencies through which to disseminate information appertaining to public relations campaigns. But when they use outfits that subscribe to the censorious businesses’ lists, they in essence create a pass-through subsidy, with tax dollars propping up those businesses and validating discrimination against ideologically-disfavored viewpoints.

Some states have recognized their role in stifling speech in this fashion and have acted to prevent that. For the past two years, Florida’s budget has barred state agencies from spending money on advertisers that do business with the censoring agencies. West Virginia has gone further by passing a statute earlier this year that prohibits state agencies from using public funds to support or contract with advertising agencies, marketing companies, or media monitors that utilize ideological ratings, media “blacklists,” or fact-checking organizations to guide their advertisement placements.

Louisiana should join in this relief. Landry could issue an executive order replicating the West Virginia law. He also could sign a law next year doing the same and even expanding it to all local governments, along with a budget containing language paralleling Florida’s. Without vetting every contract the state makes, it’s impossible to know how many state advertising and marketing dollars are involved, but perhaps the biggest utilizer of such spending, the Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, typically spends at least several million dollars annually on that function.

Government dollars shouldn’t encourage viewpoint discrimination. Louisiana policy-makers should take the steps necessary to see that the state’s taxpayer resources align with that sentiment.