“Like each billboard suggests that the city/libraries are misspending the money somehow.”

I don’t really see it that way. Each billboard is ‘hoping’ that the city is spending the money wisely. Doesn’t seem like the billboard is accusing the city of misspending it. I think the point is to point out that this taxpayer money is being used to fund public services.

However, I think the tone deafness arises from a big multi-billion dollar company trying to present itself as wanting to defend its continued existence because it cares so much for the public interest and how its taxpayer dollars are being used. As if the alternative (ie: people finding housing by other means) doesn’t also bring in taxpayer dollars or as if the company really wants to continue to exist because they are so eager to pay their taxpayer dollars and have those dollars serve the public interest. If that’s the basis for them defending their existence the same could be said for any company that pays taxes. I don’t think businesses exist because they are eager to pay taxes and have those tax dollars serve the public interest. If that’s the case why don’t they volunteer to increase the amount of tax dollars they pay and reduce their profits? I’m sure if the government taxed them less they would be glad to take a tax cut and many big companies lobby to pay less in taxes. No, companies exist for their own profits.

Now if the company donated a lot of money to charitable causes (and by charitable I don’t mean lobbying organizations disguising themselves as nonprofits) then maybe they would have a point. But even that may look bad as it may get people to question the organizations receiving the money and the true motives of the corporation in donating said money. Are there strings attached? Is the ‘charitable’ organization receiving money in exchange for promoting a specific position?

Overall I see nothing wrong with Airbnb exercising their freedom of speech to get public pressure to support their continued existence. Successful companies do find ways to spend their money on getting public support. It’s part of business and a very important part of the equation that businesses need to consider. Ideally it shouldn’t be but the reality is that defending yourself politically is a necessity that all businesses must consider because there are and will always be competitors that will try everything they can to regulate their competition out of business. This is true in any industry and will always be the case. and these competitors will stop at nothing to get their competition regulated out of business (campaign ads, campaign contributions, revolving door favors, secret back door dealings and kickbacks, etc…). If it weren’t for how Uber defended themselves politically through political ads they may not even exist anymore due to how the taxicab lobby spends their money on buying politicians through backdoor dealings, campaigns, and wrongfully smearing politicians that don’t give them exclusivity in the market. So a competing company naturally needs to defend itself against competitors that wish to regulate them out of business. The best, and most honest, way of doing so is by informing the public that their business is being threatened by a few incumbents that are trying to get politicians to limit competition and that this hurts the public. When those incumbents try to put misleading smear campaign ads out that wrongfully smear certain politicians that push for allowing more competition in the market the businesses wanting to compete should then put out ads defending those politicians that are being wrongfully smeared and explaining who is behind the smearing, what their true motives are, and what is misleading about those ads. They should then put out ads explaining which politicians are choosing to limit competition in favor of certain incumbent companies. When the public sees both sides and gets better informed they have a much better chance of arriving at the truth and choosing how to attribute public pressure. Attempts for incumbents to mislead the public will then only backfire as people will see the incumbents as being even more dishonest for putting out intentionally misleading campaign ads. But if the only ones that get their opinions out are the incumbents that don’t want any competition then it’s very easy for them to say whatever the heck they want and to mislead the public however they want without anyone questioning it. and I have nothing against free speech laws defending companies being able to spend however much money they wish on campaign ads. A dollar spent on telling the truth is as powerful as a hundred dollars spent on telling a lie. Truth, justice, and fairness are very powerful things but they often do need some means of being distributed which is why it’s important for companies defending their continued existence against competitors that wish to regulate their competition out of the market to spend some money on getting the truth out there and explaining to the public that they should have just as much an opportunity to compete as their competitors without their competitors receiving special laws that give them any exclusivity. People will understand if they see both sides of the issue even if those on the wrong side of the debate spend ten times more on political ads.

The best, and most honest, way to win this fight is to bring the debate out in the open. For both sides to do so. It far outweighs companies that try to get their way through how they donate money to campaigns (because then their agenda can be more difficult to determine) and through back door dealings. Letting the public see both sides of the debate results in a more informed public and one that will get interested, ask questions, and research the matter more to see what’s really going on and who to support. It’s just that Airbnb may have been a little tone deaf here and they should have probably hired some better PR people before putting out any ads. and it could be the case that certain communities don’t like Airbnb for other reasons and that’s also their prerogative. At least bringing the debate out in the open allows the public to be more aware of the situation to better determine how they wish to attribute public pressure based on their values.