What's interesting is erosion of the norm that corporations should not be particularly political (picking and choosing customers based on politics, touting allegiance to one specific side). This was once a somewhat stronger (political) norm that has fallen by the wayside as the nation has grown more bitterly divided.
I would be happy to see it come back somewhat; I am not convinced that corporate CEOs having an outsized influence on politics is going to take our nation to a healthy place in the long term, either politically, economically, or intellectually. I also expect that the demands of the new orthodoxy will get much, much worse before the situation gets any better.
Were the outsized influence limited to run-of-the-mill pro-corporatism politics (Or anything that aligned with their social agenda, as in the case of firms like Hobby Lobby), we wouldn't be hearing a peep from that camp on the subject. (As if that's somehow apolitical.)
There is very little trust across the entire political spectrum that the US government is an effective policy maker and enforcer. It often feels like our representatives at the state and federal levels no longer represent individuals, and so we've turned to corporations and US government suppliers looking for leverage to force change instead.
Just a thought: what if the nation's divide comes from companies taking more political stances, instead of the opposite? As an example to entertain the thought, when Nike takes a political position through their advertising on social platforms, people react to it by taking side. If done at a scale big enough, with enough companies pushing their customers to take a side, would that be enough to result in visible divide in the country?
That's not even true of just tech. IBM put engineers and machines in the hands of the Nazi party in 1930's as they were putting jews into camps.