More and more States “destroying” the soda-pop industry? Or something else?

You may have heard talk about making soda ineligible for purchase under the SNAP program (food stamps). Among others, the HHS Secretary (RJK Jr. points out the problems with such consumables. We don’t think he considers them to be “food.”)

Oddly, a number of supposed pro-Trump influencers suddenly began arguing against the idea on social media. “This is government overreach! People’s choices shouldn’t be dictated by government! Even Donald Trump enjoys his Diet Coke!” Of course, it comes as no surprise that anti-Trumpers, especially of the Transzi (Regressive) persuasion, would object to limiting the use of welfare funds. But some so-called libertarians also seem to be critical.

This was a dumb argument: if you’re going to use stolen money to make your purchases, at the very least those purchases will have some strings attached. Boo hoo. (And I would bet that The Donald buys his own Diet Coke. After all, he is donating his paycheck and not accepting it.)

But then it suddenly became clear why these influencers had all been pushing this bad argument: they were actually being paid to.

It’s common to hear people accused of doing such things: how much are they paying you to say that, critics demand to know.

Well, in this case, they actually were getting paid, per post!

A company called Influenceable operates as a middleman between lobbyists and influencers. It offered influencers several hundred to one thousand dollars for each post that pushed the “restrictions on soda for SNAP recipients is a terrible imposition on individual autonomy” line.(In their own

Influenceable sought out “MAGA-aligned” influencers to spread this message. Not a single such person disclosed the relationship with Influenceable. (Influenceable, in their own words: 

Influenceable is an influencer management platform and agency used by brands, organizations, and campaigns in the anti-woke economy. We provide the tools necessary to reach any audience from their interests, demographics, or geographic location.

(In other words, they are paid shills. Mercenaries without morals.)

This problem obviously extends beyond soda. As Walter Kirk noted, “You saw what secretly paid influencers were willing to do for the soda industry. Just imagine what they’ve done — and do — for pharma.”

We humans (us here at TPOL are no exception) are often guilty of hypocrisy. It is something we need to be aware of and avoid: We laugh about those deluded people who chant “Keep government hands off my Social Security.” But if we are not careful, we fall into a similar error.

This proposal by RFKJr and endorsed by The Donald is not some sort of prohibition on sodas (pop in some places). You and we will still be able to go down to the supermarket, the convenience store, a vending machine, or a soda fountain and buy the stuff. Whether fizzy or still. Whether colored or clear. Whether a national name brand or store brand or some local creation. Depending on whose arguments we want to believe, we can poison our bodies or get refreshed. It is just that government welfare payments can’t be used to pay for the stuff. If these proposals pass.

Which ticks off the parasites who want all that “free” government money to be spent in their stores, on their products. And who worry that consumption will drop – together with revenue. We have a hard time feeling a whole lot of sympathy for them. Even without taking into account how these outfits gouge Americans more and more with prices, supposedly in response to inflation but far more than what is claimed. We have even less sympathy for their paid influencers. Including old time ad agencies and more.

READ MORE