Wow, that's not at all what I'm saying. Believe me, I am STRONGLY in the camp of "these goddamn companies need to be held accountable for their tax dodging." H

Wow, that's not at all what I'm saying. Believe me, I am STRONGLY in the camp of "these goddamn companies need to be held accountable for their tax dodging." However, you can't change the _fact_ that what they're doing is "legal." The issue is with federal tax policy that needs to be changed. I'm talking about the nature of calling bullshit on what companies do to their face, rather than PR firms talking to each other, and there's value in that. Here's the spin that happens (and it's especially bad because it's just published without much challenge): Any company that dodges taxes always say (to quote Tim Cook): "We pay every single penny of taxes we owe" – which says NOTHING about all the tax dodging these companies did to arrive at a minuscule bill of what was owed, and then, sure, they paid what they owed, correct. But in that format, where Cook makes a speech, and then someone writes a rebuttal article 2 weeks later, nothing really gets done. In a debate format, you can quickly say "yeah that's bullshit. You're making a semantic and laser focused argument. It's like saying you didn't kill that person by strangling them, they died because their brain stopped receiving oxygenated blood." And there's a public record of you pushing back against this BS corporate-speak. You _can't_ do that in the normal, traditional way this is done, which is that: 1) newspaper publishes article of wrongdoing 2) PR firm publishes press release with insane amounts of spin 3) nothing changes.