Nominally, governments act at the behest of the good of the people, powerful or not. Regulation is part of its purpose. If they are not operating for the good o

Nominally, governments act at the behest of the good of the people, powerful or not. Regulation is part of its purpose. If they are not operating for the good of the people, then who are they operating for? This is a clear case where a government founded for the good of the people has been side-tracked to operate at the good of a corporation, at the expense of the people. So I will stick with my earlier statement: governments have power due to the will of the people, and blaming the existence of governmental power for the fact that corporations bought the legislation is doublespeak. The problem is not the existence of government (unless you are anarchist), nor is the fact that the government has the power to regulate. The problem is that a corporation bought legislation to restrict consumer choice, and that neither the politicians nor the corporations are being held accountable for the implicit (or even explicit) bribery that went on to make it happen.