If anyone out there is proposing a tax on sugary sodas, you can be sure the "Center for Consumer Freedom" will be nearby, trying to distract from any real discussion.

With this post, it returns to Philadelphia, where the mayor is again proposing a soda tax, even after beverage industry lobbyists pledged to give $10 million to the city's Children's Hospital, in the middle of a debate on a soda tax, so it could expand obesity-prevention efforts. Any reasonable person would consider that civic bribery, but let's skip over that right now.

The CCF method is to attack from any remotely plausible angle, seeking to hide plain truths. This time, for example, it claims that the tax, from a revenue-raising perspective, is a "Band-Aid on a bullet wound." Which is to suggest, "why bother; it won't raise enough money." So if it's not going to raise much cash, why oppose it?

Next, it says that "Many lawmakers and health zealots have placed blame for Americans’ obesity squarely on soda. Yet a wealth of academic research demonstrates that taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages have no measurable effect on Americans’ weight."

Oy, where to begin pulling that apart? First, I haven't heard anyone — "health zealots" or anyone else — put the blame squarely on soda; what they say is that soda is perhaps the worst contributor to obesity. If CCF wants to raise that point, then doesn't it have to concede that any steps to combat obesity ought to begin there?

But of course, those are small points compared to the paragraph's whopper, that taxing sugar-sweetened beverages won't affect Americans' weight. In the realm of plain truths, how does that one fit?

If something costs more, are you more or less likely to buy it? When taxes were levied on cigarettes, in part to discourage smoking, what happened? Fewer people smoked, no? (I'm one of them: When Ronald Reagan doubled the federal tax on cigarettes from 8 cents to 16 cents a pack, I vowed I would be Uncle Sam's monkey no longer, and quit. Thank you, Mr. President!)

Does anyone think that the CCF, which is funded by the food-products and restaurant industries, really cares if the tax won't produce enough revenue? Or that it won't affect Americans' weight? Of course not, but it can hardly argue the truth, that it opposes any tax on its products, anywhere, at any time, because that will probably hurt profits.

Obviously, unquestionably, undeniably. That's why it volunteered to give Children's Hospital $10 million (over three years). It did the math and concluded that a tax-deductible $10 million was cheaper than allowing a tax on its product, even though it wouldn't have to pay the tax; consumers would.

What their wholly transparent "largesse" proves is that soda manufacturers do believe a tax would reduce consumption, and they'll pay an eight-figure sum to prevent it.