Following on my previous post, I take note of Carey Goldberg's post last week at the Commonhealth blog, where she is co-proprietor. She commented: 

Hmmmm. The New York Times reports today [Dec. 15] that the advocacy group Save The Children had been leading anti-obesity efforts around the country to tax soft drinks — but now has stopped. And by the way, it is seeking a big grant from Coca-Cola, and has already received $5 million from PepsiCo.

How do you think Coke and Pepsi feel about soda taxes? Yep, they oppose them. The head of Save The Children, Carolyn Miles, told the Times there was no connection between soft-drink donations and the decision to stop the soda tax campaigns. Do you believe her?

Just to be clear, the situations are not analogous. This involves funding from a corporation, and the journal's funder in my previous post is a nonprofit foundation. Still, the foundation's financial health depends on the performance of the corporation's stock. It's different, but not dissimilar.

If you had a financial interest and the ability to influence its fortunes, would you not? I sure would, and I would expect others — including Save The Children, Coke, Pepsi, and the Kellogg Foundation — to do the same.