© M. Keaton, 2003

The following is an excerpt of a transcript of Robert Donaldson’s (a journalist for the Washington Inquirer) interview with Jordan Turtledove (chief special prosecutor for the people of the United States of America) shortly after Turtledove’s filing of the controversial case “The People versus The Fast Food Industry” (commonly referred to as the “Scopes Combo Meal Fiasco).

Dateline: 2018

RD: Before we get to the details of this case, can you give our viewers an overview of what this case is about?

JT: In a nutshell, Rob, the practice of the fast food industry of selling their products in a bundled format is a violation of the anti-trust laws.

RD: By bundled format, you are referring to the classic burger, fries, and a cola combo meals which they actually began to sell in, what, the late 1960s?

JT: That’s an oversimplification but, yes. The combo meal is a monopolistic practice.

RD: Now, a lot of people raise the question, why now? Why go after the fast food industry after all these years of business as usual?

JT: This is a difficult case. The fast food lobby is enormous and most of the Republican party is squarely in their pockets. Before we could bring a case of this magnitude, several other legal precedents had to be set and the level of public outcry had to be raised high enough to counter the influence of big food money.

RD: So most of the anti-fat movement was engineered?
JT: No, not at all. We have known for years that fat and sugar were actually more dangerous to the public than even second-hand smoke but for years, public awareness of this fact was suppressed by the food lobbies. Our first real sign that the public was finally waking up from their apathy on the matter was when the previous administration was able to push through the fat and sugar taxes to support government-sponsored health care.

RD: Critics have pointed out that, even though the taxes on these silent killers were raised as a deterrent, fat and sugar consumption have actually increased over the past three years.

JT: That’s perfectly acceptable. The taxation of harmful substances is a win-win situation for everyone concerned. Even if the increased taxes do not serve as a deterrent, they insure that those who are most in need of health care and who are the biggest burden on society are also those who pay the largest financial burden.

RD: Even if they die young.

JT: Especially if their self-destructive behavior kills them early. When this occurs, they have made the best possible contribution to their society. They have paid their debt to society and then removed themselves from becoming a burden on the system.

RD: That seems a little cold-hearted.

JT: (shrugs) If you are going to deliberately throw yourself in front of a bus, what can I do? It is a free country. Besides, increased tobacco taxes historically served as a deterrent to smoking.

RD: Again, your critics would have us believe that the decrease of cigarette sales was due more to the creation of a black market once prices became too high, not an actual reduction in the number of smokers.

JT: Purely partisan fear-mongering. Regardless, I hardly think that this is relevant to my current case. Really, can you imagine a black market in french fries? Please, spare me.

RD: Earlier you mentioned that several earlier legal precedents laid the groundwork for this suit. Could you expound on this a bit?

JT: Certainly. It’s important that your viewers understand that this is not about the manufacturer’s legal right to sell a product. We’re not saying that you cannot sell a car without an engine. This case is about the fact that a manufacturer cannot use the leverage of their primary product to gain an unfair leverage within the market in order to market a second, non-primary product. We’re talking about the concept of combined or bundled marketing.

RD: I think that point was demonstrated in the case of “The People versus General Motors”.

JT: Yes. That was the case where the government was forced to step in and prevent automobile companies from using the product leverage of their cars to sell tires. Look at what that case has done for our country. Now the consumer has the choice of what brand of tires are on their new car and the increased competition among tire dealers has benefited the consumer.

RD: Not only that. Look at the number of jobs created now that each car dealership is surrounded by tire dealers. (chuckles) It’s not like you can drive a car off the lot without wheels.

JT: The real groundwork for this case dates back to the Microsoft controversies of the late 1990s. Those were the truly important legal battles. Despite initial set-backs, the government was in a position where they could not back down. With the huge amount of commerce taking place on the internet, completely without government control, loss could have spelled the end of our way of life. The lesson we really learned from those cases was that free trade is simply too important for companies to be allowed to run rampant. Free trade without strict government regulation is not free.

RD: Indeed. If the government had not eventually stepped in and put the federal reserve in charge of internet commerce, I shudder to think of the international economic chaos which would have ensued.

JT: This country was so close to disaster that it’s terrifying--and all because of one man’s refusal to submit to the greater needs of his society.

RD: (shrugs) Greed kills.

JT: That’s why the government was forced to institute salary caps for corporate CEOs. Eventually, all layers of labor had to have their salaries standardized. Even as we speak, the Council on Foreign Relations is working with the U.N. to standardize wages on an international level in order to provide for fair trade on an international level.

RD: (looks off camera) My stage manager is signaling me that we have a caller. Do you mind?

JT: Not at all, I’m a servant of the people.

RD: Mr. Al Smalls from Chicago. Go ahead, Mr. Smalls.

AS: Yea, Mr. Turtledove. I own a fry shack here in Chicago and I support you 100% on this. All I sell is french fries. I don’t want to carry drinks or meat but in order to stay competitive, I may have to. Hey, it’s my constitutional right. If I want to only sell fries, I should be able to and I expect my government make that possible. Life, liberty, and happiness, right? I’m glad the feds have finally decided to stand up for the common man like me. Thanks.

JT: Mr. Smalls is a perfect example of what we are fighting for here. The monopolistic practices of big fast food have squeezed the single product provider completely out of the marketplace. Big food can practically give away french fries as part of a combo meal until the smaller fry producers are driven out of business. When that happens, the price of french fries will go though the roof. It’s just not fair.

RD: What about the potato growers? Aren’t they caught in the middle on this?

JT: Not at all. As part of the settlement we are seeking, subsidies for potato growers will be introduced to offset their losses. We don’t want anyone to get hurt here.

RD: What about the fast food providers themselves?

JT: They will be fine. We are suing the corporations themselves, not real people. The money from this settlement isn’t coming out of anyone’s pockets, its coming from a corporation.

RD: And this cost will not be passed on to the consumer?

JT: No, of course not. In order to guarantee free trade, the government is prepared to introduce standardized pricing structures to prevent this. As an added bonus, since salaries are standardized by a government mandate, a corporation cannot attempt to cut costs by reducing wages or laying off workers.

RD: So nobody gets hurt and the consumer benefits.

JT: Exactly. All of the costs are absorbed by the corporations involved, not people.

RD: What if the additional cost forces the corporations to go out of business?

JT: When this has happened in the past, it has always been a clear indication that the industry in question is too important to the country to be left in the hands of corporate interests. I do not see this case as being any different. If the corporations can no longer perform their function in the economy, the government is prepared to step in and take over the industry as a utility.

RD: Well, we are just about out of time, any closing comments?

JT: Not really. It’s just good to live in a time when we have finally learned that freedom without regulation is not truly freedom.

RD: That does it for us here. Good night.