“Anheuser-Busch (A-B) is providing about half a million dollars to put on the debate hosted at Washington University in St. Louis, as well as providing general support to the non-profit Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).  The bipartisan Commission, established in 1987, is responsible for organizing the debates.  ‘Like any 501 (c) 3 organization, we rely on contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations to produce the debates every four years,’ John Scardino, the CPD’s media director, tells Join Together.
  
Along with U.S. Airways, The Century Foundation, The Marjorie Kovler Fund and 3Com, Anheuser-Busch is one of the major funders of the 2000 debates.  The beermaker also sponsored the 1996 debates between President Bill Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole.
  
In return for its sponsorship, Anheuser-Busch will be highlighted on the CPD’s web site and in the official printed program for the debates, as well as garnering bragging rights in the media.  ‘It’s a pleasure and honor for Anheuser-Busch to be part of this historic event in St. Louis,’ said Stephen K. Lambright, group vice president and general counsel for the beermaker, in a press release announcing the Washington University debate.
  
…Scardino, however, says that no Bud logos will appear in the hall where the debates will take place, nor will any beer commercials interrupt the debates themselves.  ‘If Anheuser-Busch wants to buy (broadcast advertising) spots before or after the debates, that’s up to them,’ he added.  …
  
…“The Commission’s choice of funders and even staff has particularly irked the prevention and treatment community.  In addition to Anheuser-Busch, past sponsors of the debates have included tobacco giant Philip Morris (1992 and 1996) – a relationship that seems almost inconceivable in the current political environment.  (Philip Morris also owns the Miller Brewing Co.).  …
  
…‘You especially must question why a company (Anheuser-Busch) whose product kills more young people in this country than any other alcoholic beverage is sponsoring the debates and becoming a central element of the political process,’ says industry critic George Hacker, head of the alcohol policy project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.  ‘It’s telling about the amount of political influence that Anheuser-Busch and others in the industry wield in the executive branch.’
-JTO Direct (9/22/00)

  
Think about this:  “The man who has a vicious beast and who, knowing its disposition, allows it liberty, is by the laws of the land held accountable for the evil the beast may do…On the same principle the government that licenses the liquor seller should be held responsible for the results of his traffic.
  
…Licenses are granted on the plea that they bring a revenue to the public treasury.  But what is this revenue when compared with the enormous expense incurred for the criminals, the insane, the paupers, that are the fruit of the liquor traffic!  …
  
…Let the voice of the nation demand of its lawmakers that a stop be put to this infamous traffic.”
- The Ministry of Healing, p.p. 343, 346