this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
259 points (97.1% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7192 readers
1 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

They found an issue that profits them that undecideds will get behind, is why.

Free Range laws are a complicated and touchy subject in a lot of Blue areas. Eggs more than doubled in price in my state in the last 6 months or so. I'm willing to pay for them because I think Free Range laws are humane, but I'm a couple towns over from a very depressed urban community that really feels the difference when eggs were one of the cheapest nutritional purchases they could buy.

THERE, there's been a lot of grumbling by traditionally blue voters about the Free Range laws. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, empathy ends when it affects their family.

IMO, we needed subsidy or purchase-subsidy of some sort to counteract the cost of Free Range laws, and this might not have happened because it might not have been popular enough. Nonetheless, hopefully they shoot themsleves in the foot with this. They're leaning on the same commerce clause that could eventually lead to a federal Free Range mandate.