I'm rather impressed that US states can, apparently, really make the case that protecting particular businesses against competing businesses is a "state function". What the hell? Shouldn't the <i>exact opposite</i> be a state function?<p>Is this common in the US? (governments openly and clearly admitting to favouring A over B, because people high up like A better) It sounds like the direct opposite of a free market to me, and isn't that what the US is supposed to be all about?<p>I mean, here in the Netherlands, we'd call that corruption and a scandal would ensue (which doesn't mean it doesn't happen; it just means that governments wouldn't admit such practices so openly).<p>Note: I don't mean to judge; I just genuinely wonder how these things are viewed by common Americans.