They used to be paid of RJ Reynolds, etc as well.

The problem here is the drugs that are advertised as generally considered "good things". Anybody attempting to regulate the display of these ads would likely need to prove the ads are more harmful than any positive from the ads.

The ads (and it's been debated) is (imho as well) a way to 'buy out those who can keep then in check'. Media/journalists are supposed to be doing that. But when your chief editor tells you "hey, 70% of our network's revenue comes from XYZ" even if you don't want to, you self-censor.

Anyway I have commented many times on the 'legalized bribing' called 'lobbying'. The dishonest ones always week because those with $$$ know very well who can they buy and who can they threaten.