Goldy details the AG’s complaint against the Grocery Manufacturers Association for their anti-I-522 campaign financing.
According to the complaint, the GMA funded its anti-522 efforts through voluntary assessments on its members (major food companies) separate from their normal association dues. Invoices were sent to GMA members in March and August of 2013, with the goal of raising $10 million to oppose I-522. As of the No on I-522’s most recent disclosure report, the GMA had contributed $7,222,500.
Of course, the GMA and its members are free to spend as much as they want opposing I-522; the issue here is their failure to disclose the source of the money. GMA members—familiar brands like Pepsi, Kraft, Coca-Cola, General Mills, and Kellogg’s—faced a ton of bad publicity for the millions they contributed to defeat the similar Prop 37 in California last year. The complaint outlines what appears to be a deliberate effort to shield these companies from similar publicity, in direct violation of Washington’s voter-approved public disclosure laws. In addition to penalties and legal fees, the AG is seeking to force the GMA to register as a political action committee and reveal its donors.
It’s a process story rather than a policy story, and I don’t think people really vote based on that (for specific candidates they do, I’m not convinced they do for ballot initiatives). Still, perhaps this feeds the narrative more than usual. The Frankenfood industry doesn’t want you to know who is spending money in the initiative process just like it doesn’t want you to know what you’re eating. I don’t know.
Good on the AG for taking them on in real time.
I thought it would make a good campaign sign in and of itself:
They won’t tell you what’s in it?
They won’t tell you who’s paying for it?
They sue you if you try to find out?
Who are they kidding?
Vote yes on I-522 and make them label it.
One of the twisted things about this issue is the pro-GM people’s insistence that the only POSSIBLE issue people could have with the stuff that might affect their buying decision is whether it’s safe to eat or not.
It is, after all, a perfectly legitimate consumer desire to not want to buy GM food, regardless of health issues, simply because they don’t want to support Montsanto’s treatment of farmers. Or to want to buy it to stick it to those libtards.
The fact that they can’t keep the genes out of the weeds, or the pests, or random other species, or out of neighbors’ crops, isn’t so much a reason to not buy GM foods as it is a reason to not allow them to be grown at all in any place where they can affect others’ property or wildlife.
My wife asked me about this initiative, she was getting confused by the various ads from both sides with cross-claims.
I just told her how much industry is paying to keep you from knowing what’s in their product. That settled it for her.
“how much industry is paying to keep you from knowing what’s in their product”
People trying to hide something usually have something to hide.
Parody against Monsanto’s push for non labeling
of genetically modified food to the “tune” of the Village People.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho2H7b1tUgQ
To Monsanto: Keep your hands off my peas and carrots :)) Signed Mrs. Rabbit
Monsanto: Keep your hands off our peas and carrots
Signed,
The Rabbit Family
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho2H7b1tUgQ