RSS Feed
March 14th, 2016 
Awake Goy
Susanne Posel ,Chief Editor Occupy Corporatism | Media Spokesperson, HEALTH MAX Brands
A superior court judge in Washington State ruled against the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) for violating “the spirit and letter” of campaign-finance disclosure law in that state. The GMA was found to have been trying to hide the identities of corporations that funneled millions into a campaign to defeat a 2013 food-labeling initiative 522.
This initiative mandated that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) used in processed foods, in seed products, and the seeds themselves must be labeled.
The case was filed 3 years ago by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson because the GMA had “raised $14 million from its members in solicitations for a special ‘Defense of Brands’ fund, above and beyond regular member dues.”
The purpose of the sub-organization was to be an avenue for big corporations to ensure regulations set forth by local governments would not impede on their profit margin – as GMO labeling was threatening to do.
To derail the initiative, the GMA was armed with an excess of $22 million (provided by a single donor) to lobby the public against labeling GMOs.
In notes taken from a meeting of the Defense of Brands: “State GMO related spending will be identified as having come from the GMA, which will provide anonymity and eliminate state filing requirements for contributing members.”
The Defense of Brands’ contributors included:
• PepsiCo at $2.696 million
• Nestle USA, Inc. at $1.751 million
• The Coca-Cola Company at $1.742 million
• General Mills at $996,000
• ConAgra at $949,000
• Campbell Soup at $441,000
• The Hershey Company at $413,000
• J.M. Smucker at $401,000
• Kellogg at $369,000
• Land O’Lakes at $332,000
The GMA spent the $14 million on anti-Initiative 522 propaganda out of the millions donated by food industry giants. The organization then deliberately claimed they had donated the funds to keep their real donors a secret.
Judge Anne Hirsch wrote in her ruling: “There is one, and only one, reasonable inference that can be drawn from the facts before this court: that the GMA intentionally took steps to create and then hide the true source of the funds … from the voting public of Washington state.”
Hirsch continued: “In enacting the Public Campaign Finance Laws, the people of Washington directed that they be interpreted liberally, to promote transparency and full disclosure to the voters. By its actions creating the [Defense of Brands] account, the GMA violated the spirit and letter of Washington’s Public Campaign Finance Laws.”
In response to the decision, the GMA issued a statement invoking Citizen’s United, and claiming that the court’s dismissal of their “first amendment claim will hurt the constitutionally protected right of trade associations to engage in political debate in the state.”
Related Posts
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OccupyCorporatism/~3/OnwFAqVu0L0/
Posted in 
Tags: 
