Home | About | Donate

Ruling Against Pro-GMO Lobby Highlights Dark Money's "Egregious" Role in State Ballot Fights


Ruling Against Pro-GMO Lobby Highlights Dark Money's "Egregious" Role in State Ballot Fights

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Amid an election season where corporations are once again spending "vast unholy sums to defeat popular initiatives," a major food industry group has been found guilty of intentionally violating campaign finance laws by shielding its donors during Washington state's contentious 2013 GMO labeling fight.


Despite the $18 million fine in WA, the GMA was able to stop most State GMO labeling laws and get Obama's Dark Act passed to stop the others. As of 11/3/16 in WA he battle was won but the war to label GMOs is not yet won. Unless we can stop CETA, and Obama's TPP, TTIP and TISA we will lose the ability to label GMOs or just about anything else.

GMA is a huge driving force to pass TPP and other regulatory capture schemes disguised as "trade deals".


Good News! Thanks to the Attorney General, the Judge, and the advocates for good government and informed citizens!


It seems impossible to get one-person-one vote when oligarchy money is the deciding factor.



Just goes to show you can buy anything if you have enough free $peech.


Buckley v. Valeo strikes again.

The thing about adopting a concept like "Money equals Speech" is that such concepts have corollaries. Buckley's are:

Lots of money equals lots of speech.
Not much money equals not much speech.
And, all too often (see voluminous literature re. voter suppression), No money equals no speech.

Next thing you know, you're sporting an "inverted democracy." Really nasty when a gang of lots of moneys wants to take control of your food supply. (Especially when they're in cahoots with another gang of lots of moneys that has already taken control of your mass media.)

The not much moneys have been fighting, and losing, this battle for a long time, so this ruling is truly exciting. May it be the start of a trend.

(Parenthetical comment to Lauren McCauley and the editors: The unattributed quote in the first sentence would have cost a letter grade in my News Writing 101 class, back in the dark ages. Is it really a generally accepted practice now?)


Thank you DA Ferguson, for bringing this suit. And it is encouraging to note that there is at least one judge that hasn't been bought and paid for.


Lately billionaire parasites are turning into real vampires. They want to change their old blood for young blood by transfusion to be young again. Children's blood will be their commodity.

Everything has limits. Why are there no limits to wealth and power?


An Idea can defeat money
If we can continue the age of reason

As for gangs

We had better all hang together lest
We all hang seperatly


The flat out most stupid decision of the Supreme Court was Citizens United. This theory that money equals speech for the purposes of campaign financing is The most pro corporate decision possible. It gives this sector the sort of power as a political coup would. By equating money with speech the court almost managed to silence or make inconsequential the voice of the people who actually Are the Government. This corruption by the corporate sector and obscenely rich individuals must cease. The rise of a relatively unknown senator from one of our smallest states to almost gaining the nomination for President is unheard of in today's era of corporate sponsorship. The effort failed but was it the campaign issues or financing that was the reason?
The real question here to my understanding is why should a legale but nonhuman personhood have any say in our elections whatsoever? If there is a water shortage should corporate needs be more important than an environmental crisis or the needs of the people? At this moment that answer is Maybe. We The People elect representatives that we believe will do what the Majority of the people want them to do but increasingly that just ain't happenin. The people have spoken on the LGBT+ issues, gun issues, taxes issues and others and the legislators still come up with spurious arguments that must be dealt with. Where do these pieces of legislation come from? I doubt that pro fracking legislation is being generated by the people in the areas being fracked and these are the people who must live with the pollution this practice generates. The frackers will just move on leaving a toxic waste site in their wake. About GMOs I am generally neutral except in the polluting effects GMO crops have on surrounding farmers. The court decisions in favor of the industry can not be explained by logic but all this money floating about is going somewhere. The proper labeling of GMOs should be a given for every thinking thing has the right to know what it is consuming. If there is something we don't want in our food we most assuredly have the right to know. After all isn't that exactly what the "free market" is all about? So label GMOs and if people are reluctant to purchase your product reduce the price until it sells. If you can' turn a profit then there is something wrong with your business model. Or is it that the Free in free market stands for free from regulation?