SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
(Photo: Alexis Baden-Mayer/cc/flickr)
Fined for Trying to Find Out Who's Funding Anti-GMO Labeling Campaign?
In Washington's battle over I-522, group loses legal challenge for disclosure while millions continue to pour in
Oct 07, 2013
A group fighting for disclosure over the millions being poured into the campaign to defeat Washington's GMO labeling initiative lost their legal challenge on Friday. Instead, the group got slapped with a $10,000 fine.
The fight centers around the state's I-522, which would require genetically modified food and seeds to be labeled as such.
In their legal challenge against the No on 522 Campaign and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) submitted in September, the newly formed, pro-GMO labeling group Moms for Labeling state that the No Campaign "illegally conceals the identity of the campaign's donors" and that donations to the campaign are "laundered through the Grocery Manufacturers Association," and, as such, the GMA, whose members include Nestle, Welch's and Del Monte, is acting illegally as a political committee.
The GMA made a $5 million contribution to the No Campaign at the end of September, bringing its total to the campaign to over $7.2 million. So far, the No Campaign has raised over $17 million, with other big donations coming from some of the same groups that successfully fought California's GMO-labeling initiative last year. In comparison, the Yes on 522 Campaign has raised just under $4.7 million so far.
On Friday, a judge dismissed Moms for Labeling's lawsuit.
Joel Connelly reported in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that Thurston County
Judge Wickham ruled that pro-522 plaintiffs -- Moms for Labeling is a newly formed group -- violated state filing procedures by not waiting 55 days after giving notice of an action to sue. Under the circumstances, only the state attorney general can bring suit charging a violation of the state's Public Disclosure Act.
In addition to having their lawsuit dismissed by the judge, the GMA and No on 522 Campaign scored a victory from a counter-attack they had launched when Wickham issued Moms for Labeling a fine of $10,000 plus attorneys' fees. The groups had used a state law, the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPP, which, as the Bellingham Herald explained, "was designed to protect parties against lawsuits that are harassing, intimidating and chill the speech of defendants."
The No on 522 Campaign called the legal challenge a "frivolous and baseless lawsuit brought for no other reason than to try to generate media headlines in the heat of a political campaign," and said it was "legal harassment, pure and simple."
"I think it is outrageous that we are being accused of harassing big out of state corporations when really what we are trying to do as Moms for Labeling is, one, find out what is in the food we are putting on the table for our families, and two, (learn) who is paying for this campaign. It's as simple as that," the Olympian reported Pam Johnson, a member of Moms for Labeling, as saying after the ruling. "As the decision makers we have a right to know specifically who is behind this campaign," she added.
_______________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A group fighting for disclosure over the millions being poured into the campaign to defeat Washington's GMO labeling initiative lost their legal challenge on Friday. Instead, the group got slapped with a $10,000 fine.
The fight centers around the state's I-522, which would require genetically modified food and seeds to be labeled as such.
In their legal challenge against the No on 522 Campaign and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) submitted in September, the newly formed, pro-GMO labeling group Moms for Labeling state that the No Campaign "illegally conceals the identity of the campaign's donors" and that donations to the campaign are "laundered through the Grocery Manufacturers Association," and, as such, the GMA, whose members include Nestle, Welch's and Del Monte, is acting illegally as a political committee.
The GMA made a $5 million contribution to the No Campaign at the end of September, bringing its total to the campaign to over $7.2 million. So far, the No Campaign has raised over $17 million, with other big donations coming from some of the same groups that successfully fought California's GMO-labeling initiative last year. In comparison, the Yes on 522 Campaign has raised just under $4.7 million so far.
On Friday, a judge dismissed Moms for Labeling's lawsuit.
Joel Connelly reported in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that Thurston County
Judge Wickham ruled that pro-522 plaintiffs -- Moms for Labeling is a newly formed group -- violated state filing procedures by not waiting 55 days after giving notice of an action to sue. Under the circumstances, only the state attorney general can bring suit charging a violation of the state's Public Disclosure Act.
In addition to having their lawsuit dismissed by the judge, the GMA and No on 522 Campaign scored a victory from a counter-attack they had launched when Wickham issued Moms for Labeling a fine of $10,000 plus attorneys' fees. The groups had used a state law, the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPP, which, as the Bellingham Herald explained, "was designed to protect parties against lawsuits that are harassing, intimidating and chill the speech of defendants."
The No on 522 Campaign called the legal challenge a "frivolous and baseless lawsuit brought for no other reason than to try to generate media headlines in the heat of a political campaign," and said it was "legal harassment, pure and simple."
"I think it is outrageous that we are being accused of harassing big out of state corporations when really what we are trying to do as Moms for Labeling is, one, find out what is in the food we are putting on the table for our families, and two, (learn) who is paying for this campaign. It's as simple as that," the Olympian reported Pam Johnson, a member of Moms for Labeling, as saying after the ruling. "As the decision makers we have a right to know specifically who is behind this campaign," she added.
_______________________
A group fighting for disclosure over the millions being poured into the campaign to defeat Washington's GMO labeling initiative lost their legal challenge on Friday. Instead, the group got slapped with a $10,000 fine.
The fight centers around the state's I-522, which would require genetically modified food and seeds to be labeled as such.
In their legal challenge against the No on 522 Campaign and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) submitted in September, the newly formed, pro-GMO labeling group Moms for Labeling state that the No Campaign "illegally conceals the identity of the campaign's donors" and that donations to the campaign are "laundered through the Grocery Manufacturers Association," and, as such, the GMA, whose members include Nestle, Welch's and Del Monte, is acting illegally as a political committee.
The GMA made a $5 million contribution to the No Campaign at the end of September, bringing its total to the campaign to over $7.2 million. So far, the No Campaign has raised over $17 million, with other big donations coming from some of the same groups that successfully fought California's GMO-labeling initiative last year. In comparison, the Yes on 522 Campaign has raised just under $4.7 million so far.
On Friday, a judge dismissed Moms for Labeling's lawsuit.
Joel Connelly reported in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that Thurston County
Judge Wickham ruled that pro-522 plaintiffs -- Moms for Labeling is a newly formed group -- violated state filing procedures by not waiting 55 days after giving notice of an action to sue. Under the circumstances, only the state attorney general can bring suit charging a violation of the state's Public Disclosure Act.
In addition to having their lawsuit dismissed by the judge, the GMA and No on 522 Campaign scored a victory from a counter-attack they had launched when Wickham issued Moms for Labeling a fine of $10,000 plus attorneys' fees. The groups had used a state law, the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPP, which, as the Bellingham Herald explained, "was designed to protect parties against lawsuits that are harassing, intimidating and chill the speech of defendants."
The No on 522 Campaign called the legal challenge a "frivolous and baseless lawsuit brought for no other reason than to try to generate media headlines in the heat of a political campaign," and said it was "legal harassment, pure and simple."
"I think it is outrageous that we are being accused of harassing big out of state corporations when really what we are trying to do as Moms for Labeling is, one, find out what is in the food we are putting on the table for our families, and two, (learn) who is paying for this campaign. It's as simple as that," the Olympian reported Pam Johnson, a member of Moms for Labeling, as saying after the ruling. "As the decision makers we have a right to know specifically who is behind this campaign," she added.
_______________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.