

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Last week, SB 633, a bill that strips all local control of agricultural seed and seed production and replaces it with a "one size fits all" policy dictated by the state passed out of the Rural Communities and Economic Development committee by a vote of 3 to 2 in favor. SB 633, known as Oregon's Monsanto Protection Act, earned the support of the committee Chair, Arnie Roblan (D-Coos Bay) whose office has cited the passage of Section 735, known as Monsanto Protection Act, of H.R.
Last week, SB 633, a bill that strips all local control of agricultural seed and seed production and replaces it with a "one size fits all" policy dictated by the state passed out of the Rural Communities and Economic Development committee by a vote of 3 to 2 in favor. SB 633, known as Oregon's Monsanto Protection Act, earned the support of the committee Chair, Arnie Roblan (D-Coos Bay) whose office has cited the passage of Section 735, known as Monsanto Protection Act, of H.R. 933, as justification of the dangerous new seed preemption bill that is now awaiting a full vote on the Oregon Senate floor.
Under current Oregon law, local citizens have the right to make democratic decisions concerning local agricultural practices and Oregon's Monsanto Protection Act is seen as a corporate handout to agribusiness to protect biotech seed and chemical monopolies like Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta from the growing number of American farmers and citizens who have become concerned about the flaws of genetically engineered crops and the undemocratic lobbying method these giant multinational companies use to deceptively garner growth in the marketplace.
"Barely two weeks after sneaking into U.S law, the Monsanto Protection Act is being cited as an example to strip Oregon's family farmers of their basic democratic rights," said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now! "By siting Section 735, better known as the Monsanto Protection Act, as a reason to subvert the citizen-led ballot initiative process, Oregon Senators have proven that the Monsanto Protection Act is a part of a well-coordinated effort by Monsanto and the biotech industry to undermine simple protections from GMO crops that a growing number of farmers and citizens across the U.S. are demanding."
Ominously, the Monsanto Protection Act, Section 735, is cited as supporting evidence for the Oregon seed preemption bill in an email to a constituent from Rosie Shatkin, Roblan's legislative policy adviser. According to Senator Roblan's office:
"With this background information in mind, and given that the DA promulgated rules through the APHIS, does the CFCAA, 2013, H.B. 933 SS 735, impact a State's ability to regulate GMOs? In essence, one reviewer of the act noted that 'Even if the courts find that a (genetically engineered) crop shouldn't be planted until more research is done about its safety, no one could stop that crop from being planted, even temporarily' because Federal Law supersedes state law and most definitely, local Ordinance," wrote Shatkin.
Oregon's Monsanto Protection Act is a direct attempt to silence farmers critical of genetically engineered crops who are looking for a reasonable democratic solution to protect their organic and non-GMO seed supply from genetic contamination.
In an effort to protect local agriculture and farmer's economic livelihoods, on January 2nd of this year, GMO-Free Jackson County, led by a local farmer, submitted nearly 6,500 signatures to get a ban on genetically engineered crops on the ballot. The initiative will appear on the ballot May 2014, if not sooner and Monsanto, Syngenta and other biotech seed companies are working behind the scenes to make sure that SB 633 strips Oregon residents of their right to make local agricultural decisions at the county level.
According to Oregon farmers, SB 633 is a thinly veiled attempt to silence the growing concern over genetically engineered foods and gut all county efforts to address the real problems that growing GMO crops can have on seed purity and the economic livelihoods of family farmers.
Last week Senator Roblan was joined by Herman Baerschiger (R-Grants Pass) and Betsy Close (R-Albany) in voting in favor of SB 633. The bill must now be assigned to a committee in the House and then be voted on by both chambers of the Oregon legislature.
This vote comes barely two weeks after Congress passed the Monsanto Protection Act and President Obama signed it into law, over the objections of more than 300,000 Food Democracy Now! members who signed a letter to Obama and Congress to the stop the provision from becoming law. Now in Oregon, state senators are hiding behind the precedent of the Monsanto Protection Act undermining efforts in Jackson County to pass a countywide ban on GMO crops, a ballot initiative that qualified for the May 2014 ballot.
SIGN THE PETITION HERE:
https://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/obama_signs_monsanto_protection...
The intent of SB 633, a seed preemption bill, is to strip the right of local control from Jackson County and other critics of GMOs because they have sought to impose a ban on growing genetically engineered crops within the confines of their county to protect local family farmers and economic interests through a ballot initiative.
VIEW THE BILL HERE: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/OverView/SB633
According to Oregon farmers, SB 633 is a thinly veiled attempt to silence the growing concern over genetically engineered foods and gut all county efforts to address the real problems that growing GMO crops can have on seed purity and the economic livelihoods of family farmers.
TAKE ACTION HERE: https://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/stop_oregons_Monsanto_Protectio...
For more information, or for interviews please contact Brett Abrams at 516-841-1105 or by email at brett@fitzgibbonmedia.com.
Food Democracy Now! is a grassroots community dedicated to building a sustainable food system that protects our natural environment, sustains farmers and nourishes families.
“This settlement confirms what we already knew: What happened to us was wrong,” said an award-winning photographer detained at the US-Mexico border as part of a secret program to target journalists in 2019.
In what the ACLU called a "win for freedom of the press," a pair of federal immigration agencies announced on Wednesday that they settled a lawsuit with five photojournalists who claimed to have been unconstitutionally detained and questioned while reporting at the US-Mexico border.
The five journalists—Bing Guan, Go Nakamura, Mark Abramson, Kitra Cahana, and Ariana Drehsler—are all citizens of the United States who traveled to the border in 2018 and 2019 to report on the journeys of people traveling from Central America as part of migrant caravans.
The journalists said that after reporting on conditions at the border, they were detained by US border officers and questioned about their sources and observations while reporting, which they said was a violation of their First Amendment right in a lawsuit.
"It’s clear the government’s actions were meant to instill fear in journalists like me, to cow us into standing down from reporting what is happening on the ground," said Guan, a freelance photographer who has contributed to Reuters, Bloomberg, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, among other publications.
Shortly after these five journalists were detained, NBC News reported that they were targeted as part of a broader operation by US Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) San Diego sector to detain and interrogate a list of dozens of journalists, lawyers, and activists labeled as "instigators."
Others on this list who were detained, including US citizens, reported being aggressively interrogated about their political views and opinions about the Trump administration.
Tactics have only grown more aggressive during President Donald Trump's second term: Federal immigration agents have hauled off journalists in unmarked vans for recording them, and the administration has repeatedly asserted, incorrectly, that it is illegal to film ICE agents on duty or reveal their identities.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has claimed that recording ICE agents in public constitutes “violence” or a “threat” to agents' safety, and a DHS bulletin issued last year has classified recording at protests as “unlawful civil unrest."
However, several federal courts have overwhelmingly held that the First Amendment protects the right to film law enforcement, including ICE and Customs and Border Protection.
Esha Bhandari, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology project, said the settlement, reached in January, affirms that "the First Amendment applies at the border to protect freedom of the press."
As part of the settlement, CBP will be required to issue guidance to certain border units on First Amendment and Privacy Act protections that apply when questioning journalists at the border.
While the scope of the settlement is limited and does little to protect journalists under threat nationwide, Kitra Cahana, an award-winning photographer and another plaintiff, said it still serves as an important affirmation of press freedom.
“This settlement confirms what we already knew: what happened to us was wrong,” Cahana said. “Government officials should never put journalists on secret lists, interfere with our ability to work and travel, or pressure us for information at border crossings."
"My biggest fear is that other journalists may have avoided important stories out of fear of being targeted themselves," she added. "Press freedom is not a partisan issue. Everyone should be alarmed when journalists are targeted.”
"Sharing this private taxpayer data creates chaos, and as we’ve seen this past year, if federal agents use this private information to track down individuals, it can endanger lives.”
Privacy officials at the Internal Revenue Service were sidelined in discussions last year about the Department of Homeland Security's demand for taxpayer data about people the Trump administration believed were not authorized to be in the US, and a court filing by the IRS Wednesday may have illustrated some of the officials' worst fears about the plan.
According to a sworn declaration by Dottie Romo, the chief risk and control officer at the IRS, the agency improperly shared private taxpayer data on thousands of people with immigration enforcement officers.
The data was shared, the Washington Post reported, even in cases in which DHS officials could not provide data needed to positively identify a specific individual.
Two federal courts have preliminarily found that the IRS and DHS acted unlawfully when they moved forward with the plan to share taxpayer addresses and have blocked the agencies from continuing the arrangement. A third case filed by Public Citizen Litigation Group, Alan Morrison, and Raise the Floor Alliance is on appeal in the DC Circuit.
But before the agreement was enjoined by the courts, DHS requested the addresses of 1.2 million people from the IRS, and the tax agency sent data on 47,000 people in response.
Thousands of people's confidential data was erroneously included in the release, sources who were familiar with the matter told the Post.
Despite Romo's sworm statement saying an error had been made by the agencies, a DHS spokesperson continued to defend the data sharing agreement, telling the Post that “the government is finally doing what it should have all along.”
“Information sharing across agencies is essential to identify who is in our country, including violent criminals, determine what public safety and terror threats may exist so we can neutralize them, scrub these individuals from voter rolls, and identify what public benefits these aliens are using at taxpayer expense,” the spokesperson told the newspaper. “With the IRS information specifically, DHS plans to focus on enforcing long-neglected criminal laws that apply to illegal aliens."
Records have shown that a large majority of people who have been arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents since President Donald Trump began his mass deportation and detention campaign have not had criminal records, despite the administration's persistent claims that officers are arresting "the worst of the worst" violent criminals.
Undocumented immigrants are also statistically less likely than citizens to commit crimes, and have not been found to attempt to participate in US elections illegally.
When DHS initially asked for taxpayer data last year, IRS employees denounced the request as "Nixonian" and warned that a data sharing arrangement would be illegal. Providing taxpayer information to third parties is punishable by civil and criminal penalties, and an IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, was sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty in 2023 to leaking the tax returns of Trump and other wealthy people.
Trump has sued the IRS for $10 billion in damages due to the leak.
Romo on Wednesday did not state whether the IRS would inform individuals whose confidential data was sent to immigration officials; they could be entitled to financial compensation.
Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, noted that judging from Trump's lawsuit against the IRS, "thousands of trillions of dollars" should be paid to those affected by the data breach.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said the "breach of confidential information was part of the reason we filed our lawsuit in the first place."
"Sharing this private taxpayer data creates chaos," she said, "and as we’ve seen this past year, if federal agents use this private information to track down individuals, it can endanger lives.”
The goal of the PAC is to elect a Congress that will prohibit individual states from passing their own AI regulations.
Silicon Valley elites are planning to spend big money in 2026 to ensure that the next US Congress will be even more friendly to the artificial intelligence industry than the current Republican-led version.
CNN reported on Wednesday that Leading the Future, a super political action committee (PAC) focused on electing AI-friendly members of Congress, is pledging to spend at least $100 million to influence the 2026 midterm election.
The PAC, which is backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, and other AI heavyweights, is working to elect lawmakers who will pass legislation that will set a single set of AI regulations that will take effect throughout the US, overriding any restrictions placed on the technology by state governments.
The massive sum the PAC is dedicating to the 2026 midterms prompted Matthew Stoller, researcher at the American Economic Liberties Project, to remark that this is "what oligarchy looks like."
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tried to get a provision preempting state AI regulations slipped into the GOP's major budget package last year, but it was ultimately taken out amid bipartisan resistance to giving the AI industry a blank regulatory check.
President Donald Trump subsequently signed an executive order instructing the US Department of Justice to create a task force that would sue any state governments that enact supposedly "onerous and excessive" regulations on the technology.
However, as an executive order, this directive can be overturned by any future president who supports stronger AI regulation.
CNN noted that Leading the Future's planned flood of cash is coming at a time when AI has been drawing skepticism from factions within both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for instance, has thrown his support behind a "Citizen Bill of Rights for AI," which would provide privacy protections for end users and place restrictions on the construction of AI data centers.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), meanwhile, has called for a full moratorium on the construction of new AI data centers.
Leading the Future also appears to understand that the AI industry's reputation is becoming toxic for voters.
As Fast Company reported on Wednesday, the super PAC has launched negative ads against Democratic New York US congressional candidate Alex Bores by highlighting his past work at Palantir, which has become controversial for providing technology used by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to carry out mass deportations.
Current and former Palantir employees told Fast Company that they believe the ad against Bores to be highly deceptive, as Palantir wasn't nearly as integrated with ICE operations during his tenure as it is today.
"If Bores’ campaign is one that would restrict the tech industry’s growth," one former Palantir employee told Fast Company, "and his base is one that is already primed to be critical of Palantir, people (like me!) who watch this ad wouldn’t suspect that it’s people with significant interests in Palantir and the broader industry that are funding the ads, too."