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
For Immediate Release
September, 14 2016, 11:45am EDT
Contact:
Anna Zuccaro | 914-523-9145 | anna@unbendablemedia.com
Corporate Watchdog Raises Alarm About Proposed Bayer-Monsanto Merger, as Monsanto Accepts Controversial Bid
Former Justice Department Officials Argue that Bayer-Monsanto Merger Would Violate Critical Anti-Trust Protections
This morning, Bayer, German pharmaceutical and chemical giant Bayer announced that Monsanto accepted its bid to buy the U.S. seed supplier for $66 billion, in a merger that would effectively create the world's largest supplier of seeds and agricultural chemicals.
In reaction to the announcement, Anne Isakowitsch, Senior Campaigner with SumOfUs, an international corporate watchdog, issued the following statement:
"The merger between Bayer and Monsanto is a five-alarm threat to our food supply and to farmers around the world. Now that Monsanto has accepted Bayer's controversial bid, we need to step up global efforts to stop this illegal merger.
"This new mega corporation would be the world's biggest seed maker and pesticide company, defying important antitrust protections and giving it unacceptable control over critical aspects of our food supply -- undermining consumer choice and the freedom and stability of farmers worldwide.
"More than 500,000 people around the world have spoken out against this dangerous deal that has the potential to usher in a new era of sterile crops soaked in dangerous pesticides. U.S. and EU regulators should recognize the unique threats posed by a Bayer-Monsanto merger and move swiftly to reject this proposal."
In August, SumOfUs released a legal opinion, written by two former Justice Department officials from the Antitrust Division, that argued that a merger between Bayer and Monsanto would violate the Clayton Act, a law enacted by Congress to curb anticompetitive business practices.
READ THE LEGAL OPINION HERE: www.bayermonsantomerger.com
According to the white paper, a Bayer-Monsanto merger would also be in direct violation of a 2008 court order, where Monsanto was forced to divest itself of certain cottonseed and cotton breeding assets, which were sold to Bayer. If the merger proceeds, Monsanto would re-acquire these anti-competitive traits, thereby violating the US Department of Justice's judgement. SumOfUs' white paper also argued that:
The merger would eliminate direct competition between two of the largest players in the traited seed sector, with direct consequences for seed development, herbicide markets, and innovative and open research and development.
The merger will mean the new Bayer-Monsanto conglomerate will control nearly 70% of the cotton acreage in the United States - unacceptably high by antitrust standards. It would also have unacceptable market concentration in wide swaths of commercial seed development and sales for other commonly used varieties, including traited canola, soybeans, and corn developed in North America.
The new corporation would likely lead to higher input prices, with less choice and higher food prices for consumers, and fewer non-biotechnology options available to farmers and consumers.
More than 500,000 SumOfUs members around the world have signed onto a petition opposing the potential merger of Monsanto and Bayer.
VIEW THE PETITION HERE: https://actions.sumofus.org/a/stop-the-bayer-monsanto-mega-merger
SumOfUs is a community of people from around the world committed to curbing the growing power of corporations. We want to buy from, work for and invest in companies that respect the environment, treat their workers well and respect democracy. And we're not afraid to hold them to account when they don't. Barely a day goes by without a fresh corporate scandal making headlines. From polluting the environment to dodging taxes - when left unchecked, corporations don't let anything stand in the way of bigger profits. In an age of multinational companies that are bigger and richer than some countries, it can be easy to feel powerless. But there is a chink in their armor. The biggest corporations in the world rely on ordinary people to keep them in business. We are their customers, their employees, and often their investors. When we act together, we can be more powerful than they are. Together, our community of millions act as a global consumer watchdog - running and winning campaign
LATEST NEWS
‘Super PACs Should Be Outlawed,’ Says Platner, as Pro-Collins Corporate Dark Money Pours Into Maine to Attack Him
"It's fascinating that the more money that goes into our political system, the less we talk about actual politics."
Jun 02, 2026
The super PACs pouring money into the US Senate race in Maine are doing a great job of proving Graham Platner's point.
As new reporting on Monday detailed the flood of dark money targeting his campaign, the Democratic hopeful in recent days has put a spotlight on the super PACs, which he says have created a political system dominated by corporations and wealthy donors who want to distract from the serious issues and struggles faced by everyday voters and working families.
"I think it's very telling that a political system that has become controlled by money, controlled by the power of organized money, is also a political system that is trying to convince all of us down here that policy and discussions around what government can or cannot do is not what they want to talk about," Platner said during a conversation with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of super PACs, posted to social media.
"It's fascinating that the more money that goes into our political system," he continued, "the less we talk about actual politics."
"I agree with Senator Sanders: Super PACs should be outlawed," said Platner.
On Monday, Sludge reported that a pair of shadowy nonprofits "with no public presence and no disclosed staff" have dumped at least $750,000 into a super PAC supporting Platner's opponent, the five-term incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.
Condorcet Initiative Corp. has given $500,000 to Pine Tree Results PAC across two separate donations, including $250,000 on May 1 that was disclosed in a filing reported to the Federal Election Commission last week. Ardleigh Impact Corporation contributed an additional $250,000 in April.
The PAC has spent nearly $4 million on attack ads against Sen. Susan Collins’ Democratic challenger Graham Platner, according to FEC data.
The two nonprofits are both described as shell-like entities linked to the same address in Springfield, Virginia, belonging to Republican political consultant Staci Goede.
The groups are part of a much larger network and have poured a combined $9 million into GOP-aligned PACs since 2024, including in four competitive Senate races in this coming cycle.
Goede, meanwhile, is the treasurer or officer for at least nine different nonprofits "that span Republican Senate campaigns, pro-Israel donor pass-throughs, and issue advocacy groups," according to the report.
The Campaign Legal Center has filed a complaint against Ardleigh, arguing that the nonprofit, which contributed an astonishing $2.575 million across six federal committees in its first three months of existence, was being used as a straw donor to conceal the identities of one or more rich benefactors.
The source of the $750,000 aimed at Platner remains unknown. But the Pine Tree Results PAC is already known to have a slate of wealthy backers from the commanding heights of finance and tech, including Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, hedge fund founder Paul Singer, and Palantir CEO Alex Karp. The fund has also taken in contributions from an affiliate of the tobacco giant Altria and from the far-right news company Newsmax.
According to a FEC data, it has raised more than $16 million to help Collins ward off a challenger in 2026, which will almost certainly be Platner.
While the potential use of straw donors may present legal issues, the use of super PACs by wealthy backers to dump unlimited sums behind their preferred candidates is unquestionably legal under federal campaign finance law.
As of March, super PACs funded by crypto, artificial intelligence, pro-Israel donors, and outside groups had already spent more than $225 million trying to influence the 2026 election cycle, according to the Washington Post.
Platner has argued on the campaign trail that the unchecked ability of the wealthy to influence elections is a genesis point for the growing wealth gap between the rich and poor.
"The inequality we’re experiencing, it didn’t happen organically," he said at a recent campaign event. "We live in the outcome of policy written by establishment politicians who for 40 years have been doing the bidding of those who donate the most money to them."
The Pine Tree Results PAC had already spent nearly $4 million on ads attacking Platner as of May 20, according to FEC data. As Sludge's reporting notes, "Rather than engaging with policy, the ads are exclusively focused on personal attacks against Platner, digging up comments the candidate made online going back as far as 2013."
So far, attempts to mire Platner in personal scandal have done little to blunt the momentum of his populist campaign. A poll from the University of New Hampshire in late May showed him leading the incumbent by a nine-point margin among likely voters and other polls show similar advantages.
It can be expected that the PACs attacking Platner will make a meal out of recent reports from The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times that probe into the private details of his marriage.
But noting the failure of past attempts to drown Platner in controversy, Lever News founder David Sirota questioned in a piece on Monday if these sorts of "character" attacks even work in an age of politics defined by rapacious corporate greed and corruption.
He noted how Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) responded to recent questions from news outlets about whether Platner’s controversies mean he’s failed to “pass the character test.” Murphy responded that “character involves standing up to people who are bankrupting and corrupting this country,” while Khanna lauded Platner for “having the character to stand up against the war in Iran, against genocide, and against an unfair and lopsided economy.”
This response, Sirota said, hinted that the country could be entering a new political paradigm—"a reality in which many voters are so economically pulverized and politically disillusioned that they now define 'character' in a politician solely as whether or not they are single-mindedly focused on destroying oligarchy and ending corruption."
“It is, potentially, a new era in which voters who can’t afford anything and who feel totally ignored by their government have reimagined their entire definition of political 'character' on economic/anti-corruption terms—rather than on old definitions of personal moral rectitude,” he wrote. “In this potential new reality, the personal shortcomings of individual politicians—which often have little effect on voters’ actual lives—are less important and electorally salient than the policies those politicians support and oppose."
"And such a shift," he added, "would make sense in the current moment.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Absolutely Crazy’: Horror as Trump Moves to Dismantle Crucial Ocean Monitoring System
"Blinding the public to climate change won’t make it go away. It will only accelerate its profound consequences."
Jun 02, 2026
In what a number of scientists suggested was the Trump administration's latest effort to stop tracking the changing climate in hopes of convincing the public that the climate emergency isn't happening, the National Science Foundation announced Monday that it was dismantling a crucial deep-ocean monitoring system that for years has helped researchers understand the impacts of the crisis on the world's oceans.
The NSF said it plans to send ships this month to remove more than 900 instruments, part of a project called the Ocean Observatories Initiative. The project collects data on temperatures, currents, and the ocean's absorption of carbon dioxide off the coasts of Oregon, Alaska, Washington, and North Carolina, as well as in the Irminger Sea between Iceland and Greenland.
A spokesperson for NSF told The New York Times that the dismantling of the initiative will help the NSF in "prioritizing support for evolving scientific priorities and emerging technologies as well as a deliberate approach to smart life cycle management within its portfolio of research infrastructure.”
The reasoning given for the shuttering of the project, said Tara Blume, a journalist at Oklahoma City NBC affiliate KFOR, was "a master class in obfuscation and doublespeak."
Genevieve Guenther of the group End Climate Silence shared her own interpretation of why the $368 million ocean observation system is being discontinued, despite the fact that it had been set to collect data for 25 years.
"We need to track ocean currents to assess how close we are to climate tipping points that will essentially destroy the world as we know it," said Guenther. "The GOP doesn't want us to be able to do that. That's why they're dismantling ocean monitoring."
Scientists have used data gathered by moorings, robotic vehicles, and other instruments that transmit the information to research laboratories, to study changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC), a current system that moves warm water northward and cools the Arctic and Northern Atlantic regions while absorbing carbon dioxide deep into the ocean and keeping it out of the atmosphere.
Data gathered at the observation station in the Irminger Sea has been key to understanding AMOC, which scientists fear is gradually weakening due to planetary heating and could ultimately collapse, likely causing major global weather changes.
"This is absolutely crazy," said David Doniger, a senior strategist and attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate and energy department. "Wouldn’t you want to know if the ocean currents are changing? Wouldn’t you want to know ocean temperatures? These things affect everything from fishing to hurricanes."
Following the announcement that the stations will be dismantled in the coming weeks, said Blume, "science gasps for breath."
President Donald Trump has attempted several times to shut down or drastically reduce the budget of the Ocean Observatories Initiative, which costs $48 million annually to run. Congress has restored the program's funding.
The dismantling of the program comes months after the Environmental Protection Agency repealed the "endangerment finding," which for years had underpinned the department's environmental regulations; after the administration closed down the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which had gathered data on hurricanes and extreme weather to help improve forecasts; and after the National Aeronautics and Space Administration released a statement on record-breaking temperatures in 2024 and 2025—without any mention of the climate crisis or climate change.
"Blinding the public to climate change won’t make it go away. It will only accelerate its profound consequences," said clinical researcher Iris Gorfinkel.
According to the Trump administration, said historian Nick Kapur, "apparently climate change doesn't exist if you prevent scientists from measuring it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This is Nuts': Critics Aghast as Trump Appoints 'Personal Henchman' as Acting DNI
"The president has chosen an official who has demonstrated not just willingness but eagerness to use the authorities of government to pursue political retribution," said US Sen. Mark Warner.
Jun 02, 2026
President Donald Trump shocked many observers on Tuesday when he appointed Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte to be his acting director of national intelligence, weeks after Tulsi Gabbard stepped down from the role.
In a Tuesday morning social media post, Trump announced that Pulte would be taking over as DNI while also remaining at his current post at the FHFA, which regulates government-sponsored housing enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
As noted by a Tuesday CNBC report, Pulte "has no prior experience in an intelligence role. His tenure at FHFA has been marked by his criminal referrals for mortgage fraud against Trump's political foes, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, whom the president has been trying to fire in an effort to stack the US central bank with political loyalists.
James was targeted for prosecution after she won a $450 million judgment against the president and his business in a civil fraud case.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairperson of the Senate Committee on Intelligence, delivered a scathing response to Trump's announcement.
"This appointment speaks volumes about what this president expects from the nation's top intelligence official," he said. "Rather than selecting a respected national security professional capable of delivering independent judgments, the president has chosen an official who has demonstrated not just willingness but eagerness to use the authorities of government to pursue political retribution."
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) also denounced the president's decision.
"Bill Pulte led Donald Trump’s efforts to charge and jail his political enemies, now he’s being rewarded with a job he has no business doing," Cortez Masto said. "Putting Pulte at the helm of the intelligence community risks American lives just so Trump can keep going after his political opponents."
Sean Vitka, executive director of Demand Progress, argued that Pulte's appointment was yet another reason for Democrats to oppose further extension of warrantless spying powers under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
"Congress must not sign away unchecked spying powers to the government," said Vitka, "when Donald Trump’s top spy is a man whose primary qualification is his willingness to weaponize sensitive information held by the government against the president’s political enemies."
Vitka specifically urged Warner to change course on his push to renew Section 702, particularly in light of Pulte's appointment.
"By supporting a FISA extension without any independent checks like warrant protections, Sen. Warner is putting the entire country at serious risk and enabling perhaps the greatest threat to American democracy we have seen in modern history," he said.
Journalist James Surowiecki expressed horror at Pulte's elevation to acting DNI.
"Even for Trump, this is nuts," Surowiecki wrote. "Bill Pulte, who's a [private equity] guy/real-estate developer with exactly zero intelligence experience, is going to be the new Director of National Intelligence—while also continuing to run FHFA and Fannie Mae/Fredde Mac!"
Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, issued a dire warning about Pulte potentially abusing US intelligence services to target Trump opponents.
"Fuck me, this is Bill Pulte," Moynihan wrote. "The guy who was using mortgage data to launch DOJ investigations against Lisa Cook, Letitia James, and [US Sen.] Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). He is being put in charge of national intelligence because of his track record of being willing to manufacture false allegations to target Trump's enemies."
Political commentator Keith Boykin described Pulte as Trump's "personal henchman" who "abused his position as chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to send baseless criminal referrals against Letitia James and Lisa Cook."
National security attorney Bradley Moss, meanwhile, could not hide his disgust at Pulte's appointment in an all-caps social media post.
"WHAT THE... I QUIT," Moss wrote. "I GIVE UP. BILL PULTE??"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular