Thursday, October 17, 2013

I-522 foe sued, accused of campaign-disclosure violation | Local News | The Seattle Times

I-522 foe sued, accused of campaign-disclosure violation | Local News | The Seattle Times:

The state’s lawsuit cites internal GMA communications in which the group’s leaders planned their big-money effort to fight measures that would require labeling of genetically engineered foods while protecting its corporate members from criticism.
In a Feb. 18 memo obtained by the Attorney General’s office, Pamela Bailey, CEO of the grocery association, discussed creating a new GMA fund, subsequently called the Defense of Brands Strategic Account, “to combat current threats and better shield individual companies from attack that provide funding for specific efforts.” That memo specifically mentioned the need “to fight Washington state’s ballot measure.”
Companies funding the anti-522 campaign may have had reason for wanting to conceal their donations. In California, some groups have called for boycotts of companies that funded a successful effort to defeat a similar labeling initiative last year.
Delana Jones, campaign manager for the Yes on I-522 campaign, said Ferguson’s lawsuit proves opponents of the measure have been dishonest.
“They don’t want to tell us what’s in their food and they don’t want to tell us who is paying for their ads,” Jones said, calling for the opposition’s TV ads to be taken off the air until the donors are properly disclosed.
Brad Harwood, a spokesman for the No on 522 campaign, rejected that idea, saying even if the GMA had registered as a political committee it wouldn’t have changed how the ‘No’ campaign reported donations from the group.
He said the flap “points to the fact that the proponents want to talk about everything but the facts of I-522.”
Ferguson’s action follows a similar lawsuit that was filed by Moms For Labeling, a nonprofit group favoring I-522. A judge dismissed that lawsuit and fined its plaintiffs $10,000 earlier this month, ruling they’d filed the case before a required waiting period was up.
Knoll Lowney, an attorney for the plaintiffs in that case, said Wednesday Ferguson’s lawsuit vindicates their arguments. “Ultimately we’re confident the court will change their mind on that fine,” he said.

No comments:

Post a Comment