Measure 92 - Lessons Learned

What are the lessons learned working for the Yes On 92 campaign? 

We're having a debrief next Monday so the campaign hasn't officially figured this out yet. 

Here's my personal two cents.

I'd also not like to become part of any rumor mill. I don't want to contribute to a lot of the cannibalization that happens after we lose and we try to blame each other in a way that just creates strife and doesn't improve collaboration. 

We are only going to win if people recognize both the power of the unpaid grassroots and the power of funded campaign people all working together and counting on each other. 

I think what it basically comes down to is better coordination with volunteers (it was a marked improvement from WA but still, clearly room for more improvement). 

We need to keep educating voters constantly until next time, which, hopefully, will be 2016. 

With the higher turn out, higher level of educated voters and even more integrated and organized campaign I think winning will be hard, but definitely doable that year, there will also be funding (groups should be ready to go again by then). 

Another thing I would have done is utilized spokespeople (like farmers, moms, doctors, food company allies etc.) more and more effectively. 

Also: technically, if those 4,600 ballots had been counted we would have won this time. It was very close. We were winning two weeks out and then the opposition dumped an additional 8 million in almost one fell swoop. 

Competing against lies and a relatively uneducated electorate (people largely didn't know what a GMO was and so didn't have strong feelings on the issue and were therefore easily swayed by the oppositions compelling lies) is always going to be a really tough battle. 

And while it sucks to loose this campaign scared the shit out of the opposition and proved that it really is only a matter or time before we actually win. 

Every time we do this the voters are going to become harder to trick because they are actually learning about the issue. 

I'm not happy we lost and I think if we'd run a better campaign we could have won (perfection is hard to attain), it was always going to be close and it sucks to barely lose, but we definitely changed the game and created some progress, just not as much as we hoped. 

I don't want to (and no one on the campaign from what I can gather) make excuses, we will take a hard honest look at what could have been done better. 

But to flat out say the campaign fucked up and we lost feels super counterproductive and doesn't help anything get better. 

People, on every level of this campaign I can say with utter confidence had the absolute best intentions and did the best they could (this doesn't mean they were perfect, but they meant well and did their best and put in 110%). Everyone I've worked with is very open to admitting mistakes and making things better.

Lastly, I'd like to say that Colorado was what a 100% grassroots effort looks like and it wasn't pretty. A funded campaign with a powerful and organized grassroots, done well, is how we're going to win this thing.

Who is going to maintain the Yes On 92 social networks? The Yes On 522 website was deleted. Will this happen to the Yes On 92 website, too?

Not sure, I imagine this will be part of our debrief plans. From the beginning the campaign director said she wanted to make sure that what ever they build should go on to help keep the movement going. 

The thing about the website: everyone knows it's kinda crappy. Not the best tool anyway and who's going to pay to keep it updated and do the administration. Right? So we've got some figuring out to do. 

Also I was wrong about the date of the debrief. We're having a meeting next week to do some wrap up and to schedule a larger (hopefully in person) debrief as early as possible next year. As for the other social networks we'll have a discussion about that as well. We didn't plan this out up front though.

No on 105 Expense Report As of Sept. 29

NOTE: To see more current info, click here: TRACER - Filing Detail:

Reporting Period Beginning Funds on Hand:
Beginning Funds on Hand: $1,271,087.89 Contributions Monetary Contributions Itemized: $8,125,000.00 $8,125,000.00 Returned Contributions: $0.00 Non-Monetary Contributions: $9,899.37 Expenditures Expenditures: Itemized: $5,181,525.91 $5,181,525.91 Reporting Period Ending Funds on Hand: $4,214,561.98 NOTE: Non-Monetary items are not included in Funds on Hand total

Top Contributors

Date	Type	Contributor	Amount ▼	Aggregate
9/19/2014	Monetary (Itemized)	MONSANTO COMPANY	$4,700,000.00	$4,700,452.00
9/17/2014	Monetary (Itemized)	KRAFT FOODS	$1,030,000.00	$1,030,000.00
9/11/2014	Monetary (Itemized)	GENERAL MILLS, INC.	$820,000.00	$820,000.00
9/18/2014	Monetary (Itemized)	PEPSICO	$650,000.00	$1,150,000.00
9/22/2014	Monetary (Itemized)	DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC	$300,000.00	$300,000.00
9/11/2014	Monetary (Itemized)	FLOWERS FOOD, INC.	$250,000.00	$250,000.00
9/19/2014	Monetary (Itemized)	ABBOTT NUTRITION	$190,000.00	$190,000.00
9/15/2014	Monetary (Itemized)	CARGILL INCORPORATED	$135,000.00	$135,000.00
9/17/2014	Monetary (Itemized)	BUMBLE BEE FOODS, LLC	$50,000.00	$50,000.00
9/19/2014	Non-Monetary (Itemized)	NUTRITION EDGE COMMUNICATIONS	$2,500.00	$3,000.00

Yes On 105 Expense Report As Of Sept. 29

NOTE: To See the detail on the right, click here: TRACER - Filing Detail:

Details for the SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 - REPORT OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES Committee Name: RIGHT TO KNOW COLORADO GMO SOS ID: 20135025377 Committee Type: Issue Committee Election Cycle: 2014 1 YEAR CYCLE (1/1/2014 - 12/31/2014) Report Schedule: SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 - REPORT OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES Reporting Period: 09/11/2014 - 09/24/2014 Date Due: 09/29/2014 Date Filed: 09/29/2014 How Filed: Electronic Reporting Period Beginning Funds on Hand: $14,238.80 Contributions Monetary Contributions: $119,687.00 Returned Contributions: $0.00 Non-Monetary Contributions: $2,124.00 Expenditures Monetary Expenditures: $52,491.63 Reporting Period Ending Funds on Hand: $81,434.17 NOTE: Non-Monetary items are not included in Funds on Hand total Top 105 Contributors: 9/11/2014 Monetary (Itemized) FOOD DEMOCRACY ACTION $65,000.00 $140,000.00 9/16/2014 Monetary (Itemized) DR. BRONNER'S MAGIC SOAPS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 9/16/2014 Monetary (Itemized) JOHN FORAKER ANNIE'S, INC. Office and Administrative Occupations - CEO $10,000.00 $10,000.00 9/15/2014 Monetary (Itemized) STEVE & GRACE HUGHES BOULDER BRANDS Office and Administrative Occupations - CEO $10,000.00 $10,000.00 9/24/2014 Non-Monetary (Itemized) LYONS PRODUCTIONS LLC $1,900.00 $1,900.00 9/16/2014 Monetary (Itemized) MOLLY ROSS SELF Other - OWNER, DELTEX ROYALTY COMPANY $1,000.00 $1,000.00 9/23/2014 Monetary (Itemized) BRUCE ROBINSON RETIRED Retired $500.00 $700.00 9/23/2014 Monetary (Itemized) KIMBERLY WINDER SELF Healthcare/Medical - THERAPIST $500.00 $1,075.00 9/20/2014 Monetary (Itemized) CHELSEA MURRAY DISCOUNT MOUNTAIN INC. Office and Administrative Occupations - CFO $500.00 $500.00 9/12/2014 Monetary (Itemized) RED IDEA, LLC $500.00 $500.00

Letter to Oregon Governor Supporting Mandatory Labeling of Foods Using Genetic Engineering | Consumers Union

Letter to Oregon Governor Supporting Mandatory Labeling of Foods Using Genetic Engineering | Consumers Union:

This letter explains why Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) supports Measure 27, the ballot initiative that would require mandatory labeling of foods and food additives produced using genetic engineering sold in Oregon, or produced in Oregon.
First and foremost, consumers have a fundamental right to know what they are eating. Many laws, at the federal, state and even local level, are designed to inform consumers of facts they want to know about food. These include laws that require labeling of juice made from concentrate, milk that is homogenized, imported food as to its country of origin, food that is frozen or irradiated, as well as ingredients and additives. All these foods are regarded as safe by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, this information is required to be given to consumers at the point of purchase because consumers care and want to know about these aspects of food. With this information, they are able to make informed choices for themselves and their families.


We thus disagree with the thrust of the letter sent to you on October 4, 2002, by FDA Deputy Commissioner Lester M. Crawford. Unlike FDA, we think the differences between genetically engineered food and non-engineered traditional foods are significant. We believe that FDA should have required labeling of genetically engineered food as a material fact under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Indeed, several years ago more than 50 members of Congress sent a letter to the FDA Commissioner agreeing that genetic engineering is a material fact under the FDCA.

NOTE: On October 17, 2006, Lester M. Crawford pled guilty to a conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating. He received a sentence of three years of supervised probation and a fine of about $90,000.

The Oregon Labeling of Genetically-Engineered Foods, Measure 27 (2002) - Arguments in Favor

Measure 27 - Arguments in Favor:

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods has been working since 1999 to pass federal legislation to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States. We strongly support Oregon Ballot Measure 27.

According to a June 13-17, 2001 survey from ABC News, 93 percent of those polled said the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it has been genetically modified. ABC News stated "Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare."

While legislation to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods nationwide was introduced into both the 106th and the current 107th U.S. Congress, it has not received the priority treatment needed to pass it into law.

In the European Union, Australia, Japan, China and many other nations, the controversy over genetically engineered foods has received significant media coverage. As a result, mandatory labeling laws have been enacted in all those countries. Yet in the United States, we still don't have this right.

The food industry does not want labels on genetically engineered foods because they are concerned people will start asking questions such as "Have these foods ever been safety tested for human consumption?" The answer to that question is "NO!" The FDA decided that genetically engineered foods are "substantially equivalent" to non-genetically engineered foods and need no additional safety testing or labeling. Currently the biotech companies do not even need to notify the FDA that they are bringing a new product to market. The very corporations that have a financial interest in selling the products get to decide whether they are safe or not.

Oregon voters are smart and have often shown leadership in important areas of public concern before the rest of the country. Oregon citizens now have another opportunity to show leadership in the area of labeling genetically engineered foods.

Tell big business that you want the right to know if your foods have been genetically engineered. Vote YES on Measure 27!

(This information furnished by Craig Winters, The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods.)


"COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC OPINION POLLS ON GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED (GE) FOODS (UPDATED FEBRUARY 1, 2002) Below is a compilation of poll results concerning of genetically engineered foods, listed in chronological order:

• 90% of Americans said foods created through genetic engineering processes should have special labels on them (Rutgers University' Food Policy Institute study, 11/01)
•  90% of American farmers support labels on biotech products if they are scientifically different from conventional foods and 61% support labels on biotech products even if not scientifically different. (Farm Foundation/Kansas State University, survey of farms throughout the U.S., 9/01).
• 93% of Americans say the federal government should require labels saying whether it's been genetically modified, or bioengineered. "Such near unanimity in public opinion is rare" (ABC News.com poll, 6/01).
• 86% of Americans think that the government should require the labeling of all packaged and other food products stating that they include corn, soy or other products which have come from genetically modified crops (Harris Poll, 6/00).
• 86% of Americans want labels on genetically engineered foods (International Communications Research, 3/00)
• 81% of Americans think the government should require genetically engineered food products to be labeled. 89% of Americans think the government should require pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods before they are marketed, as with any food additive. (MSNBC Live Vote Results, 1/00).
• 92% of Americans support legal requirements that all genetically engineered foods be labeled. (BSMG Worldwide for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, 9/99).
• 81% of American consumers believe GE food should be labeled. 58% say that if GE foods were labeled they would avoid purchasing them. (Time magazine, 1/99).
• 93% of women surveyed say they want all GE food clearly labeled. (National Federation of Women's Institutes, 1998)."

A Work Product of the Center for Food Safety - Washington, DC 2002
For more polls see http;//www.centerforfoodsafety.org/facts&issues/polls.html

(This information furnished by Donna Harris, Oregon Concerned Citizens for Safe Foods.)


 Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, a group of doctors committed to human health, patient safety, scientific honesty and environmental protection, supports a yes vote on Measure 27. 


    Less than a decade since their introduction, two-thirds of products in U.S. supermarket shelves contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Only one-third of Americans are aware that their foods contain GE ingredients. Multiple polls show that 85% to 95% of citizens favor labeling.

    Currently, food substances are labeled for vitamin, mineral, caloric and fat content; wines containing sulfites warn those allergic. The European Union requires labeling; many countries ban import of GE foods from the US; other countries have or are considering labeling laws and import bans. Unfortunately, US regulatory agencies rely on safety tests done by GE product-producing companies.

    Risks of GE foods include: toxicities from new proteins (deadly eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome in consumers of GE tryptophan supplements); altered nutritional value; transfer of antibiotic resistance genes, contributing to antibiotic resistance; increased pesticide use when pests develop resistance to GE food toxins; herbicide-resistant "superweeds"; non-target insects dying from exposure to pesticide-resistant crops, with ripple effects on other species; GE plants and animals interbreeding with and contaminating wild populations; GE plants outcompeting, or driving to extinction, wild varieties; GE plants adversely altering soil quality; decreased agricultural biodiversity; and corporate control of agriculture, with the transmogrification of farmers into "bioserfs."

    Labeling of GE foods will prevent dangerous allergic attacks (as occurred in unsuspecting consumers of soybeans modified with Brazil Nut genes); allow vegetarians to avoid plants injected with animal genes; and allow concerned individuals to avoid ingesting milk from cattle injected with recombinant BGH, which increases levels of potentially-carcinogenic IGF-1 in milk.
 
Labeling will increase public awareness of genetic engineering, allow us freedom to choose what we eat based on individual willingness to confront risk, and ensure a healthy public debate over the merits of genetic modification of foodstuffs.

Board of Directors
Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

(This information furnished by Martin Donohoe, MD, FACP, for Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility.)

Oregon Right to Know | Donate

Oregon Right to Know | Donate:

Here in Oregon we're counting on supporters like you. We have until midnight to raise $20,000 – that’s a lot of money. The good news is we’re just a few hundred dollars short of our goal. But our records show that we haven’t received your donation yet. We are counting on you to help us beat our goal for this important deadline at midnight, tonight. Contact Record: 728 Name: Jack Olmsted Deadline: MIDNIGHT Suggested amount: $5   Whether it’s an apple that’s been genetically engineered not to brown or a salmon that’s had its genes spliced with an eel-like fish, we should have the right to decide for ourselves whether to eat genetically engineered foods. Stand with us tonight: http://action.oregonrighttoknow.org/donate Thanks, Oregon Right to Know Account Summary Information for July 1, 2014 Contributions Amount      Cash Contributions   $1,157,939.68      Loans Received (non-exempt)   $0.00      In-Kind   $4,620.20      Total Contributions   $1,162,559.88 Expenditures          Cash Expenditures   $984,623.49      Loan Payments (non-exempt)   $0.00      In-Kind   $4,620.20      Total Expenditures   $989,243.69 Cash Balance          Beginning Balance (Previous Year)   $0.00      Total Contributions   $1,162,559.88      Other Receipts   $134.00      Loans Received (exempt)   $0.00   subtotal : $1,162,693.88      Total Expenditures   $989,243.69      Other Disbursements   $20.00      Loan Payments (exempt)   $0.00   subtotal : $989,263.69      Balance Adjustments   $0.00      Ending Cash Balance   $173,430.19 Financial Status          Cash Balance   $173,430.19      Accounts Receivable   $0.00   subtotal : $173,430.19      Total Outstanding Loans   $0.00      Outstanding Personal Expenditures   $156.46      Accounts Payable   $34,790.29   subtotal : $34,946.75      Balance Deficit   $138,483.44

Josephine County in Southern Oregon - VOTE YES ON MEASURE 17-58

Please STAND UP in solidarity with Josephine County, Oregon, on May 7. We are asking people nation-wide and globally to show solidarity on this one day as we attempt to draw attention to a dire situation that is occurring in our county right now.

Josephine County in Southern Oregon is one of two counties that together have been a refuge for seed growers who want to grow seeds with genetic integrity. The isolation of our beautiful Rogue Valley, with its myriad narrow tributary watershed valleys and protective mountains and foothills, has made this one of the premier seed-growing regions in the world – a region that has been fairly protected from biotech intrusion and genetic contamination. The narrow spaces that typify our valley bottoms also keep our farms fairly small (many are less than 20 acres), which by nature predisposes them toward biodiversity and natural farming methods. This, in turn, translates into a much higher employment rate per-acre compared to larger mono-cropped farms.

But our local farms are in danger. Syngenta (a multinational, multi-billion dollar Swiss chemical company this is legally prohibited from growing its genetically engineered seeds in Switzerland) has chosen our valley to create a checkerboard of “test” plots for their GMO (genetically modified organism) sugar beets. The pollen from these beets threatens the seed crops of local chard and beet growers. We are also now faced with GMO corn and alfalfa being grown in remote areas, putting our world-class corn seed growers at risk, and threatening our ecosystem with escaped biotech alfalfa.

To address these threats an all-volunteer, grassroots campaign has successfully placed on our May ballot an initiative to ban GMO crops in the county. Public sentiment seems to be strong in our favor, but we are the proverbial David in battle against Goliath.

• Over a million dollars have been contributed from out-of-state organizations including Monsanto, Syngenta, the Farm Bureau, and similar groups for the sole purpose of defeating our measure and a similar measure in neighboring Jackson County.
• The state of Oregon passed a law last year – just after our ballot initiative was approved – to preempt our local authority over agricultural issues. Our county is the ONLY county standing against this unfair law, on behalf of all Oregonians.
• Most media attention on this issue is being focused on Jackson County, which has a larger population. Unfortunately, this means that Josephine County is operating in a sort of media-shadow.



We have been described by supporters in other states as “the little GMO-free movement that could” and “one badass little county in Oregon.” And while this is all true (we are not ashamed to acknowledge our “badassed-ness”), the truth is that we have very little funding and outside media attention. Don’t get us wrong: we are not complaining. In fact, if we need to win this battle with $5 contributions from grandmas and babysitters, then our victory will be that much sweeter considering who our deep-pocketed opponents are. But we all know that money speaks, and our well-funded foes are speaking very loudly.

Here’s where your group comes in. Beginning on Monday, May 5, we are asking you to begin requesting that your social media followers on Facebook and Twitter change their profile pictures on May 7, using the attached STAND UP graphic. The message can mean to them whatever they want it to mean – perhaps they want to STAND UP for First-Nation or Aboriginal peoples, or maybe they will STAND UP for the plight of a beleaguered endangered species. It can have intimate meaning to each person, but it will show solidarity with our grassroots campaign to protect our local economy, beautiful rivers, and world-class seed growers.



We also ask that you please publish, along with the STAND UP graphic, a link to our website: www.oregoniansforsafefarmsandfamilies.org. We need contributions to our campaign to help us leverage the value of people-based marketing and networking as well as to hopefully purchase some radio and/or TV ad space to counter the big-money lies that are already flooding our airwaves.

For a great taste of what The Little GMO-Free Movement that Could has already achieved through all-volunteer input, please also take a moment to enjoy this wonderful video that we are using for social-media advertising. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYHgsamepM 

Will you STAND UP with us on May 7?

STAND UP:

• Against outside corporate money
• For local control
• For all Oregonians
• For safe farms and families

VOTE YES ON MEASURE 17-58 May 20, 2014


Thank you!
Daniel Bowden 
Co- Chairperson, GMO Free Josephine County

Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families: Radio Ad Resources

Oregon Grassroots GMO Free Playlist. Featuring Josephine County Moms Across America Radio Ad. Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families Donation page.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE 17-58

• Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families   
• GMO Free Josephine County

GMO: Get Money Out!

Monsanto, Syngenta and other outside multinational, multi-billion dollar chemical
corporations will spend over a million dollars spreading lies in our beautiful
valleys.

The truth is that genetically engineered crops:

ü  Threaten our local farms and gardens with genetic contamination

ü  Threaten our local economies

ü  Increase pesticide and herbicide use, polluting our water

ü  Threaten the health and safety of our families

What they are doing to the truth is the same thing they do to genes:
forcefully inserting their version and calling it new and improved. However,
just like the genetic code, the truth doesn’t need to have anything added.

Measure 17-58 will:

ü  Protect our local farms and families

ü  Cost nothing to Josephine County taxpayers

ü  Help all Oregonians stand up for local control

Don't buy the lies!

Find out more about the truth at www.oregoniansforsafefarmsandfamilies.org

NOW IS THE TIME TO STAND UP AND VOTE!

Links to resources, studies and articles for more information:

Measure 17-58 TRUTH for publishing 4.7.14.pdf - (Talking Points)
http://oregoniansforsafefarmsandfamilies.org/

http://www.gmofreejosephinecounty.org/

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/04/monsanto_syngenta_other_pestic.html

http://m.kdrv.com/kdrv/pm_118157/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=b2rDdBhi

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/proart/20140331/news/303310022/gmo-task-force-scheduled-meet-april?pagerestricted=1

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28148.cfm
(has links to safety and environmental studies)

How To Create A Radio Ad (Quick and Easy)

1. Write a Script (15-60 seconds) Scripts
2. Read Script (Video camera mic is best, YouTube Webcam: Upload)
3. Publish Video and script text to YouTube (public, unlisted, private)
4. Email YouTube Link (Done) or Convert YouTube Video To MP3
5. Email MP3 or post MP3 on Google Drive/Dropbox and email link

NOTE: If you use the video camera mic, please figure out a wind screen. (wadded up thin scarves attached with a rubber band will work in a pinch.)