- FUSE
- Concerned moms demand full disclosure of corporate donations to No on I-522 capaign.
A not-for-profit group calling itself Moms for Labeling filed a complaint (pdf) today in Thurston County Superior Court alleging that the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and the No on I-522 campaign are hiding campaign donors. A judge quickly granted an expedited request to begin taking depositions, skipping the usual 30-day waiting period.
The plaintiffs allege that that the GMA solicited from members—major food manufacturers—a special voluntary assessment to be earmarked toward defeating I-522, an initiative that would require labeling of foods made from ingredients derived from genetically modified crops (GMOs). Under Washington State law, such earmarking of solicitations for political purposes would automatically classify the GMA as a political action committee (PAC), with all the disclosure and reporting requirements that would entail. The lawsuit alleges that the GMA has failed to file as a PAC as required by law, and has failed to disclose its donors.
The plaintiffs’ allegations are based on anonymous sources from within companies that were solicited by the GMA. The expedited deposition period was granted so that the plaintiffs could gather admissible evidence in time to request an injunction ordering the GMA to comply with the law, and ordering the No on I-522 campaign to accurately disclose its top-five donors in its TV ads.
Why would the GMA and its members play this game? Last year GMA members like Pepsico, Coca-Cola, Nestle, Heinz, and dozens more, individually contributed over $22 million to defeat a similar GMO-labeling initiative in California, prompting bad press and widespread consumer boycotts. The GMA’s new strategy appears to be an effort to shield its members from bad publicity.
At stake in this lawsuit is the integrity of our public disclosure laws. As it stands, voters have no idea who is contributing money to defeat I-522, or even how much the GMA has raised for its cause. And reading through the RCW cited in the plaintiffs’ brief, this clearly appears to be contrary to both the spirit and the letter of state law.