Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Sponsors

Books

Prop 2 Opponents Charged with Laundering Money and Concealing Out-Of-State Contributions

Wayne-Pacelle.jpg By Wayne Pacelle
President and Chief Executive Officer
Humane Society of the United States

YES! on Prop 2 - Californians for Humane Farms - has uncovered an election scam and is charging the measure’s opponents with laundering money in violation of state campaign finance laws.

In a complaint filed September 3 with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, YES! on Prop 2 charges that the United Egg Producers (UEP), the No on 2 campaign, and its donors are concealing out-of-state contributions to the political campaign against Prop 2, in clear violation of California campaign finance laws.

These Prop 2 opponents are laundering donations through a trade association, and sidestepping California campaign finance laws that exist to allow the public to understand what groups and individuals are financing political campaigns. These disreputable tactics and deception should not be tolerated either by state authorities or by the voters—and indeed, these donors could face fines and criminal prosecution for concealing out-of-state agribusiness money.

The YES! on Prop 2 campaign uncovered the opponents’ illegal scheme to use UEP as a conduit for out-of-state contributions last week after World Poultry Magazine reported that the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association – a Georgia-based corporation – recently gave $250,000 to UEP for its campaign activities in opposition to Proposition 2. Additionally, a July 15 UEP letter specifically requests funds to combat Prop 2 and lists dozens of companies “that have thus far made contributions to United Egg Producers.” These unreported contributions appear to be funneled through UEP rather than donated to the official ballot committee.

In orchestrating this type of under-the-table transaction – i.e., soliciting contributions to UEP for use against Proposition 2, rather than to the deceptively-named “Californians for Safe Food” committee itself – the UEP and its donors are depriving California voters of valuable information regarding the funders behind ballot committee campaigns, which is required under the state Political Reform Act.

The complaint also alleges that UEP failed to register as a California “committee” – as its fundraising activities require under California law. UEP’s illegal actions as a middleman, funneling large amounts of money to be used against Proposition 2, are essentially invisible to the public from a campaign finance perspective, and hamper the voters’ ability to determine the true identity of the opponents of Prop 2.

Both the UEP and its donors could face criminal prosecution and stiff fines under the Act, which can run as much as $5,000, or three times the unreported contribution, for each violation.

That’s a big risk to take to oppose Prop 2, a modest measure that will phase out the most abusive factory farming practices in California and ensure modest welfare standards for farm animals by allowing them simply to turn around, lie down, and stretch their limbs.

Prop 2 has already attracted an avalanche of supporters, including animal protection groups, family farmers, veterinarians and public health professionals. The coalition boasts a long list of endorsements from leading organizations including the California Veterinary Medical Association, the Sierra Club, the Center for Food Safety, the California Democratic Party, the Consumer Federation of America, the United Farm Workers union, Defenders of Wildlife, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Cesar Chavez Foundation, the ASPCA, Clean Water Action, and dozens of others. Notable individuals who have endorsed Prop 2 include US Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, state schools chief Jack O'Connell; Mayors Antonio Villaraigosa (Los Angeles), Gavin Newsom (San Francisco), Jerry Sanders (San Diego), and Heather Fargo (Sacramento); Democratic and Republican legislative and congressional representatives; nearly 700 California veterinarians, more than 100 California family farmers, more than 350 California small business owners, and the leaders of more than 80 California church congregations.

Wayne Pacelle is President and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States, a supporter of Yes on Prop. 2 – Californians for Humane Farms.

Posted on September 05, 2008

Comments

When you consider how these agri-business people torture birds and exploit workers, this isn't at all surprising. Why should they be expected to play fair in politics? They have no ethics.

Posted by: MaryF at September 5, 2008 10:39 AM

When you tell farmers to make larger the stalls for there animals you do the following:

A. The more space in a barn for each animal is used, the more barn space is needed.

B. The more barn space thats needed the more land is needed.

If you double the space for each animal the farmer will have to build more barns. In order to build more barns the farmer will have to buy more land.
If your telling the farmer to go broke then lets hear it. Why doesn't the HSUS PUT THERE MONEY WHERE THERE MOUTHS ARE AND BUILD BARNS FOR THE FARMERS THEY ARE MESSING WITH? This is COMMUNISIM.

Posted by: skippy at September 8, 2008 12:23 PM

MaryF,

This proposition will mostly concern the huge "factory farm" operations. Your average mom and pop farm probably isn't confining these animals to a great degree anyway. Considering these unscrupulous factory farm operators are funneling MILLIONS into false advertisements hoping to torpedo this rather MODERATE initiative, I'd say those bastards have MORE THAN ENOUGH money to make the proper adjustments.

Millions of animals are denied their most FUNDAMENTAL behaviors, you know, things like being able to TURN AROUND and SPREAD their wings. Why it's a stretch to believe people actually want to afford those things to animals is beyond me.

Finally, in the unfortunate event that some family outfit goes out of business due to this initiative, SO BE IT. Animals are not a commodity like Nike shoes in a warehouse. When you choose to do business in the animal agriculture business, you are expected to keep a proper balance between ANIMAL WELFARE and profit. The current practices appear to favor just the latter. It's high time the animals see something come their way. The factory farming industry has had free reign for far too long.

Posted by: FMary at September 19, 2008 01:08 PM

MaryF,

This proposition will mostly concern the huge "factory farm" operations. Your average mom and pop farm probably isn't confining these animals to a great degree anyway. Considering these unscrupulous factory farm operators are funneling MILLIONS into false advertisements hoping to torpedo this rather MODERATE initiative, I'd say those bastards have MORE THAN ENOUGH money to make the proper adjustments.

Millions of animals are denied their most FUNDAMENTAL behaviors, you know, things like being able to TURN AROUND and SPREAD their wings. Why it's a stretch to believe people actually want to afford those things to animals is beyond me.

Finally, in the unfortunate event that some family outfit goes out of business due to this initiative, SO BE IT. Animals are not a commodity like Nike shoes in a warehouse. When you choose to do business in the animal agriculture business, you are expected to keep a proper balance between ANIMAL WELFARE and profit. The current practices appear to favor just the latter. It's high time the animals see something come their way. The factory farming industry has had free reign for far too long.

Posted by: FMary at September 19, 2008 01:09 PM

Mary F,

I believe you are mistaken by the term "communism." The word communism (as quoted from the dictionary) means:

1) a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2) (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

Now what part of helping suffering animals, and making those who are morally sinful, repent for their crimes, communism? Please do some more research before you make ignorant judgments.

Posted by: support prop 2 at September 19, 2008 02:51 PM

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.

Get email updates!

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker