The Politics Blog

GMO fight: Attorney General sues to force No on 522 donor to reveal sources of its $7.2 million contribution

Staff writerOctober 16, 2013 

Bob Ferguson

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE

Attorney General Bob Ferguson said Wednesday he'll seek a restraining order compelling the Grocery Manufacturers Association in Washington, D.C., to identify the food companies that gave money for the GMA's $7.2 million donation to the No on 522 campaign committee fighting against labels for genetically engineered foods.

The lawsuit, filed in Thurston County Superior Court, comes nearly two weeks after a judge rejected a similar legal complaint, saying the matter should be handled by the state Public Disclosure Commission, which Ferguson is representing in his action. At issue is whether GMA did a special assessment - asking members to donate to the No on 522 campaign - which the AG says would require registration as a political committee and disclosure of donor names.

As we reported previously, the GMA has refused to say if it did such a special assessment. In a fight over Proposition 37’s labeling proposal in California last year, individual members of the GMA gave millions of dollars.

Mike Baker of The Associated Press has this report on the latest action:

SEATTLE (AP) — Washington's attorney general accused a food industry group Wednesday of violating state campaign finance laws for how it collected and spent more than $7 million to oppose a food labeling initiative.

The office of Attorney General Bob Ferguson said it was moving quickly to seek a temporary restraining order, hoping that the Grocery Manufacturers Association would soon disclose who contributed to the cause as voters prepare to cast their ballots. Some parts of the food industry have been working to defeat Initiative 522 that would require labeling on genetically modified foods.

Much of the money used in the campaign to oppose I-522 has come from the Grocery Manufacturers Association. Ferguson said the association improperly established a special account that was used to collect money from the industry and used to oppose the initiative. Ferguson said the organization should have formed a separate political committee that would require increased disclosure.

Ferguson said the association explicitly attempted to shield members from scrutiny for opposing the initiative.

"This is precisely the conduct our campaign disclosure laws are designed to prevent," Ferguson said. Ferguson said the case could lead to a significant fine.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association said in a statement that it was surprised to learn that state officials viewed the association's actions as improper. The group said it takes great care to understand and comply with all state election and campaign finance laws.

"GMA will review its actions in Washington state and relevant statutes and continue to cooperate with state authorities to fully resolve the issue as promptly as possible," the organization said.

Voters will decide on I-522 next month in what has shaped up to be one of the costliest initiative fights ever in Washington state.

Supporters say consumers have a right to know whether foods they buy contain genetically engineered ingredients and contend that GE label is no different from other food labels. Opponents say it would cost farmers and food processors and that such a label implies the food is somehow less safe.

In California last year, voters narrowly rejected a GMO-labeling measure after opponents mounted a $46 million defense.

The Seattle Times has this report

 

The Olympian is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service