Washington Voters: Bought and Paid For by Monsanto

Washington ALMOST became the first state to require labeling of GMO products.  When the initiative — I-522 — first got enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, it looked like a slam dunk.  Who could be against a simple labeling requirement?  Food companies already have to tell us when their products contain maltodextrin, xanthan, BHT and hundreds of other additives.  Why should genetically modified organisms be any different?  Methinks Monsanto is hiding something.

Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association — a huge money-laundering organization that enables food companies to make anonymous political donations without jeopardizing their public image — together spent $22 million to purchase the election.  That’s more than twice as much per voter as they spent in California to defeat the same initiative, Proposition 37.

Out of that $22 million, exactly $550.00 came from within Washington State.  The other $21,999,450.00 came from national/global corporate conglomerates.  This fact was widely reported, but unfortunately it didn’t have any effect on the gullible voting public.

In other election news:  Chris Christie coasted to re-election (as we all knew he would), setting himself up to be Hillary’s most likely opponent in 2016.

It was generally a bad day to be a Teabagger. Thank God.  Ken Cuccinelli got defeated in his run for Governor of Virginia, mostly because wealthy Republican donors didn’t donate to him.

Same story in Alabama.  In a congressional GOP runoff, mainstream Republican Bradley Byrne defeated Teabirther candidate Dean Young.  Maybe the mainstream/non-teatard Republican Party is getting its groove back.

New York City’s Mayor-Elect, Bill de Blasio, has been described as the first genuinely liberal New York City mayor since John Lindsay, who was — this is not a typo — a Republican.

The “No on I-522” Campaign: a Guide to the Skankiest Prostitutes

If you’re a resident of Washington State, you’ve already been swamped with brochures and TV/radio ads warning about the “dangers” of Initiative 522.  If you live in California, I-522 is the same as Proposition 37:  requiring food labels to say whether or not their products contain any genetically modified organisms (GMO).  Food companies have been required to label all of their ingredients since at least the early 1970s.  What’s different about GMO products?  What’s the GMO syndicate trying to hide?

California’s Prop. 37 was way ahead in the polls, until Monsanto spent tens of jillions of dollars to scare California voters.  It worked.  Prop. 37 ended up losing.  And now Monsanto and its allies are flooding Washington with gazillions of dollars worth of lies, hoping to defeat I-522.

As of now, I-522 is heavily favored by the public.  We’ll have to hope Washington voters will be smarter than their California counterparts.

Monsanto has a long reach.  It has more tentacles than anyone ever imagined.  Monsanto’s little black book is a Who’s Who of highly paid prostitutes.  The Seattle Times had a full page editorial last Sunday urging a “No” vote on I-522.  I wonder how much they got paid for that, and who paid it?

A former Washington attorney general, Ken Eikenberry, is one of the ringleaders of the No on I-522 campaign.  How the mighty have fallen.  He once held one of the highest elective offices in a large progressive state.  Now he’s spending his retirement years sucking Monsanto’s dick.  How sad is that.

Another large contributor to the No on I-522 campaign is the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA).  The GMA is like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — basically just a huge money launderer.  The GMA has  donated $2.2 million to the No on I-522 campaign.  And they’ve refused to name the food companies whose money this is.  These companies want to purchase an election but they’re afraid to crawl out from under their rocks and show us who they are.  Enter the money launderer.

And it gets worse.  Monsanto and the GMA even have a judge listed in their little black book.  Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham not only ruled against a group that had filed a suit to find out the anonymous donors to the GMA — he also fined the plaintiff $10,000 for having filed the lawsuit.  The plaintiff — Moms For Labeling — was also ordered to pay GMA’s court costs in addition to the $10,000 fine.  Moms For Labeling’s attorney said:

“This sets an incredibly scary precedent for future concerned citizens who speak out against powerful corporations who violate our public disclosure laws.”

Scary indeed.