Yes-on-2 sues Feds for devoting $3 million to oppose Prop 2

[Guest guest]

[from

http://humanesociety.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/aeb_lawsuit_08132\

008.html]

 

Federal Officials Sued For Misappropriating Millions of Dollars to Illegally

Campaign Against California Anti-Cruelty Initiative

 

August 13, 2008

 

 

Yes on Prop 2 - Californians for Humane Farms, the proponents of an anti-cruelty

ballot initiative that will provide basic protections to California farm

animals, filed a lawsuit yesterday in federal district court against the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Egg Board (AEB) over the

unlawful expenditure of $3 million in federal funds to campaign against the

enactment of Prop 2 this November.

 

Prop 2 will prohibit the most abusive factory farming practices in California,

and ensure modest animal welfare standards for farm animals by allowing them

simply to turn around and extend their limbs.

 

As reported in Egg Industry magazine, the AEB " unanimously passed a motion at

its 2007 fall meeting in California that $3 million be held in reserve to assist

the state if necessary in the industry's current battle with animal activists

[concerning] a referendum on the November 2008 ballot that would eliminate cage

production in California. "

 

" Agribusiness firms are already spending millions to defeat Proposition 2, and

they hardly needed an illegal infusion of check-off funds authorized by the USDA

to supplement their political campaign, " said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO

of The Humane Society of the United States. " Expending these funds within 90

days of the election is a transparent attempt to influence the vote on

Proposition 2. The egg industry and USDA had 49 other states in which to spend

this money, but it chose to do so in California right before the election and

that's unethical and illegal. "

 

As a federal commodity promotion program, the AEB is strictly prohibited from

expending any checkoff program funds " for the purpose of influencing

governmental policy or action. " 7 U.S.C. § 2707(h)

(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=7 & sec=2707). In turn,

the USDA is required to approve all AEB expenditures, and ensure that AEB's

activities are limited to non-political advertising, education, research and

marketing.

 

Internal agency documents received by the Yes on Prop 2 campaign show that USDA

officials are aware of the unlawful purpose for which the AEB set aside the $3

million, and that AEB intends to give federal funds to private individuals or

trade industry groups to spend in opposition to the ballot initiative.

 

For example, an email between officials of the USDA's Poultry Programs office

states that " California egg producers are undertaking a campaign to defeat the

measure. " The email also states that " the American Egg Board voted . . . to set

aside $3 million " to support these efforts. These statements were repeated in a

Weekly Activity Report of the USDA Poultry Programs.

 

The Yes on Prop 2 campaign contacted the USDA and the AEB directly in an attempt

to resolve this matter. The group requested that the USDA disallow any AEB

activities in California intended to influence voter opinion on the ballot

initiative. These requests were denied.

 

" Industry groups are already gearing up to blitz the public with propaganda

advocating that farm animals be confined in tiny cages where they cannot even

turn around and extend their limbs, " noted Farm Sanctuary president Gene Baur.

" We don't know if they've yet used funds from AEB's coffers, but it's in the

public interest to put a stop to any unlawful use of federal funds immediately. "

 

===========================

 

See also:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10192241