Ferguson, Bob Gov Wash
:{===
===
an 2 25
The Washington State Patrol is investigating a Nazi sympathizer who posted a social media reply that appears to threaten the state’s governor with gunfire.
Greyson Arnold wrote in reply to an X post by Gov. Bob Ferguson last month that “the federal government must act quickly to arrest you or it will be the 2nd amendment and judgment by lead.”
Arnold was responding to a post by Ferguson highlighting a new state program to assist families targeted for deportation by the Trump administration, which the governor described as “ripping families apart” and resulting in “kids losing their parents” and “businesses losing their workers.”
A former podcaster, the 35-year-old Arnold is part of the Groyper movement, an optics-obsessed cluster of far-right activists who seek to move white nationalist ideas into the political mainstream. Arnold was at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but was not arrested. The day after Donald Trump took the oath of office and issued mass pardons for the Jan. 6 defendants, Arnold posted a video of himself on the Capitol steps on Jan. 6 stating, “This is an American baptism. The American spirit is awakening.”
Arnold has cultivated ties with far-right Republicans such as former gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, and Rep. Paul Gosar in Arizona. In 2022, Joe Kent, a Republican candidate for Congress from Washington state who is now set to direct the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center appeared in a video for an interview conducted by Arnold. When confronted with Arnold’s pro-Nazi views, the campaign disavowed him, claiming Kent did not know who Arnold was.
CNN compiled a list of atrocious pro-Nazi views expressed by Arnold, including a conspiracy theory purporting that there were Jewish plans to “genocide the German people,” describing Adolf Hitler as “a complicated historical figure which many people misunderstand," and calling the Nazis a “pure” race.
Arnold also briefly worked as a field organizer for the Washington State Republican Party in 2022, before he was fired for his social media posts. Despite his extremist views, FEC records show that Arnold registered voters last summer for Citizens for Free Enterprise, a super PAC led by former Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey.
The Executive Protection Unit of the Washington State Patrol was alerted to the Arnold’s “judgement of lead” post by a legislative assistant at the state capitol in Olympia, according to Chris Loftis, a spokesperson for the state law enforcement agency. The legislative assistant, in turn, received a tip from “an extremist watchdog group” in Arizona, Loftis said.
“We did visit the gentleman’s residences of record,” Loftis told Raw Story. “WSP detectives visited an address in Spokane and, at our request, Arizona officials visited an Arizona address. Greyson Arnold was not in either location, so we did not speak to the gentleman in either visit.”
Loftis said he was unable to comment further because the matter remains under investigation.
In a message last week to his 7,200 Telegram subscribers, Arnold appeared to double down on the threat,
“The new WA ‘governor’ just sent law enforcement to my house who claimed this tweet is a credible threat of violence,” he wrote.
“To make it clear,” Arnold added, “if you protect criminal illegal aliens then you are participating in the genocide of the American people, and if the federal government doesn’t act then it is up to the American people to.”
In comments below the message, Arnold’s subscribers endorsed the apparent call to violence, with one writing on Monday: “That’s literally what the 2nd amendment was made for. Literally killing your own government.”
In an X post last week, Arnold appeared to express confidence that he has the backing of Attorney General Pam Bondi.
“Looks like the [law enforcement officers] who tried to harass and intimidate my family are going to get prosecuted,” he wrote.
Arnold’s post referenced a news item reporting, "Bondi just ordered the Justice Department to freeze all funding for sanctuary cities and has instructed attorneys to begin prosecuting officials preventing ICE from doing their job.”
Asked whether the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington intends to take the action sought by Arnold, spokesperson Emilie Langlie told Raw Story that as a matter of policy the Justice Department would decline to confirm or deny the existence of any investigation “unless or until something is filed on the matter in court.”
Arnold has a conviction in Arizona for disorderly conduct-fighting. A police report obtained by Raw Story indicates that officers responded to a domestic violence call at Arnold’s home in Lake Havasu City in December 2021. The alleged victim told officers that Arnold became frustrated when she told him his bank account was overdrawn. She said he slammed down a plate of food, threw down a glass of orange juice, and smashed a bottle of liquor on the counter, and then followed her from the kitchen to the living room, where he held her in a chair and prevented her from going to the bathroom.
“Too bad, b----, I’m the man and you need to listen to me,” Arnold said, according to the victim.
According to the report, Arnold admitted to forcing the victim into the chair, and notes from the report indicate he told the officer that she “is a very easy woman to move around and he just wanted her to sit in one spot and listen to what he had to say.”
Arnold was also charged with intentionally placing another person in fear of imminent physical injury and criminally defacing or damaging property worth less than $250, but court record show the charges were dismissed when he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct.
Arnold’s social media posts have become increasingly unhinged in recent weeks, targeting not only the governor but also local and federal judges and migrants.
Replying to a post showing photos of King County Superior Court Judge Johanna Bender shopping at a supermarket, Arnold wrote: “What’s her home address and usual locations she visits, I’m sure the families she’s hurt would like to know.”
In another post referencing a photo of U.S. District Court Judge Loren AliKhan and a decision by her to block President Trump’s freeze on spending for federal aid programs, Arnold posted a GIF of Dwight K. Schrute, the character from the TV show “The Office,” firing a rifle.
On the same day as his “judgement by lead” post in reference to Gov. Ferguson, Arnold posted a video recorded from his car window as he cruised past a group of men standing on the side of a public roadway outside a self-storage business.
“I am mapping hotspots where illegals congregate and documenting where they reside to report directly to ICE,” he wrote. “This includes not only Home Depot, but schools, hospitals, and places of worship. Together we can find them and send them home, to Mexico.”
In another post that echoes the history of ordinary Germans looting Jewish homes when they were deported during World War II, Arnold posted a reply on X expressing indifference to a news story about a Guatemalan woman who had been deported and was upset that she still owed her parents money after they raised more than $25,000 to pay a smuggler.
“We should be doing our duty as Americans and helping strip them of any wealth before deporting them,” he wrote.
Arnold could not be reached for comment for this story.
Many of Arnold’s comments on X reflect a preoccupation with the global labor force. He talks about his experience working in China from 2015 to 2020. His posts express a negative view of Indian tech workers in the United States, in contrast to his own experience as a foreign worker in China.
“The only time I was even able to geta STEM-related job was in China,” he posted on X on Jan. 31. “America doesn’t hire Americans.”
In another post on the same day, he wrote: “China didn’t need Indians. We took in the inferior races and now the U.S. is crumbling. I choose the Chinese team if my team is just foreigners.”
---
an 2 25
inspired by President Donald Trump’s call to round up immigrants who are in the country illegally, Republican governors would send their National Guard troops into Democratic-led states without those leaders’ permission.
It’s a scenario that was so concerning to Washington state Rep. Sharlett Mena that she introduced legislation that would make uninvited deployments of out-of-state troops illegal. Her bill cleared a committee last week and has the backing of Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson, who pushed for the proposal in his inaugural address last month.
The legislation is about maintaining the state’s autonomy and authority, Mena, a Democrat, told her colleagues during last week’s hearing. “Without this bill, there’s nothing on the books to prevent this.”
Later, she added, “Other states may take matters into their own hands when they want to enforce federal laws.”
In December, 26 Republican governors — all but Vermont Gov. Phil Scott — vowed to assist Trump with deportations of immigrants “who pose a threat to our communities and national security.” Their pledge included the use of National Guard troops.
Mena has reason to be concerned, said Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning New York-based pro-democracy institute.
“The Trump administration has made it quite clear that they intend to use the military to assist with immigration enforcement,” he said. “States who are opposed to that would be wise to take what measures they can to protect themselves and their states.”
This week, Texas signed an agreement with the Trump administration giving the state’s National Guard troops law enforcement powers to arrest and help detain migrants. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s four-year Operation Lone Star program has until now used the National Guard only for surveillance and logistical support for federal agents.
Other states opposed to Trump’s deportation program could be inspired by Washington’s legislation and introduce similar measures in the months ahead, Nunn said. And Mena pointed out that Idaho, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Texas have laws that prevent other states’ National Guard troops from entering without permission.
‘Anything we can do to help’: This Texas county is poised to play a key role in deportations
But, as she noted to her colleagues last week, if Trump were to federalize National Guard units, there’s nothing the state could do to prevent it; a presidential order preempts state authority.
Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh dismisses Mena’s concerns.
“I believe that legislation is unnecessary,” he told Stateline in an interview. “I think it’s what is generally considered a statement bill, but you have to treat it seriously. I’m not sure what they’re getting at here other than a swipe at Donald Trump.”
Washington state law prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement — which Walsh described as “horrible” public policy. Mena’s legislation would only add to that “dumb” approach to immigration enforcement, he said.
Federal law
While the National Guard is generally organized at and operates under state command using state funding, it can be called into federal service, operating with federal funding and placed under the president’s control. But there’s a murky middle ground in federal law that would make a measure like Washington’s relevant.
Under one federal statute, Title 32, a state’s National Guard can be commanded by the governor but operate using federal funding on a federal mission at the request of the president. While the policy was originally crafted in the 1950s as a way for Congress to pay for extensive training requirements, presidents have since expanded its use.
Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Trump, in his first term, all deployed National Guard troops to the southwestern border to assist with migration deterrence.
Trump’s mass deportation plan could rely on state cooperation
Trump also used the statute in 2020 to request that states send National Guard units to Washington, D.C., when he wanted to suppress the Black Lives Matter protests happening there. Eleven governors voluntarily sent troops, despite objections from the district’s mayor. The district does not enjoy the sovereignty of states.
“No state is more sovereign than another state, and their sovereignty is also territorially limited,” Nunn said. “Illinois’ sovereignty stops at the Indiana state line and vice versa. Indiana cannot reach into Illinois and exercise governmental power there without Illinois’ consent, even if the president asked Indiana to do this and even if Congress is footing the bill.”
Put simply: No state can invade another state.
‘An insurance policy’
Because of this, Washington state’s legislation might be redundant, said William Banks, a professor emeritus at Syracuse University College of Law who has studied and recently written about National Guard deployments and Trump’s rhetoric of a migrant “invasion.”
“It’s like an insurance policy,” he said of the bill. “It may be a very good idea to call attention to the independence of the state government and its perspective that they’d very much like to be in charge of their own internal affairs, including migration or whatever else might be going on.”
Banks said the measure, if passed as expected, could be something that state leaders point to if, for example, Idaho or Montana were considering deploying their National Guard units to Seattle to carry out Trump’s immigration enforcement.
However, he said, the whole discussion becomes irrelevant the moment Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, which would allow for federal military intervention in a nonconsenting state.
State, local officials plan for potential immigration enforcement at schools
The 1792 law has been used occasionally in response to unexpected crises that overwhelmed civilian authorities or when a state was obstructing federal civil rights laws or other constitutional protections. In theory, though, the president could frame one of his policy priorities, such as immigration, as a national emergency in need of a massive troop mobilization. Trump has already asked his deputies to study the use of the law.
“The Insurrection Act is a euphemism for when all hell breaks loose,” Banks said. “It’s an extreme measure for extreme times.”
Until that occurs, Washington lawmakers would be wise to adopt preventive measures, said Nathan Bays, deputy policy director for Washington’s governor. He told committee members during the bill’s hearing that it is “precautionary” and would not harm the readiness or training of the state’s National Guard.
“Washington will continue to be a strong partner with our other National Guard units across this nation,” he said.
But Republican state Rep. Rob Chase told Stateline that the legislation is a solution looking for a problem — wasting time when the legislature should be focused on real issues, such as public safety, homelessness, a housing shortage, fentanyl and education.
“This seems like more fear mongering by the ruling party in Olympia over what they perceive to be happening in the other Washington,” he wrote in an email.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.
---
Robert Watson Ferguson (born February 23, 1965) is an American lawyer and politician serving as the 18th attorney general of Washington. A member of the Democratic Party, he was first elected in 2012 and re-elected in 2016 and 2020.[1] Prior to serving as Attorney General, Ferguson was a member of the King County Council.
In 2017, Ferguson was included on the annual *Time* 100 list of the most influential people in the world.[2]
Ferguson is a candidate in the 2024 Washington gubernatorial election.[3]
Early life and education
Ferguson was born in Seattle in 1965, the son of Murray and Betty (Hausmann) Ferguson.[4] He is a fourth-generation Washingtonian, whose great-grandparents homesteaded on the Skagit River in the 19th century, near what is now Marblemount.[5] He graduated from Bishop Blanchet High School in 1983 and then attended the University of Washington, where he was elected Student Body President.[6] After college, Ferguson joined Jesuit Volunteer Corps Northwest and directed an emergency services office for a year.[7]
Ferguson earned a Juris Doctor from the New York University School of Law.[8] During law school, he received a grant to provide legal assistance to the Yaqui tribe in Guadalupe, Arizona. Ferguson lived in Guadalupe for a time, assisting community members on a wide range of legal matters.[9]
Career
After graduating from law school, Ferguson began his legal career in Spokane, where he served as a law clerk for Chief Judge William Fremming Nielsen of the Federal District Court for Eastern Washington, who was appointed by George H. W. Bush. He then clerked for Judge Myron Bright of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Midwest, who was appointed by Lyndon Johnson.[8]
After his clerkship, Ferguson returned to Seattle and joined Preston Gates & Ellis (now K&L Gates) as a litigator, a Washington Special Assistant Attorney General law firm, where he represented individuals, businesses, local governments, and Washington corporations. As an attorney, Ferguson worked with the legal team that successfully defended taxpayers from paying for cost overruns associated with Safeco Field construction.[10] He was part of the legal team that successfully challenged the constitutionality of Tim Eyman's initiatives.[9]
Ferguson worked on cases involving software piracy and successfully sued companies that stole intellectual property from Washington companies.[10] Ferguson also donated hundreds of hours of free legal advice to non-profit organizations. For example, he assisted Kruckeberg Botanic Garden Foundation as legal counsel to turn a six-acre garden into a public park in Shoreline.[9]
After four years at Preston Gates & Ellis, Ferguson decided to run for the King County Council.
King County Council
Elections
Ferguson was first elected to the King County Council in 2003 by defeating Cynthia Sullivan, a 20-year veteran of the Council. Ferguson managed to outpoll Sullivan by about 500 votes.[11][12] At the time, the council was elected on a partisan basis. Ferguson faced no general election opponent in the heavily Democratic district. During his campaign to unseat Sullivan, Ferguson knocked on 22,000 doors in the district.[13]
As a result of the council reduction, redistricting placed Ferguson in the same district as another Democratic County Councilmember, Carolyn Edmonds of Shoreline. Ferguson narrowly defeated Edmonds.[14] He went on to defeat Republican challenger Steven Pyeatt in the general election, winning approximately 74% of the vote.[15]
Tenure
Before being elected attorney general, Ferguson served on the King County Council, where he represented Council District 1, which includes northeast Seattle, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore, Bothell, Kirkland, and part of Woodinville.[6]
During his time on the Council, Ferguson served as Chair of the Regional Policy and Law, Justice and Human Services Committees and twice chaired of the Council's Law and Justice Committee.[8] In 2005, he co-sponsored legislation to place a ballot measure before the voters of King County to generate revenue to improve health services for veterans and military personnel.[16] County residents approved the measure.[16] In 2011, King County voters renewed the Veterans and Human Services Levy.
When King County Executive's office proposed spending $6.8 million for new furniture for the new County office building, Ferguson pushed the County to buy used furniture instead, saving taxpayers more than $1 million.[17]
Ferguson led the effort to raise $50 million annually to assist those suffering from mental illness and chemical dependency.[18] He received the Booth Gardner Mental Health Champion award from Sound Mental Health in 2011.[19] Ferguson successfully fought for $5 million to fund public health clinics in Northgate and Bothell that were threatened with closure.[20]
Ferguson served on the Youth Justice Coordinating Council on Gangs.[21] He pushed for civilian oversight of the King County Sheriff's office. In 2006, he helped lead the effort to create permanent oversight in the King County Sheriff's office.[20]
He sponsored the Open Space Preservation Act, which protects 100,000 acres of open space.[22] Ferguson authored legislation that prevents King County from doing business with companies known to repeatedly violate wage theft laws.[23]
In 2007, Ferguson co-sponsored legislation increasing the sales tax by one tenth of one percent in order to expand mental health, chemical dependency and therapeutic court programs to reduce costly and unnecessary involvement in the criminal justice system by mentally ill and chemically dependent individuals, and to save lives. The council approved the measure on a bipartisan vote.[24] In 2009, Ferguson co-sponsored bi-partisan legislation that called on the Executive to streamline the County's procurement process. Along with Republican Kathy Lambert, Bob co-sponsored legislation that eliminated 15 pages of paper forms required to contract with King County (Ordinance 2010-0186).[citation ^needed][25]
Ferguson also worked to reform County government by connecting workers' wages to the economy, leading the Seattle Times to write, "This is brand new, necessary stuff in a county that can ill afford the existing approach. These changes would not be possible without the hard work of Republican Kathy Lambert and Council Chairman Bob Ferguson…Ferguson is taking considerable heat from labor for sticking his neck out on policies that may be anathema to his constituents. Ferguson's work should inspire other Democrats on the council to join him in moving the county forward to the 21st century."[26]
He co-sponsored legislation promoting the use of small businesses in fulfilling county contracts. (Ordinance 2007-0146). Ferguson co-sponsored legislation in 2011 creating a "Small Business Accelerator" program.[27] He declined to take a pay raise during tough economic times.[28] Ferguson also helped lead the effort for an independent audit of the county's election office.[29]
In 2010, Ferguson sponsored a ballot measure that would increase the sales tax to provide additional revenues to King County. Proposition No. 1 Sales and Use Tax. The measure failed 54.9% to 45.1%.[30] He wrote the law that reformed the county's public records process to ensure that citizens can easily obtain records and monitor their government.[8]
Ferguson was presented with the Landmark Deeds Award for Public Service by the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation.[31]
The Center for Human Services selected Ferguson as the 2008 recipient of their annual Dorrit Pealy Award for Outstanding Community Service.[32] Food Lifeline gave Ferguson a Special Appreciation Award at its annual Ending Hunger Awards luncheon.[33] In 2010, Ferguson was selected to join the Aspen Institute-Rodel Fellowship, a program that brings together the nation's most promising political leaders.[8]
Attorney General of Washington
Elections
In 2012, Bob Ferguson defeated fellow King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn to be elected as the 18th Attorney General of Washington State. Ferguson won by a margin of more than 200,000 votes, receiving 53.48% of the vote to Dunn's 46.52%.[34]
Ferguson won despite an unprecedented amount being spent by an out-of-state group in Washington state Attorney General's race.[35] During the course of the campaign, Ferguson visited all 39 Washington state counties.[36]
In 2016, Ferguson faced only Joshua Trumbull, a Libertarian with no political experience.[37] Ferguson spent little of the money he had raised for the campaign,[38] and he was re-elected, 67% to 33%.[39] He garnered the most votes of any state candidate and carried 37 of the state's 39 counties.[40]
In 2020, Ferguson faced Matt Larkin, a political newcomer and strong Trump supporter, who said that Ferguson was too soft on crime and criticized his legal challenges of the Trump administration.[41] Ferguson handily won reelection, 56% to 43%.[1]
Tenure
Ferguson sued the Trump administration 97 times, leading 36 of the cases, realizing victory 22 times, and losing once.[42][43]
Arlene's Flowers lawsuit
Main article: Arlene's Flowers lawsuit
In April 2013 Ferguson filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Barronelle Stutzman and her Richland, Washington floral shop Arlene's Flowers even without a complaint by Robert Ingersoll and his fiance Curt Freed.[44]
Ferguson claimed the business violated Washington's consumer protection law after Stutzman refused to provide flowers for the couple's same sex wedding.[45] The attorney general's office sent a letter to Stutzman informing her she was in violation of Washington State's Consumer Protection Act. A letter by Ferguson called for a penalty of $2,000 and to celebrate all same sex unions. Stutzman sent back a reply that it was against her religious beliefs to do so. The attorney general's office followed up with a phone call to Stutzman, giving her an opportunity to comply with the law, head off legal action, and avoid paying fees or costs. Stutzman responded with a letter from her lawyer. The move was criticized by Stutzman's lawyer, who stated Ferguson did not have the statutory authority to file the lawsuit and that it was uncertain whether or not it was a "clear case of discrimination".[46] The engaged couple's attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union then sued the florist for damages. ^[47]
The couple had been previous clients of Stutzman for nine years until they had requested her services for their wedding, which she refused to do based upon her religious view on same sex marriage.[48] Stutzman filed a counter-suit, stating that Ferguson's lawsuit was an attempt to force her to violate her religious beliefs.[49] Stutzman and her attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom requested that the lawsuit be dismissed, as they alleged that the suit didn't show that the couple had suffered any financial injury to their business or property.[50] Judge Sal Mendoza Jr. ruled that the lawsuit could continue, as the time and travel spent traveling to Arlene's Flowers and finding another florist did count as financial injury.[51]
On February 18, 2015, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom ruled she had violated the state's anti-discrimination law.[52] On February 19, 2015, Stutzman stated she would appeal the ruling.[53] On March 27, 2015, Judge Ekstrom ordered Stutzman to pay a $1,000 fine, plus $1 for court costs and fees.[54][55]
On November 15, 2016, Ferguson personally argued at the Washington Supreme Court hearing, which was held before an audience in Bellevue College's auditorium.[56] On February 16, 2017, the Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the florist.[57] In the court's opinion, Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud wrote neither the U.S. Constitution's Free Exercise Clause nor its Free Speech Clause gave the florist any right to refuse to participate in the wedding.[57] On June 25, 2018 the Supreme Court of the United States vacated this decision and sent it back for rehearing in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision.[58] On June 6, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Stutzman again, finding no evidence of religious animus.[59]
Comcast lawsuit
On August 1, 2016, Ferguson announced that the State of Washington would sue telecommunications company Comcast over deceptive consumer practices. The $100 million consumer protection lawsuit was filed over 1.8 million individual violations of the state's Consumer Protection Act.[60]
Executive Order 13769
Main article: Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban
Further information: Executive Order 13769
President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769 on January 27, 2017, which effectively banned entry to the United States for ninety days for non-citizens and refugees from seven Middle Eastern countries. On January 30, Ferguson and Governor Jay Inslee announced that the State would file a legal challenge against President Trump, as well as relevant administrative secretaries, to overturn the order, arguing that it was a case of religious discrimination.[61]
Ferguson filed suit within 72 hours, with statements of support from Washington-based companies, including Amazon and Microsoft.[62] In the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on February 3, 2017, U.S. District Judge James L. Robart ruled in Ferguson's favor for a temporary restraining order on the enforcement of the travel ban nationwide.[63]
Gun control
Ferguson suggested a bill banning assault weapons to state representative Strom Peterson, which passed the house in March 2023.[64]
Personal life
Ferguson and his wife Colleen
Bob Ferguson is an enthusiastic mountain climber, backpacker, and birder, and has hiked hundreds of miles of Washington trails and climbed many of the state's highest peaks.[9] After college, Ferguson traveled around the country to see a baseball game in every major league stadium.[6]
Ferguson is an internationally rated chess master.[65] His games have appeared in local, national and international chess publications, and he has twice won the Washington State Chess Championship.[65] In 2014, he had a 2146 rating, and currently holds a 2232 FIDE rating.[66][67] He and his wife Colleen live in Seattle with their twins.[6]
==
cadawaller esq
...When it comes to corporations, who are the most aggressive Attorneys General now?
“By far, Maura Healey in Massachusetts and Bob Ferguson in Washington state. In that grouping you would add Karl Racine in DC, Brian Frosh in Maryland, William Tong in Connecticut and Xavier Beccera in California.”
You didn’t mention the New York Attorney General. Why not?
“Because she’s new. She is going to be equally as aggressive as her three predecessors. She may have different priorities. But remember, the new folks just took office in January of this year. There are growing pains. No one is an Attorney General until they are. It’s an enormous office with enormous power. It’s the second most powerful position in state government. It takes a little bit of a runway to get up to speed, but also to get your own people in.”
“Maura Healey was in the office with her predecessor Martha Coakley. She has been in the office for a long time. This is her second term.”
“I represent companies that have issues with state Attorneys General. I know where my plane lands. And my plane lands in Boston and Seattle a lot more than it lands in some other states.”...
==
==
Center for Food Safety[1] / By Michele Simon
Junk Food Lobby Forced to Disclose Secret Donors in Campaign to Stop GMO Labeling
*October 23, 2013
Just a few weeks ago, attorneys for the No on 522 campaign were feeling rather smug when a lawsuit filed against them by a group called “Moms for Labeling” was dismissed. As I wrote last week [3], consumer class action attorney Knoll Lowney sued the No on 522 and the Washington DC-based Grocery Manufactures Association (lobbyists for major food corporations) for not disclosing the donors behind GMA’s $7 million-plus donation to stop I-522, which would require genetically-engineered foods to be labeled. The judge threw out that case on a technicality.
But then, Big Food’s arrogance got the best of them.
Last Wednesday, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson picked up where the Moms for Labeling lawyer left off by filing his own complaint [4], which adds stunning detail to the allegations in the original suit. In case you’re not familiar with what the attorney general does, he or she is the state’s top law enforcer, but often has limited resources to act. So when the AG’s office decides to come after you, it’s a very big deal, far bigger than a private attorney doing so.
The new lawsuit also accuses GMA of violating the state’s campaign disclosure laws, and alleges that the trade group secretly gathered more than $7 million from its members. Not content to just collect food industry money illegally, or even discreetly, GMA had the chutzpah to a designate a special account dubbed the “Defense of Brand Strategic Account,” for a strategic, “multi-pronged approach” to fight labeling laws, including Washington’s I-522.
And this scheme didn’t just pop up recently either; rather the shady deal-making was in the works for months, soon after the narrow loss of Proposition 37 in California. The plan was hatched at a GMA board meeting this past January to fund future anti-labeling efforts with “a preference for GMA to be the funder of such efforts, rather than individual companies.” That’s because brand names like PepsiCo and General Mills took a lot of heat from upset consumers. So, as GMA CEO Pamela G. Bailey explained in a February memorandum, a plan to “better shield individual companies from attack” was quickly approved; GMA sent its first round of invoices to members by March and the second round went out in August.
The dollar figures are staggering: GMA earmarked ten million dollars to oppose I-522, meaning that when the trade group made its first contribution to No on 522 in May—a paltry $472,500—it knew it was only getting started, something the public would learn by August when it donated another $1,750,000. In September, GMA dropped $5 million in one load, which now makes sense considering how long they had been taking collections. But if the two lawsuits hadn’t stopped GMA, chances are it would have spent even more. As of October 7, GMA collected almost $13.5 million dollars but had only spent $7.2 million, meaning it still has more than $6 million left in its arsenal. That can buy a lot of TV ads.
In fact, Attorney General Ferguson said [5] this case represents “the largest amount of money ever concealed in an election.” Way to go team.
Barely 48 hours after the attorney general filed suit, GMA waved a white flag [6], disclosing the list of donors [7] it had so adamantly refused to give Moms for Labeling. Topping the list were old favorites like PepsiCo ($1.6+ million), Nestlé ($1+ million), Coca-Cola ($1+ million), and General Mills (almost $600K). But all the major food groups are also represented. Not only soda companies, but also Sunny Delight and the juice bottler Clement Pappas & Company are named. For canned foods, GMA hit up Del Monte and Hormel Foods, maker of Spam. And who knew that the Clorox Company owns Soy Vay marinades [8], which explains its $12K donation to the Defense of Brand Strategic Account.
Before releasing its list of donors, though, GMA put out a statement [9] saying it was “surprised to learn that the Washington State authorities viewed the association’s actions as improper.” Maybe GMA’s lawyers (aren’t they all lawyers?) were too busy making a paper trail of its wrongdoing to read up on the state campaign finance laws they were so sloppily trying to circumvent.
Then, when GMA released the donor data (on Friday at 3pm, wonder why?), the lobbyists had the nerve to claim [10] to be doing so “in the spirit of continuing cooperation and in an effort to provide Washington voters with full transparency.” That’s the spirit. But even more impressive was GMA’s decision to “voluntarily establish a Washington State political committee and to file reports disclosing the source of all funds used in connection with Washington State elections.” Let’s unpack that: GMA is volunteering to follow the law after the state’s top law enforcer sued them to stop violating it.
Meanwhile, Lowney and Moms for Labeling aren’t done yet. Yesterday, Lowney filed another suit [11], incorporating the attorney general’s allegations, and asking the judge to “sequester” the same amount No on 522 illegally concealed – more than $7 million – to pay future penalties.
In the new complaint [12], No on 522 is not only accused of concealing the source of its donations, but also intentionally misleading Washington voters by falsely reporting the source of the $7.2 million. Not satisfied with the disclosures made last week, this suit wants the court to order No on 522 to: 1) stop running advertisements that don’t reflect the accurate top five contributors; 2) admit that earlier disclosures were false and disseminate corrected information; 3) file corrected campaign finance reports; 4) discontinue receipt of contributions from GMA; and (my personal favorite) 5) pay a penalty in the amount of the contributions it concealed – more than $7.2 million.
GMA hasn’t responded to that suit yet, but in the meantime, Ferguson’s office isn’t backing down [13] after the initial disclosures either. Janelle Guthrie, communications director for the Washington State attorney general’s office told me that the state’s “lawsuit continues with regard to setting penalties.”
The Moms for Labeling lawsuit highlights the important role that private litigation has in getting state officials to force Big Food’s compliance with the law and big kudos to the attorney general for doing so. Let’s hope we see more of it.
And if you’re keeping score, that makes three lawsuits filed so far against an industry that will stop at nothing to keep consumers in the dark. Washington State voters should really be asking, when they see the next ad opposing 522: if this campaign is willing to break the law, how can we trust anything they say?
Meanwhile, it’s not too late to help the Yes on 522 campaign [14].
See more stories tagged with:
gmo [15],
labeling [16],
food [17],
right to know [18]
---
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/food/junk-food-lobby-forced-disclose-secret-donors-campaign-stop-gmo-labeling