Monsanto's Legal Thuggery ( Re: Dean)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

Monsanto's legal team began 1998 by taking on the State of Vermont and its attempts to pass a very weak rBGH law that merely required Monsanto to register with the state and make its client list available to state authorities so "rBGH-free" claims could be verified. The company responded by publicly threatening to sue the state and stop selling its products in Vermont if the bill passed. Governor Howard Dean, feeling the lobbying heat from Monsanto and its rBGH-addicted farmers in Vermont, came to Monsanto's defense and pulled the plug on the measure by threatening a veto. The legislature then went on to further soften an already spineless bill by removing the section that required the drug manufacturer's client list. Eventually, after yet another legal threat and a "closed-door" meeting with Governor Dean, Monsanto backed off and let the near-meaningless legislation go into effect.

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/24/monsanto.html

Don't we criticize Repubs such as Cheney for "closed door meetings?"

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. For those who have supported Dean an gone after Kerry....

this is mud in their face.

:eyes:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. This is WHY it is STUPID for Dean to attack Democrats for raising money

to defeat Republicans....he has not demonstrated ANY quid pro quo where Kerry is concerned but has a record worth investigating where HE is concerned.

That's what happens when you respond to your losses with irrational anger.... you FUCK up.

[Forkboy]

3. And for people like me

it just reinforces that neither Dean or Kerry are worth a crap.

I'm really,really tired of the "my guy isn't as bad as your guy" defense.Especially when they both have major problems.

[corporatewhore]

6. ditto

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. Hey fella I don't like that any better than you

but reality is nominating one of them or 4 more years, Mother Theresa isn't running and even SHE has her detractors.

[Forkboy]

14. sorry but 4 more years no longer scares me

and I wont be guilted into voting for someone I dont like ever again.I'm always behind the "unelectable" candidate anyways,might as well really go all out and vote that way.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. You should read this then. You need to rescare yourself

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/2/kuttner-r.html

America as a One-Party State
Today's hard right seeks total dominion. It's packing the courts and rigging the rules. The target is not the Democrats but democracy itself.

By Robert Kuttner
Issue Date: 2.1.04
Print Friendly | Email Article

America has had periods of single-party dominance before. It happened under FDR's New Deal, in the Republican 1920s and in the early 19th-century "Era of Good Feeling." But if President Bush is re-elected, we will be close to a tipping point of fundamental change in the political system itself. The United States could become a nation in which the dominant party rules for a prolonged period, marginalizes a token opposition and is extremely difficult to dislodge because democracy itself is rigged. This would be unprecedented in U.S. history.
In past single-party eras, the majority party earned its preeminence with broad popular support. Today the electorate remains closely divided, and actually prefers more Democratic policy positions than Republican ones. Yet the drift toward an engineered one-party Republican state has aroused little press scrutiny or widespread popular protest.

We are at risk of becoming an autocracy in three key respects. First, Republican parliamentary gimmickry has emasculated legislative opposition in the House of Representatives (the Senate has other problems). House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas has both intimidated moderate Republicans and reduced the minority party to window dressing, rather like the token opposition parties in Mexico during the six-decade dominance of the PRI.

Second, electoral rules have been rigged to make it increasingly difficult for the incumbent party to be ejected by the voters, absent a Depression-scale disaster, Watergate-class scandal or Teddy Roosevelt-style ruling party split. After two decades of bipartisan collusion in the creation of safe House seats, there are now perhaps just 25 truly contestable House seats in any given election year (and that's before the recent Republican super gerrymandering). What once was a slender and precarious majority -- 229 Republicans to 205 Democrats (including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who votes with Democrats) -- now looks like a Republican lock. In the Senate, the dynamics are different but equally daunting for Democrats. As the Florida debacle of 2000 showed, the Republicans are also able to hold down the number of opposition votes, with complicity from Republican courts. Reform legislation, the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), may actually facilitate Republican intimidation of minority voters and reduce Democratic turnout. And the latest money-and-politics regime, nominally a reform, may give the right more of a financial advantage than ever.

Third, the federal courts, which have slowed some executive-branch efforts to destroy liberties, will be a complete rubber stamp if the right wins one more presidential election.

Taken together, these several forces could well enable the Republicans to become the permanent party of autocratic government for at least a generation. Am I exaggerating? Take a close look at the particulars.

[Forkboy]

33. Sorry

Been voting my fears all my life.I'm not doing it anymore.The Dems have lost me.

[no name no slogan]

36. They said the same thing when Reagan won in '80, and FDR won in '32

And somehow we lived through those two elections, too.

The same goes with the Democrats in 1932. The Repubs were damn near dead in the water, for almost forty years. But they survived.

Voting because of FEAR only gets you the evil of two lessers. Vote for the candidate who represents your views, NOT the one who you think can "win".

[killbotfactory]

4. Governers can't have private meetings now?

Uh.

Okay.

The end effect being that the near meaningless legislation monsanto had a hissy fit about passed.

Wow, what skullduggery Dean engaged in.

???

[ThirdWheelLegend]

5. Monsanto is one of the enemy... not a friend of the people.

This is from adbusters? They are usually on the side of the people. Monsanto is no friend of the consumer or the citizen. Read about them in Palast's "Best Democracy Money can Buy".

Palast discusses how Monsanto lobbied enough so that animal products that were from animals that were not given the BST(beast) steroid, were not allowed to put BST FREE on their labels, because the FDA claimed there was not enough evidence that BST was harmful...(Sorry I am paraphrasing from when I read it a couple weeks back)

Dean, what are we taking back again?

TWL

[dsc]

8. Note what is missing in your post

Would VT have won the suit? Would it have cost VT a mint to fight the suit? I don't know. Ad busters evidently doesn't either (they sure don't offer an opinion). Until those quesitons are answered you owe us better than this crap.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. we'll never know. The meeting was behind closed doors.

I owe you nothing.

[dsc]

11. the suit wasn't

and its chances aren't. You are a lawyer so you should know that.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. I don't know the particulars of the suit, but states have prevailed

with corporations before. I will research it further if it pleases you and if a meeting did NOT occur behind closed doors, it would certainly be easier to confirm the facts.

Dean did the same thing with developers. It is widely known in mainstream press and was reported in the LA times back in January.

[dsc]

16. I am sure they have on occasion

but Vermont isn't California or New York. I could easily see a corporation tieing up every state paid lawyer in VT for a decade or more.

[joshcryer]

18. Very rational position dsc. :)

Thanks for your even handed view.

[killbotfactory]

12. And the legislation Monsanto was threatening to sue over passed

Why should I be outraged about this?

[Armstead]

10. Here's a little more on this

he may have compromised but did he cave in? I'm still looking for more.
http://www.republicons.org/view_article.asp?RP_ARTICLE_ID=1068

Howard Dean's Vermont: Food Safety
by: Republicons Staff
Republicons.org
12/31/2003

In 1994 then Vermont Governor Howard Dean signed a law that required dairy products to display whether cows were given growth hormones. Quite a feat in a state heavily dependent on the dairy industry. The original account follows...
In April 1994 The Governors of Maine and Vermont signed laws requiring the labeling of dairy products to distinguish which ones come from cows treated with bovine growth hormone (BGH) or recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) -- and which ones do not.

Vermont Governor Howard Dean signed into law a bill requiring food companies to put an identification label on any dairy product made with milk that comes from cows treated with the genetically engineered growth hormone. Maine Governor John McKernan Jr. signed into law a measure directing farmers who use BGH to register that information with the dairies they supply, and establishing an official label to be placed on dairy products that are produced from cows not treated with BGH.

Similar labeling proposals are being considered in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The Monsanto Company, which manufactures the genetically engineered hormone, has not yet decided whether to file legal challenges to the laws, according to The New York Times.

[Armstead]

13. More

In legislative news, Vermont Governor Howard Dean reportedly
balked at the prospect of signing Vermont's mandatory labeling bill
into law. The law requires that milk and dairy products derived
from cows not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone
(rBGH), also known as bovine somatotropin (BST), be labeled as such.
Dean said the law posed some unanswered legal questions which the
bill's writers failed to address.

In a letter dated April 13 from Governor Dean to House Clerk Donald
Milne, Dean writes, "It is with mixed feelings that I have decided to
sign H.644," the labeling bill. "However, as I have been advised by
the Attorney General, there are legitimate concerns ... about
implementation of the mandatory labeling provision."

Supporters of the bill were annoyed with the governor's reluctance.
"That's just a ploy to kill the bill," said Representative Robert Starr.
http://www.rz.uni-frankfurt.de/~ecstein/gen/env/113

"We won an upset, come-from-behind victory. We're not going to
give that up because of some undefined, vague objections," said Tim
Atwater of the advocacy group Rural Vermont. Others accused the
government was bowing to industry pressure. "If all that a large
corporation like Monsanto has to do to get legislation killed is
threaten a lawsuit, then maybe we should just consult with them
ahead of time," said Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Joan
Mulhern of Vermont Public Interest Group said she received word
from the Attorney General's office that Monsanto has filed briefing
papers with the state outlining their objections to the law.

"Nothing in FDA (Food and Drug Administration) law lets them
override us," said Atwater about Monsanto. "The law is on our side
and they don't have a legal leg to stand on." Monsanto spokesperson
Tom McDermott responded, "It's a very bad piece of legislation. It's
unenforceable and it raises some questions about interstate
commerce."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. And you are prepared to say no lobbying was involved?

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/SP_LEdata.asp?L1=20&L2=10&L3=60&L4=10&L5=0&Display=LE

[Armstead]

20. I'm not prepared to say anything

I'm just trying to find out, and post what I find.

I think Monsanto is Satan Inc. and if Dean or Kerry or anyone is playing footsie with them, I will be angry.

I'm not a blind partisan in this.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. I agree

The MAIN problem is that we have justices sitting on the Supreme Court prepared to SIDE with corporations insofar as regulatory acts are concerned.

While WE ALL acknowledge the need to reduce corporate interest over our laws and country, my main anger is at Dean flinging shit when he himself has had to back down, we DON'T know if he took contributions or if they contributed another way snce Vermont's lobbying laws are LAX in MANY regards and while I CANNOT blame him for wanting to WIN..to have the lack of foresight to campaign in a manner which will ultimately DEFUND the party against George Bush's 200 million dollar war chest is insane.

Isofar as I can see, Dean is attempting to take us down in the same manner as Nader with his careless comments this week.

He, likewise, has demonstrated no quid pro quo's where Kerry is concerned, but freely flung shit in spite of the damage it MAY do in the long run. STUPID if you ask me.

[maddezmom]

26. Is Toby Moffett the same person that was a VP of Monsanto?

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2003/10/15/85824/542/20
Among those who regularly attend the meetings are former Rep. Toby Moffett (D-Conn.), now a lobbyist affiliated with the Livingston Group; former Democratic National Committee vice chairwoman Lynn Cutler of Holland & Knight; and Christine Varney, a Hogan & Hartsen attorney who served as the general counsel on the first Clinton presidential bid and as a Federal Trade Commissioner from 1995 to 1997.


http://www.livingstongroupdc.com/corporateoverview/team.html
Honorable Anthony J. Moffett
(Senior Counselor)

Former Congressman Anthony J. Moffett is the Chief Executive Officer of Livingston Moffett Global Consultants. Prior to forming Livingston Moffett Global Consultants, Mr. Moffett served as Vice-President for Global Government and Public Affairs with Monsanto, Inc. Mr. Moffett served from Connecticut in The United States House of Representatives from 1975 through 1983, where he was Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources. Mr. Moffett earned a Bachelor of Arts from Syracuse University and a Master of Arts from Boston College. http://www.livingstonmoffett.com -- [e-mail]

[seaglass]

17. Hey, maybe the notes from the meeting are tucked away

in Dean's sealed records, who knows?

[Armstead]

21. more

http://131.104.232.9/fsnet/1998/4-1998/fs-04-24-98-01.txt

MONSANTO WON'T SUE VERMONT OVER BST LABELING LAW
Apr. 24/98
Dow Jones News
AP
MONTPELIER, Vt. -- Monsanto officials were cited as saying Thursday now
that they have a better understanding of Vermont labeling legislation the
company has dropped plans to sue and will continue to sell the hormone BST
in Vermont.
Cheryl Morley, president of Monsanto Dairy Business, was quoted as saying,
"Monsanto understands that doing business in Vermont today under the new
law is the same as it has been over the past four years."
The story adds that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says the hormone
is safe. But Vermont consumers have said they want to know what's in their
dairy products. So this spring lawmakers approved a bill that allows
producers of milk, ice cream and other dairy products to label their
products as hormone-free if they come from cows that weren't given BST.
After lawmakers gave final approval to the bill last week, Monsanto sent
Vermont dairy farmers a letter saying the company would stop selling BST
in Vermont and would challenge the labeling law in court.
The company objected to requirements it register with the agriculture
department and provide information about its customers if the state was
investigating whether a farmer had made false claims about being BST-free.
Gov. Howard Dean met with Morley and other Monsanto officials last week
after they flew in to try to persuade him to veto the bill. He told them
he planned to sign it. He said Thursday he hadn't changed his mind.

[joshcryer]

24. Doesn't sound too fishy to me.

Then again, whatever.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. And therein lies the rub, Armstead

The same constitutional interpretations that would preclude DEAN from passing legislation that is viewed as regulatory taking also precludes our federal legislature from doing the same.

You'd NEVER know that from reading about spineless Dems in congress...but when Howard has to back off for the SAME FUCKING REASON it is an act of courage and fiscal prudence.

[Forkboy]

23. How many people pissed at Dean over this liked Clinton?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

27. You could also ask the opposite.

How many people who think there is nothing wrong here, dislike Clinton for NAFTA, telecomm deregulation, DMCA and such? Because they are the same type of corporatist activities.

TWL

[Forkboy]

29. Excellent point!

I think both are wrong myself.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

31. An even better question

How many people who will frame Howard Dean as a victim of the court's current views of what constitutes a regulatory taking will call the rest of the Dems in congress/ senate spineless when they too back off of unenforcable laws?

[joshcryer]

32. Um, why are dems in congress trying to pass unenforcable laws?

stupid...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. um...perhaps if you reread the whole thread you would find the answer

to your question....if one expects people to pass the intelligence litmus test ..they would do well to pass it themselves...the answer to your question is in the thread. I know...it takes a little more work than a one line barb to find it but I have confidence in you.

[Forkboy]

35. Ask the people who are doing so

[NashVegas]

30. And Now for the Backstory

This is about an early-mid 90s Vermont law (guess who was the governor who signed it?) that required rGBH users to ID their product:

http://www.keepmainefree.org/legalopinion.html

The Monsanto Suit Undermines First Amendment Rights

Under the law, milk producers have a right not to disclose whether they use growth hormones. For example, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in one such case, struck down, as a First Amendment violation, a Vermont Law requiring them to do so. It concluded that the law, under the standards applicable to a government regulation of commercial speech, could not stand.

The Second Circuit reasoned that since science had not proven that artificial growth hormones were dangerous, Vermont's law was not based on a "substantial government interest" of promoting health and safety. Instead, it was grounded on the less important basis of "consumer interest" and "the public's 'right to know.'" These interests, the Second Circuit held, were not enough to overcome the milk producers' free speech rights.

Case documentation HERE:

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/2nd/957819.html

In 1995, there was no Wild Oats, no Whole Foods, no real organized interests to help Vermont's fight the way we can help Oakhurst Dairy in Maine. In 1995, most people could only stand around and watch. The law that finally did pass in Vermont is nearly identical to the situation in Maine.