The following information is re-posted from the Michigan Campaign Finance Network.
First quarter television advertising in Michigan related to the 2012 presidential election stands at $7.6 million. SuperPACs and nonprofit “issue” advertisers have out spent the candidates’ campaign committees by 50 percent.
The spending data was compiled by the nonprofit Michigan Campaign Finance Network from the public files of Michigan television broadcasters and cable systems.
Republican candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul spent $2,547,075 for television advertisements in advance of the February 28th Michigan presidential primary, while SuperPACs supporting Romney and Santorum spent $3,161,589 for television.
President Barack Obama’s campaign committee spent $528,887 for television while the SuperPAC supporting his candidacy spent $235,640.
Two nonprofit social welfare organizations have spent an additional $1,114,200 for candidate-focused “issue” advertisements criticizing the Obama administration for its policies and personnel.
Romney and his supporting SuperPAC, Restore Our Future, spent $3,459,205 in advance of the Michigan primary election: $1,493,036 by the candidate committee and $1,966,169 by Restore Our Future.
Santorum spent $997,834 and his allies at Red White and Blue Fund spent $1,195,420.
Ron Paul spent $56,205 for television, all on cable.
The Obama campaign did its initial advertising in January in response to a $670,000 ad blitz by Americans for Prosperity that criticized the failed government loan to Solyndra. The Obama campaign and Priorities USA Action bought additional advertising in the week prior to the primary, mainly criticizing Mitt Romney’s opposition to the federal bailout of the auto industry in 2008-2009.
American Future Fund began a two-week $414,000 ad blitz the day after Election Day, criticizing Wall Street types in the Obama administration.
As nonprofit corporations, Americans for Prosperity and American Future Fund will not disclose their donors.
Contributors to the SuperPACs and candidate committees are being disclosed in monthly reports to the Federal Election Commission, although nonprofit corporations that contribute to the SuperPACs do not disclose their donors.
“The Michigan primary was a perfect illustration of the fact that political campaigns are now mainly the domain of the very wealthy,” said Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network. “I don’t know how you can reconcile this with any conventional notion of democracy.”
Other State Political Advertising News
Former congressman Pete Hoekstra has spent $137,040, so far, for television advertising in his campaign for the Republican senatorial nomination. Hoekstra’s spending paid for his widely reviled Super Bowl ad and cable advertising.
Clark Durant, Hoekstra’s opponent for the Republican senatorial nomination, has spent $62,303, all for cable advertising.
A third candidate for the Republican senatorial nomination, Randy Hekman, spent $1,000 for TV.
The Detroit International Bridge Company has spent $755,000 for television advertising so far this year in its ongoing campaign against a public-private partnership to build a new international bridge between Detroit and Windsor. DIBC spent $6 million for television advertising opposing the bridge project in 2011.
Building on the national effort to target Rush Limbaugh for his appalling remarks against Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, NOW Grand Rapids and GRIID are calling for a protest this Wednesday, March 7 at noon, outside the headquarters of Clear Channel in Grand Rapids.
While Rush Limbaugh would like us to believe he is truly contrite with his recent “apology,” we should not be fooled by his statement, a statement that is motivated by economic concerns since the national backlash has impacted Limbaugh’s radio program revenues with some advertisers pulling their funding.
In addition, Limbaugh has a long history of making demeaning and derogatory statements towards women and feminism, immigrants, the LGBT community and communities of color.
NOW Grand Rapids and GRIID invite you to participate in a protest at the Clear Channel/WOOD Radio office at 77 Monroe Center in downtown Grand Rapids. People are invited to gather outside the building at noon this Wednesday, March 7. People are also asked to bring letters asking for the removal of Limbaugh from WOOD Radio’s weekly lineup. People will deliver letters to the station manager and check the public file of the radio station, which features not only 15 hours every week of Rush Limbaugh, but Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and Michael Savage.
In addition to bringing letters, people are encouraged to bring signs for those who want to remain outside and have a visible presence in protest against Limbaugh’s show on WOOD Radio.
For those who can’t make it Wednesday, continue to send e-mails to WOOD Radio station manager Tim Feagan at TimFeagan@clearchannel.com.
People are also working on collecting information on local advertisers doing business with WOOD Radio in order to target them in the campaign. Check back on this blog for updates or go to http://www.facebook.com/nowgr.
Bloom Collective to host screening of The BroCode film: how men are socialized to be sexist 3/10
On Saturday, March 10, the Bloom Collective will host a screening of the new documentary The BroCode: How Contemporary Culture Creates Sexist Men.
Considering the recent women-hating comments from Rush Limbaugh, the film will explore how hateful and objectifying attitudes about women in this culture are the norm.
“Filmmaker Thomas Keith takes aim at the forces in male culture that condition boys and men to dehumanize and disrespect women. Keith breaks down a range of contemporary media forms that are saturated with sexism — movies and music videos that glamorize misogyny; pornography that trades in the brutalization of women; comedy routines that make fun of sexual assault; and a slate of men’s magazines and cable TV shows whose sole purpose is to revel in reactionary myths of American manhood.
The message he uncovers in virtually every corner of our entertainment culture is clear: It’s not only normal — but cool — for boys and men to control and humiliate women. By showing how there’s nothing natural or inevitable about this mentality, and by setting it against the terrible reality of men’s violence against women in the real world, The Bro Code challenges young people to step up and fight back against the idea that being a real man means disrespecting women.”
This film screening is being co-hosted by the NOW Grand Rapids. A discussion will follow the film and the Bloom Collective will have numerous resources available for those wanting to explore this issue. A $3 donation is suggested.
The BroCode: How Contemporary Culture Creates Sexist Men
Saturday, March 10
2:00PM
671 Davis NW, Grand Rapids
Lower level of the Steepletown Center
Earlier today several people came to the Rainbow Grill in Grandville to express their outrage on the Representative’s stance on issues dealing with LGBT rights, immigration, workers rights and the disability community.
A sign is posted in the restaurant from Agema’s office notifying people of his monthly visit to the Rainbow Grill. The sign states, “Please come and share your thoughts and ideas about your community with Rep. Agema. He is looking forward to hearing your input.”
Like last month, people sat down with Agema during his once-a-month-only opportunity that citizens have to engage him on critical issues. People went in pairs to sit down and talk to issues that they were passionate about, such as disability rights, immigration, domestic partner benefits and worker rights.
It was clear that he did not really want to listen to this group of people again, since he knew they were going to challenge him on his stance on critical issues. At one point, he even suggested to the restaurant manager that he move to the back room and meet with everyone waiting to talk to him so he, “didn’t have to listen to the same arguments over and over again.”
This writer told Agema about several immigrants he has been in relationship with, one who came to the US as a torture survivor and no documentation. This writer stressed that the reasons for people coming to the US are varied and immigration is a complex issue. “If we want to honestly address immigration we need to look at root causes, particularly economic policies such as NAFTA. Your position on immigration is punitive and hate filled. What we need is an immigration policy that is compassionate and humanizes the people who have come here seeking a better life.”
Agema kept stating that it was all about following the law and that security and job loss were his main concerns. Agema stated that Americans are losing out on finding jobs because of “illegals,” even though he could not product any credible sources to back him up. On the issue of security, he claimed that members of the Muslim Brotherhood were entering the US at the northern border with the intent of doing harm to this country. Again, he could provide no hard evidence other than looking at the website of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). FAIR is a White Supremacist group that the Southern Poverty Law Center has named as a hate group.
Other people challenged Agema on LGBT rights, such as domestic partner benefits and marriage equality. Again Agema wanted to just argue what the current Michigan Constitution says about marriage and told one person that if you want to get married as a gay couple “you will have to live outside the law.”
While some people sat and talked to Agema in the restaurant, others gathered outside to hold signs articulating the harm that Agema’s policies do.
After the Michigan Representative ended his 90-minute constituent meeting, he left the building and took a picture of the protestors. The protestors then followed him to his car chanting “Shame” and “Shame on you, Rep. Agema,” which you can see in the video here.
What about a campaign against WOOD radio? They broadcast Rush Limbaugh 15 hours every week in West Michigan – Updated
There has been a great deal of online commentary in the past few days related to syndicated radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s misogynist comments directed at Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke.
Limbaugh’s comment about Fluke being a “slut” and a “prostitute” are just the most recent example of his long line of hate speech directed mostly at women, communities of color, immigrants and the LGBT community.
The national media watchdog group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, has been documenting Limbaugh’s hate speech for years, with one of their reporters even producing a book entitled The Way Things Aren’t. A more recent book that documents Limbaugh and other talk radio hate speech offenders is Rory O’Connor’s book, Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio: America’s Ten Worst Hate Talkers and the Progressive Alternatives.
One of the responses from the progressive community so far was a petition to get Republicans to denounce Limbaugh’s comments, which has resulted in a few mild responses.
Others have been suggesting we target the companies that Rush Limbaugh sponsors, companies that he often promotes directly as a pitchman. There is an existing list we have seen on Facebook, where people are encouraged to contact these companies directly in order to hit the talk show host financially. This effort seems to have more teeth, but there is not much discussion so far about going after the radio stations that carry Limbaugh’s show.
In Grand Rapids, Clear Channel’s WOOD radio (106.9FM & 1300AM) airs Limbaugh Monday through Friday from noon til 3pm. What if we organized a campaign to target WOOD Radio and what could that look like?
First, people could contact the General Manager of WOOD Radio Tim Feagan timfeagan@clearchannel.com to demand that Limbaugh be taken off the air. This will not likely result in a victory, but it will at least let the local Clear Channel office know that people are pissed off.
Second, we could develop a campaign to target the companies that advertise on WOOD Radio by engaging in a boycott campaign until they pull their advertising dollars from the station. This will most likely be a more effective tactic since money is the only language that for-profit media entities understand.
Third, people could organize a protest of WOOD Radio right outside of their headquarters located at 77 Monroe Center Ave in downtown Grand Rapids. Such an activity would be a way to get people together who are pissed off at Limbaugh and potentially recruit them to get involved in other aspects of a campaign.
Fourth, WOOD Radio and all other Michigan radio stations must renew their FCC license this year in order to legally operate on the public airwaves. During this license renewal process the public can submit letters or e-mails of complaint to the station about Limbaugh. The FCC will take into consideration these letters when determining whether or not to renew the station’s license. Whenever someone submits a letter or e-mail, a copy must go into their public file and failure to do so can result in their radio license being terminated.
Fifth, a campaign to challenge the FCC license of WOOD Radio could also include a legal campaign with the assistance of the ACLU (something they have done in the past to challenge radio/TV license renewal). Such an effort could argue that Limbaugh’s comments are not just his opinion, but a form of hate speech that has serious social consequences.
If anyone is interested in organizing any part of such a campaign right here in Grand Rapids, send me an e-mail at jsmith@griid.org.
Updated at 4:48PM on March 2nd
Several readers have shared with this blog that they have contacted WOOD Radio. Here is the response they are getting from station manager Tim Feagan. “Wood Radio is committed to providing its listeners with access to a broad range of opinion and commentary without condoning or agreeing with the opinions, comments or attempts at humor expressed by on-air talent. The contraception debate is one that sparks strong emotion and opinions on both sides of the issue. We respect the right of Mr. Limbaugh, as well as the rights of those who disagree with him, to express those opinions.”
Not only does this appear to be a canned response, it equates Limbaugh’s hate speech as opinion. The response also demonstrates that nothing short of a major campaign against the station, one that will have monetary consequences, is necessary to make change.
Obama’s Corporate Tax Scam
This article by Glen Ford is re-posted from Black Agenda Report.
Barack Obama can’t hide the fact that he is the One Percent’s president. Most of what he is dangling for the rest of us this election year turns out to be smoke and mirrors, yet he offers corporations a huge tax rate reduction – a gift that will keep on giving long after Obama is gone. It is typical Obama behavior. He sprinkles his speeches with phrases that mimic Occupy Wall Street, then turns around and promises the One Percent a bigger prize than George Bush could deliver.
Obama wants to lower the nominal corporate tax rate form 35 percent to 28 percent. For manufacturing industries, the rate would fall to 25 percent. Big Business has long complained – dishonestly – that American companies are put at a disadvantage by the highest tax rates in the world. But that’s only true on paper. When it comes to actually paying taxes, European corporations give a bigger share of money back to their governments and societies than U.S. companies do. The fact that the U.S. posts a higher official tax rate, while in the real world U.S. corporations pay lower taxes than Europe, is proof of the absolute corruption of the U.S. tax system, where corporations write the tax code and all of its loopholes.
Obama claims he will extract even more tax money from the corporations by doing away with loopholes. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that. The administration has no plans to revise the U.S. tax code any time soon.
Private studies show the average company pays an effective tax rate of substantially less than 20 percent, and a government study showed that more than half of American companies paid no taxes at all in at least one out of seven years.
“Corporations only account for ten percent of the money the U.S. government takes in per year.”
Back in the Fifties, corporate taxes made up 28 percent of government revenues. In the Sixties, the corporate share was 21 percent of each dollar of taxes. Today, corporations only account for ten percent of the money the U.S. government takes in per year. In other words, they have never had it so good.
Hardly anyone outside the administration believes that the Obama plan will wind up collecting more corporate taxes than it gives away. The grassroots National People’s Action projects that permanently lowering the tax rate will cost the federal government $700 billion over the next ten years. The loss in revenue will increase pressures to cut programs that serve people – which is another way of saying that the 99 percent will pay for the tax reductions of the corporate 1%.
Even in the highly unlikely event that the Obama plan winds up collecting more tax money through closing down corporate loopholes, the president has already stated that the additional revenue will go right back into corporate pockets, in the form of new or existing tax breaks for favored industries, in manufacturing, clean energy, and research. This, of course, would be the biggest loophole of all. Under a Democratic or Republican administration, every corporation would claim to be a manufacturer, or to be doing research. And, President Obama can’t say the word “coal” without also saying “clean” – so that dirty industry would get tax breaks, too.
Obama’s whole plan is a tax giveaway, not a tax reform. And, that’s the point. It’s a billion dollar election year. Corporations need to know what kind of government their campaign contributions are buying.
New Media We Recommend
Below is a list of new materials that we have read/watched in recent weeks. The comments are not a “review” of the material, instead sort of an endorsement of ideas and investigations that can provide solid analysis and even inspiration in the struggle for change. All these items are available at The Bloom Collective, so check them out and stimulate your mind.
Redefining Black Power: Reflections on the State of Black America, edited by Joanne Griffith – This book is a collection of radio interviews conducted by Joanne Griffith for Pacifica Radio. After the 2008 Presidential victory of Barack Obama, Griffith came up with the idea to discuss the meaning of Black Power now that a Black man occupied the White House. Those interviewed include Ramona Africa, Vincent Harding, Michelle Alexander, Dr. Julianne Malveaux, Linn Washington Jr and Van Jones. As one could imagine the interviews are as varied as the persons being interviewed. However, there is a virtual consensus by the notable Black figures in America that the election of Barack Obama has not had much of a positive impact on Black Americans. As Michelle Alexander says in her interview, “the idea that we are in a post-racial period in the United States is just pure fiction.” An excellent collection of reflections on the state of Black America. Highly recommended.
Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor, by Rob Nixon – Many Americans are quick to response to the kind of violence brought about by war or repression from brutal dictators. It just makes sense to them. However, when millions more die every year from disease, chemical contamination, hunger and ecological catastrophe, people are often less willing to take action. Rob Nixon has done an amazing job of defining this kind of institutionalized violence in his new book Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Essentially, the author is arguing that this kind of violence, a protracted violence that sometimes lasts years, is the major culprit in how human rights violations around the world. Nixon also points out that it is the least discussed within the US, but outside of the US there is a growing body of fiction and non-fiction literature that addresses this theme. The bulk of the book is analyzing this slow violence in places like India and Nigeria through the lens of writers like Arundhati Roy. An excellent book, although difficult at time if one hasn’t read the literature Nixon cites, but a valuable contribution to an analysis of institutionalized violence.
Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit: Guatemala Under General Efrain Rios Montt 1982 – 1983, by Virginia Garrard-Burnett – Terror in the Land of the Holy Spirit is a fascinating investigation into one of the most intriguing political figures in recent Latin American history – Rios Montt. Montt came to power through a military coup in 1982 and presided over some of the most violent months of Guatemala’s 36-year war. The General was unique, not because of the support from the US government (which is did provide), but because Montt was the first overtly evangelical Latin American leader that used his faith to justify brutal repression. The author reveal new information about the Guatemala dictator after gaining access to archival material and provides us with an interesting examination into the man that Ronald Reagan referred to as “a man of great personal integrity and commitment.” While this book might only appeal to those who have an interest in Guatemala, it also is an excellent case study for those interested in the role of religion and power, along with US foreign policy.
Neshoba: The Price of Freedom (DVD) – In the summer of 1964, 3 young men – two White and one Black – were murdered in Mississippi while working on civil rights and voter registration. This documentary not only sheds light on this brutal murder but the legal case that was re-opened 40 years after the murders. The film relies on archival footage, newsreels and interviews with family members and people of Philadelphia, Mississippi. Neshoba is a powerful documentary that not only reveals a piece of racist US history, it demonstrates that institutional racism still exists today. Highly recommended.
Earlier today, MLive posted an article from the Center for Michigan’s online blog the Bridge centered around the taxpayer cost for prisons in Michigan.
It is worth noting that MLive does not often utilize “independent” news sources, but then again the Bridge is not really independent, despite their claim of practicing “public interest journalism.” If one looks at who sits on their board (mostly people with power) and who gives them money (Amway, Meijer, DTE, etc), it would be hard to consider them an independent news source that will challenge economic or political power.
Understanding the framework in which the Bridge operates it is not surprising the direction they took in their article on prison funding in Michigan. The article begins by stating that Michigan legislators are considering sending as many as 43,000 current inmates to a private prison in order to reduce the State’s prison budget.
The article refers to, “Bills in the House (Bills 5174 and 5177) and Senate (Bills 877-878) would allow the Department of Corrections to send hundreds of adult inmates to a currently shuttered private prison in Baldwin. The Baldwin facility is owned by Florida-based GEO Group, formerly known as Wackenhut Corrections Corp. It has been shuttered for the past six years.”
The story does cite two Michigan legislators, Rep. Joe Haveman (R) and Sen. John Proos (R), both of whom support increased prison privatization. Rep. Haveman is quoted as saying that private prisons are a good choice because it creates, “more competition,” an attitude which sees the locking up of human beings as an opportunity to make money.
The article does not provide much background information on the Florida-based GEO Group, formerly known as Wackenhut Corrections Corp. Wackenhut Corrections Corp. was one of the first private prison entities in the US and has a long history of abuse and mismanagement. The GEO Group, Inc. operates 65 prison facilities in the US and 7 outside of the country.
The GEO Group, Inc. is a publicly traded company and since they operate to make money they are always working towards ways to maximize profits for their investors. For instance, in 2011, the GEO Group spent $220,000 lobbying members of Congress on issues of Homeland Security and Immigration. Since 2004, the private prison company has given over $1 million to candidates running for office,
The Bridge story that appeared on MLive does acknowledge some reports on prisoner abuse at GEO Group facilities, citing a Sentencing Project report. The article also notes that there is a growing group of private/public sector partners that are advocating for ways to reduce the costs to the State for prisons, but acknowledges that these costs are partly because of paying prison employee pensions.
Not surprising, a coalition of entities from the public and the private sector have their own coalition, The Michigan Corrections Reform Coalition, which the Center for Michigan is part of. This coalition appears to be designed to redirect public money into the private sector, under the guise that they want to save taxpayers money. Two West Michigan representatives of The Michigan Corrections Reform Coalition are Jeanne Engelhart (former President of the GR Chamber of Commerce) and Mike Jandernoa (former CEO of Perrigo).
The Bridge article that appeared on MLive did mention the Citizens Alliance on Prisons & Public Spending, which advocates for spending more money on prevention that incarceration. However, alternatives to incarceration are an issue that is not adequately dealt with, nor the Bridge article even address the growing prison abolitionist movement in the US.
In the final analysis the Bridge article fails to investigate beyond the superficial, does not make the reveal much information on the power behind this push for private prisons and more importantly, the writer accepts the private or public prison system without considering the possibility of prison abolition.
The Obama administration is asking for $3.1 billion in military aid for Israel in the 2013 foreign appropriations bill. This continues to make Israel the largest annual recipient of US military aid over the past 3 decades.
The military aid that the US provides Israel is used for a variety of purposes and weapons systems, fighter planes, tanks and military intelligence equipment. The $31 billion is also used to provide the Israeli military with tear gas.
The End the Occupation Campaign is calling on people of this country to pressure the US Congress to stop providing tear gas because of how it is being used. Here is a statement from the End the Occupation Campaign with some action ideas:
Three years ago this week, a colleague and I were shot at and nearly killed by the Israeli military with a U.S.-supplied high-velocity tear-gas projectile. Had the canister been fired a few inches to the left, it would have done to one of us what it has done to so many Palestinian, Egyptian, Bahraini and U.S. civilians: cause severe, often permanently debilitating injuries, or death.
Two weeks after we were targeted in the West Bank village of Ni’lin, Tristan Anderson, a 37-year-old from California was shot with a high-velocity tear gas canister while filming a Palestinian protest against Israel’s land expropriation. Tristan spent the next fifteen months in the hospital before being transferred back to the United States. He remains paralyzed on the left side and blind in his right eye.
In December of last year, Mustafa Tamimi, a 28-year-old from the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh was shot and killed by the Israeli military at close range with a U.S.-supplied tear gas canister.
Two siblings from the West Bank village of Bil’in, Jawaher and her brother Bassem, were both killed by tear gas during demonstrations against land theft and resource confiscation by Israel’s illegal settlement complex.
Israel has shown a clear pattern of misusing U.S.-supplied tear gas against Palestinian and U.S. civilians, so far, with total impunity. As U.S. taxpayers, we have the means and moral obligation to demand accountability, especially when these weapons are being used against people demonstrating for freedom, equality, and basic human rights.
In the recently passed 2012 budget, the Secretary of State is required to certify within 90 days that Middle Eastern countries are not misusing U.S. supplied tear gas against civilians and nonviolent demonstrators.
With your help, we can ensure that Members of Congress and the Secretary of State hold Israel accountable for the lethal and ongoing misuse of U.S.-supplied high-velocity tear-gas projectiles.
Send this letter to your Members of Congress to ensure that Israel, along with Egypt and Bahrain, are held accountable for grave violations of U.S. laws and fundamental human rights committed with these deadly high-velocity tear gas canisters.
Before you send the letter, please consider also quickly calling your Members of Congress (their numbers will be displayed right next to the letter) to let them know how important this issue is to you with the suggested talking points provided here.
What we can learn from the 2012 Farm Bill hearings Sen. Stabenow has already hosted in Washington
Earlier today, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow hosted the second of four scheduled hearings on the 2012 Farm Bill in Washington, DC.
The hearing held this morning focused on energy conservation and the 2012 Farm Bill. According the Senator’s own Press Release, “Senator Stabenow worked with other agriculture leaders to develop a plan to consolidate 23 conservation programs into just 13, while maintaining the same conservation tools currently available-and in some cases strengthening them.”
Stabenow is praised in the press release for bringing together a bipartisan group of leaders and farmers from across the nation to create a solution that will both save money and create more agricultural jobs. However, the press release doesn’t say who was involved in the process, how jobs will be created and what those jobs will actually look like.
Who Gets Invited
Those invited to speak at the hearing were made up of primarily government entities, farmers and spokespersons for large national conservation foundations such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). The NFWF was created in 1984 and has always been stacked with government and corporate people on its board of directors. More importantly, the NFWF has a list of corporate partners, which would make any serious conservationist sick to their stomach. Companies like Walmart, Altria, Budweiser, FedEx and a litany of oil companies such as BP, Conoco/Philips, Chevron and Exxon/Mobil.
The “farmers” that were invited were representatives from people who own large farms that use primarily heavy equipment and farms that grow mostly mono-crops. Some of those farmers that spoke were from Mattson Farms and the Darrel Mosel Farms. Both of these farmers are beneficiaries of significant farm subsidies through previous farm bill legislation. You can search farms subsidies across the country or county by county by going to the Environmental Working Group’s farm subsidy database site and those in Michigan can click here.
The first of the four Farm Bill hearings being held in Washington took place on February 15. The focus of this hearing was Energy and Economic Growth for Rural America.
Listening to the comments it was interesting that much of the discussion and much of what Senator Stabenow spoke about in her comments was the emphasis on agricultural energy production such as bio-fuels and the expansion of the use of agriculture-based products such as soybean based materials that will be used to make seats for cars.
Besides all the ecologically unsound ramifications of bio-fuels, the continued push for such a direction of using farmland for fuel, this decision will have devastating consequences on global food prices and will contribute to widespread hunger.
Those who addressed Senator Stabenow and the Agricultural Committee were exclusively representatives from agribusiness, government and private energy corporations.
For instance, Virent is a corporation that refers to itself as a crude oil replacing company. It is true that the company is developing chemical and plant-based energy resources, but the company is really operating with a green capitalism framework. Virent’s corporate partners include on of the largest members of the global food cartel – Cargill. In addition to Cargill, Virent has a close partnership with companies such as Shell, Coca Cola and Honda, which should be a clear indicator of who will be the primary beneficiaries of the 2012 Farm Bill.
This writer listened to the majority of the commentary from business and government during the February 15 Farm Bill hearing. The commentary from virtually every person who addressed the committee clearly was speaking on behalf of corporate America, despite the occasional rhetoric on sustainability. You can listen to the entire hearing, which is streamed on the Agriculture Committee’s web page.
After looking at who was invited and what was addressed at the first two 2012 Farm Bill hearings, there doesn’t seem to be any indication that the Agricultural Committee is hearing local, small farming and food voices or that those voices don’t really matter because they do not have any representation during these government hearings.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 