Posted on 02/08/2002 6:11:55 AM PST by Flipper4
AMONG the political chattering classes, there's a big buzz over a tiny activist organization called the Environmental Working Group.
Both liberals and conservatives, including the left-leaning New York Times editorial page and the right-leaning Wall Street Journal editorial page, have praised the group's farm subsidy database. The National Journal notes that the research vaulted the group "into the big leagues and, according to many observers, profoundly shaped the congressional debate over pending farm legislation." Hundreds of stories from the Washington Post on down have cited the group's findings over the past month.
Posted on the Internet, the Environmental Working Group database documents $71 billion in federal agricultural handouts from 1996-2000. Some of the money has gone to truly undeserving and ridiculous recipients, including prosperous companies, members of Congress, and part-time celebrity "farmers" such as professional basketball star Scottie Pippen, banking giant David Rockefeller, media mogul Ted Turner, and ABC news personality Sam Donaldson.
As a longtime critic of government pork, I agree that the group's database is a commendable public service. But conservative opponents of farm subsidies should perhaps be a little warier of jumping into bed with these radical greens. The Environmental Working Group is not just a humble "non-profit research outfit," as it is being described by the mainstream press. It is a savvy political animal funded by deep-pocketed foundations with a big-government agenda of their own. And it is engaged in aggressive eco-lobbying that belies its image as an innocuous public charity dedicated to "educating" citizens.
The Environmental Working Group's main claim to fame is its anti-chemical fear-mongering. It scares pregnant women about the non-dangers of chlorinated water and claims that even one bite of some fruit sprayed with pesticides could cause "dizziness, nausea and blurred vision." The group has also declared war on nail polish, hairspray, playgrounds, portable classrooms, and ABC News correspondent John Stossel.
The Environmental Working Group, a non-profit, 501(c)(3) charity, thrives on funding from an array of extremely liberal foundations. One of its leading benefactors was the W. Alton Jones Foundation -- which failed miserably a few years ago in its widely-publicized attempt to scare people out of using plastic sandwich bags by claiming they contained endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The group continues to tout the foundation's efforts and plug its alarmist junk science book, "Our Stolen Future," on the group's website.
In 2000, the Environmental Working Group received a $1.62 million grant over three years from The Joyce Foundation. On its website, the eco-advocacy foundation describes the grant's purpose in apolitical terms as supporting "a concentrated program of agriculture policy reform." But in the foundation's tax filings, the purpose of the Environmental Working Group grant is stated in more explicit detail: "For work on 2002 Farm Bill."
Under federal tax laws, public charities can engage in limited political activities - but the Environmental Working Group's zealous legislative lobbying raises questions about its status as a public charity. In a complaint to be filed this Friday with IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti, the Bellevue, Wash.-based Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise charges that the Environmental Working Group's "excessive lobbying and politicking" activities are "clearly illegal and should (at a minimum) result in revocation of the organization's tax-exempt status."
The complaint charges that the group hid its lobbying political expenditures, failed to register as a lobbyist in California, submitted false or misleading reports with the IRS, and acted as a political action organization in violation of 510(c)(3) rules. Ron Arnold, executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, warns: "The Environmental Working Group is not what it seems. Its goal is not protecting the environment. Its goal is power -- political power."
Make no mistake. The agenda of the Environmental Working Group and its financial backers is not simply to eliminate unfair public subsidies to agribusiness, but to cripple agribusiness altogether in favor of "organic" alternatives, increased regulation of manufacturers, and tax-supported environmental conservation programs.
Sometimes, the enemies of enemies don't always make the best of friends.
Flipper, you hit the nail on the head with your observation about their true agenda being Organic. So glad you were able to fret this out immediately.
When the WSJ 1st published their praise of the EWG's farm-subsidy data base, I tried to warn some of our FReepers that EWG wasn't on our side or benign and got personally flamed for my effort. Perhaps this will make some conservatives and libertarians look more closely at agendas.
The Farm Bill contains disturbing regulation for hobby dog breeders, as well. The radical Greens have teamed up with the radical Animal Rights groups with the intent of stopping animal breeding and use through scare tactics using loaded language such as *puppy mills* and *factory farms". Trouble is, they categorize all dog breeders as *puppy mills* and all farms that aren't organic as *factory farms*.
Money to those who are wealthy may be disturbing to some; poor conditions for animals certainly needs to be addressed and there is no doubt our farm policy needs an overhaul, but, we all need to become more educated to the nuances of these issues.
We are going to have a difficult time defeating these people but it will not be impossible. Thank you all for fighting to restore America.
What's supposedly wrong with puppy mills and factory farms?
If people buy the products produced by these companies then they must be doing something right.
By the way. I already knew that the 'environmental working group' was the enemy. They have 'environmental' in their name.
God Save America (Please)
That said, I'm glad Michelle wrote this - I watched some of the farm bill being debated yesterday - the Grassley amendment (thought of you Iowa Granny) and the dem's amendment. I didn't know about this group, but Michelle is right, he who is the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Thanks for the ping IG & B4Ranch.
I'm assuming that they turn out an inferior quality of puppy? They are a business. their goal is to make money. As long as the quality of their product is up to snuff (and they are not breaking any laws in producing that product) what could be wrong with them. Let me add that I don't support cruelty to animals but I do recognize animals as property. for this purpose healthy animals produce better quality pups so I'd assume that the mills were keeping thier breeding stock healthy. If not, educate me
GSA(P)
I'm no PETA person either, but I do believe puppy mills are a blight on the animal industry. I also believe that current laws regarding this, vary from area to area, so may not be effective tools for prosecuting from a cruelty to animals point of view.
Does that help?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.