Page 15 - the NOISE July 2015

STORY BY KENDALL PERKINSON
GRAPHIC BY OMAR VICTOR
currently playing out. In the recent legislative session, the state passed a single bill (HB 722) that did exactly two things: preempt cities from banning plastic bags, and preempt cities from establishing their own minimum wage.
Preemption bills are being pushed through state legislatures around the country, both openly and in secret, through nationally organized groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Essentially, ALEC is a conservative “bill mill” that puts together lobbyists of national and multinational corporations with lawmakers from across the country. Together, they write what is called “model legislation” — cookie cutter bills that are crafted with the input of special interest groups, then shipped out to their (almost entirely Republican) legislative members in states all over the nation for introduction to their respective legislatures.
Arizona has more direct ties between its legislators and ALEC than any other state in the nation. By 2013, every single member of the Republican leadership, in both houses of the state government, was a current or recent member of ALEC. The organization offers “scholarships,” which allow corporations to pay for lawmakers to spend time with lobbyists at conferences held at luxurious resorts. (According to the Center for Media and Democracy, House Majority Whip Debbie Lesko is one of many Arizona legislators that have received such scholarships.)
Relevant ALEC model bills include examples like the “Living Wage Mandate Preemption Act.” In 2014, ALEC’s online op-ed forum, American Legislator, published an article titled, “Sights are Set on Plastic Bags,” which lamented the growing trend of bans on plastic bags in municipalities, signaling to its members the importance of addressing the issue.
Around the same time, California became the first state to ban plastic bags entirely. The law was supposed to go into effect this month, but has since been put on hold by a petition signed by over 800,000 people. The signatures were gathered by an organization that spent over three million dollars during the signature drive alone. Its money largely came from a company called Novolex, based on the opposite side of the country in South Carolina. They have direct financial ties to ALEC.
ALEC’s 2011 Arizona Legislator of the Year was Senator Nancy Barto. Senator Barto is also the sponsor of SB 1241, the ban on plastic bag regulation that Bisbee is now flouting.
With this many coincidences piling up, it is hard for some advocates for municipal control to see anything but the hand of national financial interests directing their course. From their perspective, the hypocrisy of state legislators seems compounded.
Is it logically consistent for legislators who want state sovereignty and freedom from federal law to import laws written by national interest groups? Without a clear legal path forward for municipal control, cities seem to have no choice but to engage in the wide array of law suits and open rebellion we are currently witnessing.
NEW NEIGHBORS
As an increasing amount of attention is being paid to these conflicts, the most influential conservative advocacy group in the nation is expanding into Flagstaff. Originally funded by the Koch brothers, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) has been called the guiding force of the Tea Party movement, focusing on major issues like health care, global warming, collective bargaining and yes, minimum wage.
Upon hearing this news, supporters of the Ban the Bag and Living Wage campaigns have begun to wonder whether the attention of AFP is due to the dirt they’re kicking up. Tom
Jenney, state director of the Arizona chapter of AFP, says the opposite is closer to the truth.
Jenney cites an AFP “scorecard” that rates every municipal legislator throughout the state according to AFP values. All members of Flagstaff’s city council show a “friend of the taxpayer” rating, a positive review on the AFP scale.
“We are encouraged by the good performance of the Flagstaff City Council on our Local Government Scorecards for the past two fiscal years. But we are interested in municipal tax, budget and regulatory issues in Flagstaff. ”
While AFP’s primary concern in the region is more about “Big economic policy issues, mainly federal and state issues,” Jenney also admits that the topic of state vs. local is interesting to him personally. He suspects that the lofty rhetoric of city-control campaigns are more about
“situational ethics” than any principle of constitutional rights.
“I’ve never met anyone who has made a principled case for local control or local option in all
matters. If people like a city policy that would be preempted by state legislation, they suddenly get on a high horse about local control. But those same people often support having the state government collect shared revenue for cities, and they support having the state run the Medicaid program, and they support state equalization of funds for K-12 education. My guess is that if the tables were turned, and they got a majority in the state legislature, they would soon be passing bills to cram their favorite policies down the throats of political subdivisions.”
For now, the arguments surrounding local control are being considered piecemeal, through individual lawsuits and contentious city council meetings. Until moves are made to establish clear boundaries of power between the state and municipalities — with mutually accepted legal definitions — it is hard to see how things will change any time soon.
On June 4, the State Attorney General’s office said it would try to release a statement regarding Bisbee by deadline, but did not do so. Senator Nancy Barto did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
| Kendall Perkinson has a few cues up his sleeve.
news@thenoise.us
MONSANTO SUED FOR FRAUD
STORY BY CINDY COLE
GRAPHIC BY LEON JAMES
When it comes to mainstream media, sometimes it seems that nary a word gets printed or said that might shed a negative light on certain big corporations. Companies like Monsanto, the chemical and biotech agriculture giant, have come under a great deal of
popular criticism in recent years, even if nobody hears about it on the nightly news; even when there’s a landmark lawsuit against the agrotech goliath.
On April 20, Las Vegas attorney T. Matthew Phillips filed a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles County District Court accusing Monsanto of “false and misleading advertising.” The plaintiffs are three California consumers, Elvis Mirzaie, Edison Mirzaie and Romi Mirzaie who filed on behalf of “themselves and all others similarly situated.” On June 9, the suit was removed to federal court.
The target of the lawsuit is Monsanto’s signature broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup which uses the chemical glyphosate to kill weeds. The plaintiffs’ complaint charges that “Roundup, the world’s most popular weed-killer, works by targeting an enzyme supposedly found only in plants, but not in people. And this is blatantly false. Contrary to Defendant’s claim, Roundup targets an enzyme found in both plants and people. Therefore, where Defendant advertises that Roundup targets an enzyme ‘not found in people,’ such a claim is objectively false and inherently misleading.” Monsanto makes this safety claim right on
product labels.
The enzyme targeted by Roundup is EPSP synthase. In the lawsuit, Mr. Phillips claims that
this enzyme is also found in the gut bacteria of humans and animals. The World Health Organization (WHO) announced in March that glyphosate is a“probably human carcinogen.” The class action suit charges, ”Because it kills-off our gut bacteria, glyphosate is linked to stomach and bowel problems, indigestion, ulcers, colitis, gluten intolerance, sleeplessness, lethargy, depression, Crohn’s Disease, Celiac Disease, allergies, obesity, diabetes, infertility, liver disease, renal failure, Autism, Alzheimer’s, [and] endocrine disruption.”
Concerns about the cancer causing potential of glyphosate were originally raised thirty years ago by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) committee. But in 1991, six years later, the agency reversed its position. It cited a re-evaluation of a study that had been conducted on mice as the reason for the reversal. That same study was considered by the WHO agency that made the cancer declaration this year. Through reviews conducted as recently as last year, the EPA has maintained its position that glyphosate has “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans.”
But the focus of the lawsuit is false and misleading advertising. If EPSP synthase is indeed found in the bacteria that live in the human gut then, claims the suit, Monsanto has been lying to everyone who has bought Roundup. “The fact that all Roundup labels bear the same false and misleading slogan, demonstrates Defendant’s intent to misinform the public. Plaintiffs detrimentally relied on Defendant’s false claims.”
Whether this lawsuit will see the light of a courtroom remains to be seen. Mr. Phillips is not exactly a world-renowned attorney and Monsanto supporters have taken to criticizing his character to try and keep his claims on the fringe. But, a bigger lawsuit may be in the works. LeadingpersonalinjurylawfirmTheSchmidtFirm,PLLCisactivelyseeking“Roundup induced injury cases in all 50 states” based on the recent WHO designation of glyphosate as a carcinogen. This new battle on the front of the GMO wars may be just beginning.
newsbrief | news@thenoise.us thenoise.us • tthe NOISE arts & news • JUNLYE 2015 • 157