You’re familiar with the classic situation of somebody who gets hoodwinked because they didn’t read the small print. Well, it looks like we’ve got some purveyers of very, very small print (so small that it’s not even there) here in Missouri. These are the folks who devised and are promoting the proposed Missouri Constitutional Amendment 1 (House Joint Resolution Nos. 11 & 7). This is the August 5 ballot language that you will see when you vote:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed?
The potential costs or savings to governmental entities are unknown, but likely limited unless the resolution leads to increased litigation costs and/or the loss of federal funding.
However, the Linn County Reader informs us that :
… although the official ballot language voters will see when they go to the polls next month gives no indication of this, the Fair Ballot Language that voters won’t see when they go to the polls on Aug. 5 states, “A ‘yes’ vote will amend the Missouri Constitution…subject to any power given to local government under Article VI of the Missouri Constitution.” Instead, the voters will see official ballot language that reveals nothing about the impact of Amendment One on the ability of local government to regulate CAFOs.
[…] If Constitutional Amendment One passes, you will be left without any ability to provide reasonable health and welfare safeguards for neighbors living in the rural areas of your county.”
If you doubt that all is not what it seems, note that Missouri GOP Senator Roy Blunt, a.k.a. Montsanto’s man in Washington, came out recently for the Amendment, dubbed yet another “Montsanto Protection Act” by one writer who is concerned about the proliferation of genetically modified foods and the dominance of the biotech sector in agriculture. Blunt straightaway set about trying to assuage fears that rather than protecting the “family farms” that supporters are piously evoking in their pro-Amendment 1 TV ads, the bill is intended to protect powerful corporate factory farms whose questionable agricultural practices might be vulnerable to regulation and so-called “nuisance” suits that threaten the bottom-line for the Blunt-friendly big-guys.
The fact that Blunt is the latest pro-Amendent 1 batter up speaks for itself, as does the likely source of the amendment:
A year ago, the North Dakota [right to farm] measure was a topic for discussion as legislative agriculture chairmen from across the U.S. gathered for a conference in Vancouver, Canada. The event by the State Agriculture and Rural Leaders Association was financed by dozens of agriculture businesses, including Archer Daniels Midland Co., Cargill, DuPont Pioneer, Deere & Co. and Tyson Foods. Among those present was Missouri Rep. Bill Reiboldt, a farmer who sponsored the right-to-farm amendment referred to this year’s ballot by the Republican-led state Legislature.
If you’re interested in why one would oppose what seems on the surface to be an almost meaningless reiteration of support for farming, this video of former Missouri Lt. Governor Joe Maxwell speaking against the bill spells out the ways that Amendment 1 not only threatens the family farm, but the safety of our food supply:
Among other points Maxwell makes, he points suggests that Amendment 1 could result in weakening the protections for the family farmer that were spelled out in the 1975 Family Farm Act. As he noted elsewhere:
This amendment is about ensuring the largest multi-national corporation constitutional rights here in Missouri so they can do whatever THEY want to us neighbors out in the country. […]. What other industry has constitutional protections to do whatever they want and strips the local voice, either at the local level, the county level or even at the statehouse from being able to put in safeguards for neighbors out in the country?
Not only will supporters of this stealth legislation not answer these questions, they would prefer that you not even realize that anyone is asking.
dkxkee said:
I haven’t seen any commercials one way or the other on this amendment. So many of the amendments on the ballot sound so innocent and wholesome, but they’re all designed to further the corporate agenda, without anyone realizing that’s what they’re approving. I’ll bet every one of them passes.
chriskelly said:
Willy, I don’t see how you can reach any of t
your conclusions from a plain reading of the language. The actual words do not support the statements being made by either the proponents or the opponents. Neither side has made any case that the words of the proposal result in any change in law.
I strongly oppose it both because it is so vague and because, if I am wrong, the effect can only be negative. There is no question that it was written by and for the corporate farm lobby and also no question that they intend it to free corporate Ag from regulation but I don’t think they got the job done.
Chris Kelly
Michael Bersin said:
If the language is so vague as to make it meaningless, why are all the interests spending so much money on it?
chriskelly said:
Michael, That is a fair point but does not relieve opponents from the responsibility of making intellectually defensible arguments. As I said, I am against it. I just cannot find the logical connection between the actual language and the arguments on either side.
CK
WillyK said:
Via Ballotpedia, the Congressional Research Service Definition of general right-to-farm bills:
Couple that with extremely broad and vague language and it seems to me that you have a recipe for corporate farmers – the folks with the money to litigate – to run rampant.
There’s a reason that the sponsors of this amendment are forking over all the money to get it enacted and it isn’t because it doesn’t get the job done. It’s no stretch at all to read the bill as what the Kansas City Star a “blanket” waiver to continue almost any and all farming practices in perpetuity without challenge (a fair reading of what you agree is the broad scope of the bill’s language). I would suggest that you read the KC editorial (link above) which I find very persuasive. The editorialist notes:
I also think that a persuasive case has been made that the reference to Article VI is a tricky. The Linn County paper I cite above notes that former Missouri Senator Wes Shoemyer and current Scotland County Commissioner Chipper Harris have been making just that point. A fuller quote than the one I include above cites a letter written by the two to Linn County Linn County Commissioners:
I find these arguments very persuasive and more all more than a bit disturbing – I don’t like it when somebody’s trying to bamboozle me and I think this amendment does just that.
N.B. I noted that Ballotpedia lists you as a co-sponsor of the bill which I assume is an error? I haven’t checked official sources since you have indicated that you didn’t support the bill, but I assume that you might want to have this corrected?