Although the news about $30 million underwriting its campaign was originally published - and not corrected - in Financial Times, US Farmers and Ranchers Alliance has responded to our post about this to refute the information.
According to Hugh Whaley of USFRA, the group does not have a $30 million budget. About one-third of that is much more accurate. Between 70% and 75% of those funds come from U.S. farmers and ranchers who are engaged in all forms of agricultural production...organic, natural, conventional. USFRA is not opposed to any form of agricultural production methods.
I'm a fair-minded person. So I tripped over to the group's website to see what may have been missed in the initial read. The FAQs are a laundry-list of defensive positions that aim to disarm any possible skepticism.
Dear Hugh, when you tell me you are not "a cover for agri-business," not "promoting big business interests," not "one big advertising campaign to make Big Ag look good" and not inviting "individuals or organizations that don’t believe in the right and need for all forms of today’s agriculture to exist, or our affiliates’ right to exist," I have to believe you protest too much.
Remember the 1975 movie, 'Jaws', when Roy Sheider gets a good look at the size of the shark that is circling the small fishing boat he is on?
Too bad about the $30 million; you're gonna need a bigger budget.