John Dillard - Unethical Campaigns and Growing Litigation Building Activists' Coffers
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•514 views
Unethical Campaigns and Growing Litigation Building Activists' Coffers - John Dillard, University of Richmond Law School, from the 2010 Animal Ag Alliance Stakeholder's Summit: Truth, Lies and Videotape: Is Activism Jeopardizing Our Food Security?, April 28 - 29, 2010, Washington, DC, USA. More presentations at http://www.trufflemedia.com/home/conference/2010-animal-ag-alliance-stakeholders-summit
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to John Dillard - Unethical Campaigns and Growing Litigation Building Activists' Coffers
Similar to John Dillard - Unethical Campaigns and Growing Litigation Building Activists' Coffers (20)
More from John Blue
More from John Blue (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
John Dillard - Unethical Campaigns and Growing Litigation Building Activists' Coffers
- 1. Unethical Campaigns and Growing Litigation Building Activist’s Coffers John Dillard University of Richmond School of Law Animal Agriculture Alliance Ninth Annual Stakeholder’s Summit - Ballston, VA - April 28, 2010
- 2. Overview • • • • • Success of HSUS Deceptive fundraising efforts Revenues and expenditures Ramifications for animal agriculture Combating HSUS efforts 2
- 3. Factors of recent HSUS success • Substantial disconnect between agriculture and consuming public • Motivated activists – 25,000 donated to YES! on Prop. 2 • Moderate public message achieves underlying radical goals 3
- 4. HSUS Attacks Animal Agriculture on Multiple Fronts • Environment – Private nuisance litigation – Funding environmental research, groups • Administrative enforcement – Whistleblower suits – USDA – Citizen suits – EPA • Shareholder Activism – Steak ‘n Shake 4
- 5. HSUS Attacks Animal Agriculture on Multiple Fronts • Public Perception – Undercover video – Celebrity endorsements – “Low-hanging fruit” wins give credibility • Horse Slaughter Ban • Dogfighting/Cockfighting • BALLOT INITIATIVES HSUS has not been successful in the legislative arena 5
- 6. States Allowing Ballot Initiatives 24 states allow some form of citizen ballot initiatives, an effective tool for the HSUS and other Animal Rights groups Source: Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California, available at http://www.iandrinstitute.org/ 6
- 7. How is HSUS able to accomplish its goals? 7
- 8. Fundraising • HSUS needs a tremendous amount of money to accomplish its objectives • Advertising strategy focuses on presenting a message that is “simple, moderate, and resonates with the average citizen1” • HSUS has learned lessons from PETA’s radical message Jonathon R. Lovvorn & Nancy V. Perry, California Proposition 2: A Watershed Moment for Animal Law, 15 ANIMAL L. 149, 155 (2009) 1 8
- 9. Moderate Message Trumps Shock Value vs. $34 M $125 M Who is the average American more likely to donate to? * $1,000 USD, Source: 2008 PETA & HSUS Annual Reports 9
- 10. Donations to HSUS Although damaged by the economy, HSUS war chest remains strong through annual donations Source: HSUS, 2008 IRS Form 990 10
- 11. Sources of Revenue Total Revenue - $131 M How is HSUS able to take in substantial donations during a bad economy and use it for radical efforts? Periodic and one-time donations account for 79% of HSUS revenue Source: HSUS, 2008 Annual Report 11
- 12. Massive and Concerted Fundraising Campaigns • Television ads • Direct-mail solicitations • Celebrity endorsements • Proceeds from entertainment sales Familiar and trusted faces help to soften and “mainstream” the HSUS’ efforts 12
- 13. HSUS Expenditures Only 5.4 % of HSUS Funds Are Directed Towards Animal Care : HSUS, 2008 Annual Report 1 13
- 14. HSUS Expenditures • Less than one-half of one percent of fund hands-on pet shelters1 • By its own admission, HSUS directly assists only 70,000 animals through its programs – In total, we provided direct care to more than 70,000 animals in 2009.2 HSUS Budget / Animals Assisted = Cost/animal assisted $125,118,158 / 70,000 = $1,787 : HSUS, 2008 Annual Report : E-Mail from Mike Makarian, COO, HSUS to John Dillard (Feb. 1, 2010, 10:10 EST) 1 2 14
- 15. But Does the Public Know? • HSUS is not affiliated with local humane societies • HSUS does not operate, own, or lease any animal shelters Question % Responding “True” Familiar with HSUS name? 79% HSUS is an umbrella group representing local shelters 71% My local shelter or humane society is affiliated with HSUS 63% HSUS contributes most of its money to organizations that care for cats and dogs 59% Source: Opinion Research Corp., Feb. 25 – 28, 2010, Commissioned by Center for Consumer Freedom, Sample Size = 1,008 adults 15
- 16. What’s at Stake? • Livelihoods • Investments • Efficient use of resources • GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS Gestation Crate Ballot Initiative ––2002 Gestation Crate Ballot Initiative 2002 Final Phase-out --2008 Final Phase-out 2008 Source: USDA NASS 16
- 17. Future Battles Looming? • Ohio – Livestock Standards Care Board “guidance” • Judicial Standing – Seek to distinguish animals from traditional property – Can you be sued by your cow? • HSUS in Law Schools – Ex. - Georgetown, GWU – Encourages animal rights litigation on the cheap 17
- 18. Encouraging Signs • Pushback – Social networking is the new grassroots • [yellowtail] • Pilot Travel Centers – Charity Navigator downgrades HSUS’ rating • Spreading the word – HumaneWatch.org – Letters to editor – Social networking 18
- 19. Future Tools • Social-networking, digital media – Data and science-based reasoning – “Soft touch” • Put a “face” on targets of HSUS’ efforts • State Consumer Fraud Protection Laws – Force honesty in fundraising, expenditures • Unite with common HSUS targets – Hunters & anglers – Local animal shelters – Targeted breeds 19
- 20. Remember the Big Picture UN FAO estimates global food needs will increase 70% by 2050 Source: UN FAO, HIGH-LEVEL EXPERT FORUM: HOW TO FEED THE WOLRLD IN 2050, Rome, Italy (Oct. 12-13, 2009), available at http://www.fao.org/wsfs/forum2050/wsfs- 20
Editor's Notes
- HSUS has not been successful in the legislative arena because legislators are required/entrusted to make decisions by balancing factors and are less likely to vote based on emotions alone.