Nutrition experts are battling sugar industry trade groups over over public information about the health hazards of sugar, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and other caloric sweeteners. Nutrition experts say that the sweeteners added to soft drinks and countless other foods and beverages increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, and promote weight gain by adding empty calories to the average diet. Making matters worse for corn refiners, Pepsico is offering "Pepsi Throwback" and "Mountain Dew Throwback," two versions of the popular soda drinks made with "natural sugar" instead of HFCS, and sporting a "rad vintage look." But HFCS manufacturers say their products don't cause health problems or weight gain. To make their point, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) is running a series of TV ads aimed at boosting the image of HFCS and convincing people that they are misled by marketing tactics that imply that products labeled "high-fructose corn syrup-free" are healthier than products with HFCS. CRA also launched sweetsurprise.com, a Web site featuring photos of cute, slender, healthy-looking kids and families happily eating, drinking and riding bikes. The site touts the benefits of HFCS and has articles countering claims that HFCS has any relationship to obesity and other health problems.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is growing its bank account and jumping into grassroots lobbying game now since the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporations to spend unlimited money on elections. The Chamber spent more than $144 million on lobbying and grassroots organizing in 2009, far beyond the spending of individual labor unions or the Democratic or Republican national committees. The Chamber is expected to exceed that spending level in 2010. One of the factors causing the rapid increase in money pouring into the Chamber is the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case which handed corporations the free-speech right to spend as much as they want to elect or defeat candidates. The Court's ruling struck down a century of established case law upholding limits on corporate political spending. It also made business executives more comfortable using corporate funds for political purposes. Passing funds through trade groups instead of spending directly on elections has another benefit for corporations: Trade groups can legally avoid disclosing their donors' identities. The Chamber has developed a system where corporations give them money, and they in turn produces issue ads targeting individual candidates without revealing the names of the businesses who are funding the ads. This means that for all the increased influence corporations now have on elections, there is no equivalent transparency. The Chamber's system keeps secret which businesses are influencing a given election, and to what extent.

Mouse pad with Murray Hill's political slogan.Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are entitled to the same free speech and political rights as American citizens, Murray Hill, Inc., a public relations and advertising firm in Maryland has announced that it intends to run for Congress in Maryland's 8th Congressional district. In an undated press release posted on the company's Web site, Murray Hill says, "Until now, corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence-peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves." Murray Hill states that it plans on spending "top dollar" to protect its investment in government, adding, "We bought it, we paid for it, and we're going to keep it." The company plans to run as a Republican in the primary, and announced that it will run an aggressive, historic campaign that "puts people second" or even third. Murray Hill will be the first corporation to test the Supreme Court's new ruling conferring political free speech rights on corporations. Murray Hill has designated a human to fill out the necessary forms to apply for its run for office, and it's political slogan is "Corporations are people too!" It has started a Facebook page and says it plans on using automated robo-calls, "astroturf" lobbying, and computer-generated avatars to win over voters.

A group of pinstriped traders, upset with the bank-bashing rhetoric emanating from Washington, launched a Wall Street defense campaign the same morning that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was being grilled by Congress. According to Crain’s business magazine, the traders vowed to fight against further bank regulation and defend their right to “create wealth for the people.” The group rallied about 150 folks across from the New York Stock Exchange. According to the New York Times: “The fact that virtually all of the virtually all-male attendees wore suits and ties did make the gathering perhaps the best-dressed rally in history.” The feisty defenders of the Wall Street status quo kicked off their protest not on the street, but in the comfortable offices of John Thomas Financial, a three-year-old investment house. As CEO Thomas Belesis explained: “It’s cold out.” The event appeared to be a thinly-veiled campaign rally for Bruce A. Blakeman, a Long Island Republican lawyer running for the United States Senate who contributed: “My friends, we can’t kill the goose that laid the golden egg.” To follow the antics of these reverse Robin Hoods visit Restore Wall Street.

Reporter Dan Eggen quotes CMD in a review of how special interests have attempted to influence health reform: "It's sort of like money-laundering their PR," said Lisa Graves, Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy, the group that operates PRWatch.org "A lot of these groups are heavily funded by corporations and then don't reveal it. They try to imply that they are funded primarily by individuals, but that's clearly not the case." As Eggen notes, interest groups working to influence health reform legislation have jointly contributed a record $200 million to advertising campaigns to sway lawmakers, but figuring out just who these groups represent is often tricky. Many purposely adopt names that obscure their origins, and the law requires they only reveal minimal information, like overall revenue and expenses. Support for these groups is coming from industries with a financial stake in the debate, unions or charitable foundations with a political bent, helping enrich previously obscure groups. The Institute for Liberty, for example, was previously a one-man operation that in 2008 pulled in under $25,000 in revenue and had only a post office box. Now it operates out of a downtown D.C. office and is running a $1 million anti-health care reform advocacy campaign. The group's president, Andrew Langer, refused to offer any information about the group's leap in funding. The Parternship to Improve Patient Care was created by the drug industry in 2008 to oppose medical effectiveness studies that might help determine what health insurance companies must cover. The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is an offshoot of the Pacific Research Institute, which has taken money from Philip Morris, Pfizer, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). The anti-government group Americans for Prosperity, that was instrumental in organizing the raucus "tea party protests," has been connected with the conservative Koch Family, owners of the largest private energy company in the U.S Click on this next link to see who else makes up the Tea Party movement .

California's third largest auto insurer, Mercury Insurance, created a front group called Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates (Cal-FAIR), to advance a ballot initiative that, if passed, would allow insurers to slap surcharges on drivers who allow their auto insurance coverage to lapse for any reason. Cal-FAIR shares the same Sacramento address as the public relations firm Goddard Claussen, which boasts that it is "the most successful issue-advocacy firm in America." Cal-FAIR is submitting signatures this week to place Mercury's measure on the state ballot in 2010. The initiative is Mercury's attempt to make an end-run around a law Californians passed in 1988, which prohibits auto insurers from considering people's prior insurance coverage in setting rates. Mercury is Cal-FAIR's only donor, and so far has put $4.5 million into the campaign to try and pass the measure. Cal-FAIR portrays Mercury's ballot initiative as giving discounts to people who’ve had auto insurance continuously, but it doesn't let people know that the measure would also bring rate increases on anyone else who lets their insurance lapse, for example people who use public transportation for a time, military personnel who temporarily leave the state, people who let their insurance coverage lapse while recovering from an illness, and anyone else who doesn’t need insurance for a time. If you are late making auto insurance payments for any reason and get canceled -- for example due to an illness, home foreclosure or loss of a job, Mercury's ballot measure allows insurance companies to jack up rates when you resume paying. In a February, 2009 court filing, the California Insurance Department's Legal Division described Mercury as "an abusive, anti-consumer company," and said the company has "a deserved reputation for abusing its customers and intentionally violating the law with arrogance and indifference."