HSUS spent over $250,000 to defeat a pro-hunting constitutional amendment on the ballot in Arizona this November
Last week, I wrote a blog about how the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) was “mainstreaming” its image. I recounted how its win of a $250,000 grant from an online contest by Pepsi will help it in those efforts. Well, I needn’t have looked far to come up with another good example of the group’s efforts to make it seem “reasonable” and “responsible.”
What did I find? It's a blog written by the head of the HSUS’ legislative arm, Michael Markarian, which basically outlines different policies the government should adopt that are both budget and animal “friendly.”
At first glance, it all comes off like a serious effort by the group to provide helpful advice to the government. Who could possibly be against stopping the seemingly endless flow of red ink given our current national debt?
However, it doesn’t take long to read between the lines here. Its entire tenor is intended to paint HSUS as being a “concerned” corporate citizen. It implies that the group wants to be a partner and is simply looking out for the national interest while it also looks out for the “welfare” of animals.
To read the entire article, link here.