BS Astroturf Group Falsely Claims PETA kills 95% of the Pets in Its Care

[Truth2Tell]

ON EDIT: I have become aware that the facts cited in this press release cannot be supported. The group releasing this information is apparently a sleazy astroturf outfit that can't seem to distinguish truth from fiction. Given that caveat, I will nevertheless leave this post here because I think the discussion of euthanizing unwanted pets, the activities of PETA vs their detractors and the world of corporate astroturf groups are worthy of discussion.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/release/258

Posted On March 25, 2009

PETA Killed 95 Percent of Adoptable Pets in its Care During 2008

Hypocritical Animal Rights Group’s 2008 Disclosures Bring Pet Death Toll To 21,339

WASHINGTON DC – Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) published documents online showing that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed 95 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2008. Despite years of public outrage over its euthanasia program, the animal rights group kills an average of 5.8 pets every day at its Norfolk, VA headquarters.

According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers.

Despite having a $32 million budget, PETA does not operate an adoption shelter. PETA employees make no discernible effort to find homes for the thousands of pets they kill every year. Last year, the Center for Consumer Freedom petitioned Virginia’s State Veterinarian to reclassify PETA as a slaughterhouse.

CCF Research Director David Martosko said: “PETA hasn’t slowed down its hypocritical killing machine one bit, but it keeps browbeating the rest of society with a phony ‘animal rights’ message. What about the rights of the thousands of dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens that die in PETA’s headquarters building?”

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/release/258">More...

:popcorn:

[Teaser]

1. you are just ASKING for it, you know?

.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

2. Not nearly as bad as you butcher apostrophes.

[donheld]

3. .

:popcorn::beer:

[BlooInBloo]

4. I was wondering when somebody would post this.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Consider the source...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivistCash

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

The Center for Consumer Freedom is "a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving."

"CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Based in Washington, D.C., Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains. Hotels, motels, restaurants, bars and taverns together comprise the "hospitality industry," which has long been cultivated by the tobacco industry as a third party to help slow or stop the progression of smokefree laws.

CCF actively opposes smoking bans and lowering the legal blood-alcohol level, while targeting studies on the dangers of red meat consumption, overfishing and pesticides. Each year they give out the "nanny awards" to groups who, according to them, try to tell consumers how to live their lives.

Anyone who criticizes tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods or soda pop is likely to come under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; the American Medical Association; the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; the Harvard School of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader's group, Public Citizen; the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and the U.S. Department of Transportation."

[Truth2Tell]

12. OK, I considered it.

But the facts speak for themselves.

[Bjorn Against]

26. How do you know these are facts?

Have these "facts" been verified by a group that actually has some credibility because the Center for Consumer Freedom has no credibility, and I looked at the documents they provided and they do not seem to show a whole lot to me.

I am not a big PETA fan, but if we are going to cite facts lets make sure they are actual facts and not merely right-wing propaganda.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

30. You just put the cart before the horse,

and you're not going to get anywhere by doing that.

This outfit is bogus, and anything they "report" should be considered VERY suspect. Their agenda is rather unpleasant and, if you wanted to put it in almost-personal terms, it opposes almost everything that people here at DU embrace.

So, sorry, but the "facts" are questionable, and given what I know about CCF, I'd go as far as to say it's all bogus.....................

[backscatter712]

36. It's a lobbyist group straight out of Thank You For Smoking...

Why do I suddenly have the urge to get a few friends, some ski masks, a van, and a whooooole bunch of Nicoderm patches, and have some fun with their tobacco lobbyists...

[cliffordu]

6. I'll have some o' that!!!

:popcorn:

[RoyGBiv]

7. Bookmarking

For later.

[ddeclue]

8. I'm no fan of PETA but this just seems gratuitous..nt

[Occam Bandage]

9. Oh, CCF. Definitely my favorite astroturf organization.

They're like the most blatantly fake group out there. They stand for everything I dislike. I love 'em.

[arcadian]

10. This is nowhere near as lighthearted as 'George Clooney flavored tofu'.

[JI7]

11. i'm not a fan of PETA but this is not a credible source

[Truth2Tell]

17. So you think the story is untrue? nt

[Bjorn Against]

33. If the only source is the Center for Consumer Freedom with no independent verification....

Then I think it is safe to say that yes, this story is probably completely false.

[depakid]

39. No, I think you purposefully misrepresent what's going on

either that or you've been played for a fool.

[Dangerously Amused]

13. Gee, no discernible bias in THAT article.

/sarcasm

[flvegan]

14. I should enter a "DUers can be stupid marks too" entry in EarlG's thread.

[Truth2Tell]

19. I've always been a supporter of PETA flvegan.

Do you think the facts are in question in this case? I'm willing to listen.

[flvegan]

20. You really want to do this?

I've got time.

[Truth2Tell]

21. Lay it on me. I respect what you have to say.

On edit: Actually, may not need you too. Learning lessons here myself.

From the Reddit comments on this article, in reference to the PDF cited by CCF:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/88kzc/peta_killed_95_percent_of_adoptable_pets_in_its/

From page 1: 3317 total dogs. From page 2: 2716 dogs were RECLAIMED BY OWNER 4 were adopted, 21 moved to another facility and 555 euthanized.

Ok so 555 out of 3317 dogs were euthanized. That's 17% not 95%.

Take the totals: 10,016 animals. 7525 were reclaimed by owner, 59 were adopted, 34 were moved, etc.

2369 were euthanized out of 10,016.

Thats 23%. Not 95%.

They get to 95% by ignoring the nearly THOUSANDS that go back to their owners, then if you subtract out those THOUSANDS and everyone who got transferred or misc stuff, then you can make it look like they kill 95%...

The site conveniently fails to acknowledge that PETA did in fact return almost 80% of the animals in their care to their rightful owners.

[flvegan]

35. Okay, to start, I'm going to post what you said

"PETA Killed 95 Percent of Adoptable Pets in its Care During 2008"

PETA is an organization of last resort. Volunteering in the area to basically bring humane death to animals deemed unadoptable by inept organizations in the area, sparing them from a gas chamber or .22 to the head. If the animals are that adoptable, why the fuck can't the accusatory idiots find them homes? Maybe it's because there aren't enough homes. Okay, acceptable. Not enough space. Better a quick death than torture, right? It's euthanasia. "Killing" is a buzzword you obviously fell for.

"Hypocritical Animal Rights Group’s 2008 Disclosures Bring Pet Death Toll To 21,339"

See above.

You know, PETA could easily have stepped aside and said fuck these rednecks and their ancient measures to kill animals. We'll try and expose them and call them out for the backwoods cousinfuckers that they are. They'd probably have gotten press and donations for it.

But they didn't. I respect them for it. I made that same one. The decision for them was made long ago to not do that. A humane death, when death is inevitable, is better.

I run a rescue, and I've been the rescue of last resort. And FUCK anybody that's not been in that position judging someone who has. It's easy to condemn pushing a needle when you have never had to do it. Limited intake shelters have been raking it in on that very premise for years.

Lastly, your source is shit. It's like trolling Drudge to post on Obama. Fucking shame on you.

[Truth2Tell]

44. This makes sense with a few big IFs

it makes sense IF these animals came from other rescue facilities where adoption attempts were made.

it makes sense IF PETA has no resources to keep more animals.

it makes sense if you think keeping animals in shelters is a torture worse than death.

I'm not sure about any of these things, I just don't know enough about the issue.

I have a no-kill rescue shelter that I support here locally but I understand this issue is complicated and it's not possible at this point to not euthanize pets. I certainly would never judge you for what you do. If you rescue animals I applaud you.

And I picked this up from a typically progressive source. I have now learned about the reliability of the source and will know better in the future. I dropped the ball on this one. Say fucking shame on me all you like. But better to discuss it and debunk it if it's BS IMO. It is all over the nets as it is.

I made an edit to my OP. I will now go edit my thread title as well. peace.

[flvegan]

45. To answer your "ifs"

-it makes sense IF these animals came from other rescue facilities where adoption attempts were made.

They did. Simple research will show you that PETA offered to do this, even after offering a pile of cash to upgrade euthanasia techniques in that area. Offers that went denied.

-it makes sense IF PETA has no resources to keep more animals.

Keep them? PETA isn't a shelter. Like I said, they're called in as a last resort. That's like asking why HSUS doesn't run some Millennium Shelter somewhere to house all the unwanted animals in the world.

-it makes sense if you think keeping animals in shelters is a torture worse than death.

These aren't animals that had any shot of being kept in a shelter. The choice was this: gas chamber/.22 in the head, or a caring, humane euthanasia via PETA. Their shelter time was over. They were set to die one way or another.

[Truth2Tell]

47. OK, I'm hearing you.

While this OP was a fuckup, I truly think the discussion and debunking serves a useful purpose.

[flvegan]

50. Then the OP wasn't a fuckup, was it?

Considering the discussion and debunking, yes? VERY useful if you ask me.

[backwoodsbob]

59. excuse me

people in Virginia are backwoods cousinfuckers?

do tell

[Tangerine LaBamba]

37. The site you're quoting, petakillsanimals.com,

is the same as CCF.

See?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=PetaKillsAnimals.com

You've been had. It happens. But it's always a good idea to check these things out.

[Redbear]

32. Of course the facts are in dispute.

Ingrid Newkirk's response (warning: graphic images of abused animals)

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/03/why_we_euthaniz.php

[Bluebear]

15. What is the "Center for Consumer Freedom "?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. See #5.

They are a front group for the restaurant and hospitality industry.

[Reterr]

22. Astroturf: this sleazy lobbyist Richard Berman owns it

They are a front for the restaurant industry. Republican, libertarian, free-market types.

[specimenfred1984]

16. Hey, I learned transfats are good fer ya! So is smokin bacca!

No stink tank propaganda at that site, Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[1]

23. it makes perfect sense. peta doesn't want people to keep animals as pets...

so peta kills them rather than force them into the hell of being a pet.

peta doesn't want people to eat meat. they would prefer that cattle disappear from the world as a species. if people don't eat them, what is their purpose? none. peta would prefer that they should cease to exist.


i think the real goal of peta is to eliminate animals from the earth.

but luckily, aside from that cool naked females ad campaign, they are such a bunch of fuckups about their message they will never succeed...

[flvegan]

43. You should visit their office.

And see all the employees that bring their pets in.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[angstlessk]

24. I am an animal lover an support most of what PETA stands for..but not necessarily PETA

I lived in Norfolk VA and PETA purchased a prime piece of real estate that belonged to a cruise ship tourist company,..very swanky...since that time I have been very suspicious of what they REALLY stand for!

[Wickerman]

25. Did ya ever read something and say, what the fuck, that makes no sense?

Well, I think this one might just qualify.

Obviously this is astroturf from a biased source. It only takes a quick euthanasia and PETA google to find articles out there that offer a bit more perspective.

Seems that the animals that PETA takes in are the ones they know won't be adopted. So, rather than allow the animals to be used in research or otherwise be exploited and die painful deaths they use the option of euthanasia to deal with animals that can't be saved.

I find many of PETA's tactics deplorable. I, in practice like no kill shelters. I trust PETA to do the right thing here more than I trust this nut job report.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

38. I think PETA is nuts, but

this "story" is bogus. Consider the source and the references it cites:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=PetaKillsAnimals.com

[MADem]

27. So, PETA stands for Pet Assassinations, is that it?

Sorry, that may be crass, but I find it darkly amusing....even though I am an animal lover.

If those adoption/euthanasia stats are accurate, they're not doing too well, are they? What nitwits would continue to donate to them? They'd be better off donating to a no-kill local shelter, unaffiliated with the naked protest crowd.

[Believing Is Art]

29. People for the Euthenasia of Troublesome Animals? n/t

[MADem]

40. And their true agenda is revealed!!!! Heh, heh.... nt

[flvegan]

42. You think the unfortunate but necessary euthanasia of pets is funny, do you?

Please, do type here what limited intake shelter could take an additional 20,000 animals per year.

Seriously, what's the business plan there. Last time I checked, PETA got zero donations for sheltering last year, so they have no cash to add.

No really, go ahead. Have at it.

[MADem]

51. I do find it darkly amusing that PETA is doing the murdering, frankly.

Particularly when they're such insufferable shits about the behavior of others.

Sorry if you're so poutraged about that. I can't help it if you're excessively sensitive and deprived of an appreciation of overt hypocrisy.

I'm the one who finds the whole business a bit ironic, along with a shitload of others. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Perhaps if they spent a little more money on the animals instead of those stupid fucking ads and disruptive, childish demonstrations, and massive billboards, and brain scans for Sharon Stone, why, they might be able to afford to build themselves a nice no-kill shelter or two, eh?

Last time you checked there were "Zero donations for sheltering?" What, when some of these rich Hollywood types donate, they write at the bottom of the check "This is for an ad featuring some naked pouting starlet in Vanity Fair--don't you DARE use it to help any animals?" Please.

Really--I think you need to go ahead and get real. Zero donations for sheltering!! Gee, we can't divert our naked stripper billboard money to actually help these furry creatures!

Pamela Anderson--Ohhhh, don't use this donation for sheltering!! No, she didn't say that: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2008/06/the-associated.html

Paul McCartney and pals--not a dime for Fluffy and Spot, now! They're still selling this beauty: http://video.barnesandnoble.com/DVD/Paul-McCartney-and-Friends-The-PETA-Concert-For-Party-Animals/Paul-McCartney/e/014381062229

Oprah Winfrey--Peeeeeeeeeee-ple!!!! None of MY money for shelters, now!!!! http://www.india-server.com/news/oprah-winfrey-named-petas-person-of-the-5283.html

Yeah, they're too busy trying to scan Sharon Stone's brain, I guess: http://www.tmz.com/2008/07/03/peta-wants-sharon-stones-brain-for-research/

And they've got money to invest in "meat heavy" restaurants--that hypocrisy takes the cake, or should I say, the meat loaf: http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/12/07/in-poor-economy-peta-buying-stock-in-meat-heavy-restaurants/

Taking advantage of the shriveling stock market, PETA has been purchasing more and more shares in meaty companies, including popular chain establishments like Domino’s Pizza, California Pizza Kitchen, and Sonics. The surge in stock purchases comes shortly after PETA’s call for donations not only to them, but to other animal rights organizations also hurting in the economy.

PETA has bought stock in meat companies for years. They already had a large holding in Tyson Foods, one of the most notorious animal abusers in the meat industry, and recently purchased even more. But what will PETA do once they own enough shares in these companies to be a deciding voice?

Gee, they've owned TYSON stock for, what, five years now--and they're still going strong. And someone must be donating if they can manage to buy these shares, eh?

Pity--you haven't made YOUR point at all. In fact, your "Zero donations" claim is flat-out laughable. They've got plenty of money to spend---they're just not spending it to build a no-kill shelter. They're like Dick Cheney--they've got "other priorities" I guess.

[Believing Is Art]

52. Got another acronym for ya

VESPA - Vegetarians Enraged by Selfish PETA Assholes.

[MADem]

53. Heh heh--those guys should be looking askance at some of the investments

being made with all that donation money they can't seem to spend on a no kill shelter or two!

[Believing Is Art]

54. I don't have a problem with their euthenasia policy, in general

It is sad but necessary in some cases. I disagree with their shock tactics (see the response to the OP's article for example), and they could divert a lot of money to a better cause.

In addition to their investment hypocrisy, they have plenty to spare in the animal testing department, too. The former VP took insulin for her diabetes, but it was okay because "I don’t see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals." Give me a break.

I agree with many of PETA's causes, but even if the organization wasn't hypocritical on many issues, its practices end up driving people away. I don't know how many times I've tried to talk to people about animal rights or the wastefulness of the livestock business and they've just said "oh, you're one of those PETA freaks" and won't listen to another word.

[MADem]

55. Neither do I, if the animals are suffering or in pain.

But I do take issue with their hypocrisy, the shock tactics you mentioned, and the "in your face" attitude they sport.

When science is able to clone a nice, nutritious lean steak (not the whole cow, just the steak) that's lower in fat but tasty nonetheless, then factory farming will be a thing of the past. It'll be a while yet, though, I fear.

[Believing Is Art]

56. I don't even have a problem with eating meat, per se

I don't choose to do so, but going meatless is not something everyone could do. I have a problem with the *way* these animals are raised and slaughtered as well as the sheer number of them. The current practices of the meat industry are unethical and the environmental cost is too great. I find it more realistic to persuade people to eat less meat. No one needs to eat meat for every meal, every day, and cutting back would reduce the industry's carbon footprint and allow for more ethical practices.

It's kind of old, but did you read the piece in Rolling Stone about Smithfield Farms? Really disturbing.

[MADem]

57. I don't eat a lot of meat, but I don't avoid it if someone gives me some.

We don't eat cow at home, but we do enjoy our poultry and fish. We'll eat a slab of cow at a restaurant, every once in a blue moon--perhaps once or twice a year. We don't do hamburger, ever. If we eat pig, it's VERY rarely (though prosciutto and melone is food of the gods) and we feel guilty about it, because they're so smart, those pigs. We like soy, too. We probably eat poultry/fish, oh, at two or three meals a week, four tops if you count a turkey sausage at a Sunday brunch, or something like that...certainly never at EVERY meal--Christ, that would pack you in, I should think!

Didn't see the article, I'll have a look.

[depakid]

28. Here's PETA's response to this right wing/libertarian front group

Not sure why the OP would link to these folks on DU- Perhaps they're a John Stossel fan?

ADVISORY TO EVERYONE: PETA's link is GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING.

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/03/why_we_euthaniz.php

So here's the print except:

In my first year working at a grossly substandard animal shelter in Maryland, I forced myself to go in early to euthanize dogs by holding them in my arms and gently helping them escape an uncaring world without trauma or pain and to spare them from being stabbed haphazardly—while they were fully conscious, terrified and aware—in the general vicinity of their hearts with needles blunt from reuse and left to thrash on the floor until they finally died by the callous people who would arrive later to do the job.

I always wonder how anyone cannot recognize that there is a world of difference between painlessly euthanizing animals out of compassion—aged, injured, sick, and dying animals whose guardians can't afford euthanasia, for instance—as PETA does, and causing them to suffer terror, pain, and a prolonged death while struggling to survive on the streets, at the hands of untrained and uncaring "technicians," or animal abusers.

It's easy to point the finger at those who are forced to do the "dirty work" caused by a throwaway society's casual acquisition and breeding of dogs and cats who end up homeless and unwanted, but at PETA, we will never turn our backs on neglected, unloved, and homeless animals—even if the best we can offer them is a painless release from a world that doesn't have enough heart or homes with room for them. It makes it easy for people to throw stones at us, but we are against all needless killing: for hamburgers, fur collars, dissection, sport hunting;the works. PETA handled far more animals than 2,124 in 2008.

In fact, we took in more than 10,000 dogs and cats and work very hard to persuade people to spay and neuter their animals and to commit to a lifetime of care and respect for them. We go so far as to transport animals to and from our spay/neuter clinics, where they are spayed or neutered and given vet care, often for free! Since 2001, PETA's low- to no-cost spay-and-neuter mobile clinics, SNIP and ABC, have sterilized more than 50,000 animals, preventing hundreds of thousands of animals from being born, neglected, abandoned, abused, or euthanized when no one wanted them. And on a national level, PETA is focusing on the root of the problem through our Animal Birth Control (ABC) campaign.

If anyone has a good home, love, and respect to offer, we beg them: Go to a shelter and take one or two animals home. The problem is that few people do that, choosing instead to go to a breeder or a pet shop and not "fixing" their dogs and cats, which contributes to the high euthanasia rate that animal shelters face. Most of the animals we took in and euthanized could hardly be called "pets," as they had spent their lives chained up in the back yard, for instance. They were unsocialized, never having been inside a building of any kind or known a pat on the head. Others were indeed someone's, but they were aged, sick, injured, dying, too aggressive to place, and the like, and PETA offered them a painless release from suffering, with no charge to their owners or custodians.

Every day, PETA's fieldworkers help abused and neglected dogs—many of them pit bulls nowadays and many of them forced to live their lives on chains heavy enough to tow an 18-wheeler—by providing them with food; clean water; lightweight tie-outs; deworming medicine; flea, tick, and fly-strike prevention; free veterinary care; sturdy wooden doghouses stuffed with straw bedding; and love.

What we see is enough to make you lose faith in humanity. One pit bull we gained custody of, named Asia, looked like a skeleton covered with skin when PETA released her from the 15-pound chain she had been kept on for years. Asia suffered from three painful and deadly intestinal obstructions, which prevented her from keeping any food down. She faced an agonizing, lingering death, so our veterinarian recommended euthanasia to end her suffering. We pursued criminal charges against those responsible for her condition, leading to their conviction for cruelty to animals. That is just one of the dozens of cases we see every week.

The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters). Most of the animals we house, rescue, find homes for, or put out of their misery come from miserable conditions, which often lead to successful prosecution and the banning of animal abusers from ever owning or abusing animals again.

As long as animals are still purposely bred and people aren't spaying and neutering their companions, open-admission animal shelters and organizations like PETA must do society's dirty work. Euthanasia is not a solution to overpopulation but rather a tragic necessity given the present crisis. PETA is proud to be a "shelter of last resort," where animals who have no place to go or who are unwanted or suffering are welcomed with love and open arms.

Please, if you care about animals, help prevent more of them from being born only to end up chained and left to waste away in people's back yards, suffering on mean streets where people kick at them or shoo them away like garbage, tortured at the hands of animal abusers, or, alas, euthanized in animal shelters for lack of a good home. If you want to save lives, always have your animals spayed or neutered.

[arcadian]

31. I'm gonna call bullshit on this right now.

I've driven by their headquarters countless times and I've seen no evidence that there are any animal facilities anywhere near that building.

[backscatter712]

34. Dunno if this is true or not, but...

What else could PETA, or any other agency that runs animal shelters do with all the animals that end up in their hands?

There are only so many no-kill shelters, and there are far too many animals to be properly cared for. I'm sure they'd love to hear ideas on how to get the resources to properly care for all those animals.

[Dogmudgeon]

41. "We don't like them, so they are liars"

And apply that in any direction you choose. It's one of the big main idiocies of the Left (but compare to the much larger and more numerous idiocies of the Right).

I'm not a big fan of CCF myself. I'll be keeping a lookout for the original source, if it exists. These days, I am not inclined to think that PeTA can do no wrong OR no right.

--d!

[Redbear]

46. Let us know when you find the "original source."

This is a press release of the findings of their own investigation.

[depakid]

49. The documents are right on the front group's site

They're not the issue.

[petronius]

48. Of course that's bullshit - I read on DU that it's closer to 99%

;)

[backscatter712]

58. I'll say it again. CCF's a lobbying agency straight out of Thank You For Smoking!

All I need is some like-minded friends, some ski masks, a van, and a whooooole bunch of nicoderm patches...