1. Innocent Afuh Awasom, Stayton Bonner,
Kelsey Hall, Maria Kalyvaki

2. Advocates public policies to decrease
animal suffering
Conducted campaigns in following
states:
 2002: Florida voters banned
confinement of breeding sows in
gestation crates
 2006: Arizona voters banned
gestation & veal crates
 2007: Oregon Legislature banned
use of gestation crates
 2008: Colorado Legislature phased http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/p
hotos/event/a/6/3/1/highres_9462
out veal crates & gestation crates 545.jpeg

3.  Created a new state
statute prohibiting the
confinement of farm
animals in a manner that
doesn’t allow them to
freely turn around, lie
down, stand up, and fully
extend their limbs
 First time voters asked to
eliminate confinement for
egg-laying poultry,
gestation crates for sows, http://californiafaultline.files.wordpress.c
and crates for veal calves om/2008/10/mutts.gif

4.  Jan. 4, 2008: Californians for Sound
Farm Animal Agriculture (CSFAA)
formed to oppose proposed ballot
 Feb. 28, 2008: Proposition 2
supporters submitted 790,486
signatures to qualify the measure for
the ballot
 July 22, 2008: Secretary of State Debra
Bowen released study stating the
proposition’s economic impact was a
potentially unknown decrease in state
and local tax revenue from farm
businesses, possibly in the range of
several million dollars annually http://thesocialdiary.com/images/hsus%202008
%20(1).jpg
 Sept. 2008: University of California
Agricultural Issues Center, attached to
UC-Davis, stated that non-cage
systems would increase costs of
production and increase consumption
of eggs imported from out-of-state

5.  Sept. 26, 2008: Ellen DeGeneres and
Portia de Rossi hosted a Proposition 2
fundraiser entitled “Making History
Under the Stars” at the Bel Air mansion
of philanthropist John V. Winfield,
raising more than $1 million
 Oct. 7, 2008: Yes on Prop 2 campaign
released two commercials in support of
the ballot
 Oct. 14, 2008: Oprah Winfrey aired a
show covering the debate
 Nov. 4, 2008: Proposition 2 passed
with 63.5% of the vote
http://images.oprah.com/images/tows/200810/20
 Jan. 1, 2015: Proposition key statutes 081008/20081008_tows_animals1_350x263.jpg
will become operative

6. PROPONENTS OPPONENTS
 Californians for SAFE Food, a
 Animal Protection Groups
coalition
 Celebrities  Agribusinesses
 Legislators  Agricultural Trade Organizations
 Environmental Groups  Editorial Boards
 Agricultural Organizations  Others
 Editorial Boards

7.  Feb. 2009: HSUS met with agricultural
organizations in Ohio to discuss animal
care concerns
 June 2009: Ohio Environmental
Stewardship Alliance formed to oppose
Issue 2
 July 1, 2009: Ohio Farm Bureau
contacted roughly 230,000 members to
contact legislative leaders to urge final
passage of Senate Joint Resolution 6
 July 8, 2009: Ohio Farm Bureau and
HSUS addressed Issue 2 questions on
Open Line, a radio station program
 July 13, 2009: General Assembly
approved SJR 6 to authorize Ohio
Livestock Care Standards Board http://eriewire.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/
picture-96.png

8.  July 16, 2009: Ohio Farm Bureau and HSUS on
Town Hall Ohio program
 Aug. 25, 2009: Ohio Farm Bureau interviewed on
AgriTalk
 Sept. 22-24, 2009: Ohio Farm Bureau answered
questions and recruited supporters at Farm Science
Review
 Oct. 6, 2009: Jack Fisher of Ohio Farm Bureau and
Paul Spapiro of HSUS interviewed during call-in
radio program
 Oct. 14, 2009: Gov. Ted Strickland hosted rally at
state 4-H Center
 Oct. 19, 2009: Debate at The Ohio State University
 Oct. 31, 2009: Literature drops for Yes on Issue 2
campaign in Columbus, Cleveland & Cincinnati
 Nov. 2, 2009: Final debate between HSUS & Ohio
Farm Bureau Federation
 Nov. 3, 2009: Voters approved Issue 2 in general
election
http://eriewire.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/pi
cture-96.png?w=582&h=434

9. Proponents Opponents
•Proactive stance in creating a board •Concerned with changing state
that makes decisions about food constitution by creating board focusing
issues on agriculture
•Keep regulatory control of Ohio’s •Rights and concerns of small family
farms in the state farms interested in sustainable foods
overlooked by agribusiness
•Want decisions made by experts that
consider the facts and science

10.  Ohioans for Livestock Care Political  Ohio Farmers Union
Action Committee  Ohio Ecological Food and Farming
 state leaders
Association
 senators
 Ohio Against Constitutional Takeover
 representatives
 county humane societies
 veterinarians
 county leaders

11.  Reactive versus proactive campaign
strategies
 California agricultural industry reactive in
approach against Proposition 2
 Ohio agricultural industry proactive in
preventing HSUS from proposing ballot
initiative
 Framed issue to appeal citizens’ desire
for autonomy
 Knowledge gap
 California Proposition 2 campaign
targeted urban populations
 Ohio targeted regional agricultural
communities
http://www.justpmblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/07/995748_91898411
8x6.jpg

12. Framing
Supporters of Proposition 2
 HSUS focused on inhumane treatment of farm animals “factory” and
“corporate” farms HSUS video for prop 2
HSUS website
VIDEO FOR PROPOSITION 2 (pig)
 Regular press releases in support of its causes
 Posted information on Twitter & Facebook
California
Facebook 1
Facebook 2
Ohio
Facebook 3
Twitter
 Volunteers to collect signatures for the ballot, distribute campaign
literature, and rally
Opponents of Proposition 2
 Californians for SAFE Food released television commercials
Video
http://animalsmatter.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/prop2_
poster4.jpg

13.  Framing
 Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
focused on preservation of family
farming & locally grown foods
Television ad
Safe Local Ohio Food Website
Cochran Group (PR firm)
Facebook Page & Causes
Print Materials
Buttons
Yard signs
http://brownfieldagnews.com/wpcontent/uploads/2009/11/B
allotInitiative-Farm-Science-Review-008.jpg

14.  California’s Proposition 2
framed the issue solely on
inhumane treatment or cruelty
to animals
 Ohio’s Issue 2 framed the issue
on food safety, encouraging
locally grown and raised food,
and protecting Ohio farms and
families
http://img2.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0704/
6d3ad3e062d656657267.jpeg

15.  The HSUS and Ohio Farm
Bureau can overcome public
perception by creating
repetition of messages in
multiple channels
(brochures, ads, buttons,
website).
 HSUS and the Ohio Farm
Bureau also need to
understand the experiences
of voters to have
communication channels
and messages relating to
voters’ backgrounds.
http://www.jonathan-ward.co.uk/images/process.jpg

16.  Ohio Farm Bureau and the
HSUS could study how
newspapers’ agenda setting
influenced the importance
voters placed on Issue 2
and Proposition 2.
 Agricultural communications
researchers could explore
media coverage of Issue 2
and Proposition 2 to
determine how editors’
agenda-setting abilities
affected policy change.
http://www.djmobius.nl/images/agenda2.jpg

17.  The HSUS bought Proposition
2 advertising spots in urban
areas where voters were
unfamiliar with acceptable
farming practice and would be
more susceptible to distorted
and non factual propaganda or
spin (Shane, 2009).
 The Ohio Farm Bureau
Federation aired two
advertisements that depicted a
farmer explaining how Issue 2
http://www.darden.virginia.edu/corporat
would protect family farms and
e-ethics/images/Public_trust-2.gif support locally grown foods.

18.  The California agricultural industry could
have benefited from a website providing
brochures, flyers, and advertisements
branded with a cohesive look and
message that appealed to their target
audience, urban residents.
 California’s agricultural industry failed to
clearly communicate the fiscal impact on
family farms and potential public health
risk due to importing eggs from Mexico.
 California’s agricultural industry could
have used grassroots campaign
strategies if it had been better organized.
 Perhaps California needs to develop a
strong infrastructure for the diverse
agricultural organizations.
http://justanotherprblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/str
ategy.jpg

19.  In comparison with the
Proposition 2 campaign in
California, the HSUS did
little advertising to oppose
Issue 2 in Ohio.
 As the HSUS will be
dealing with a politically
unified and savvy
agricultural organization
in Ohio in 2010, it will
http://www.businessdimensions.ca/files
probably need to be
/images/iStock_000005614684Small% aggressive in
20strategy.jpg
campaigning toward the
urban audience.