The No on J campaign warned the measure could raise prices and eliminate agricultural livelihoods. [Photo courtesy Sonoma County Farm Bureau]
Farmers and activists learned an enormous amount from their respective campaigns on Measure J, a 2024 Sonoma County proposition that would have shut down or required operational modifications from numerous animal agriculture businesses.
Both sides plan to use these lessons in fights over animal agriculture-focused local and state legislation in the years to come. The most important takeaway, for all parties, was getting a sense of the landscape: identifying allies and gaining knowledge of the other side’s tactics. Ultimately Measure J, which sought to prohibit Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs, was voted down by 85% of voters.
A wide variety of donors and news outlets paid close attention to the Measure J campaigns, showing the legislation was of interest to myriad agricultural industries and activist networks. The topic was also discussed by state, national and international audiences. For example, the California Association of Winegrape Growers, a Sacramento-based trade organization for the California wine industry, monitored the progress of Measure J. Lush Cosmetics, a UK-based cosmetics company that is opposed to animal testing, donated $8,100 to the Coalition to End Factory Farming (CEFF), which supported Measure J.
Cassie King, organizer with the CEFF, says Measure J “was one step in the long struggle.
King is also the director of communications for Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), a Berkeley-based activist group that seeks to eliminate animal agriculture.
“The Measure J campaign started tens of thousands of conversations across Sonoma County. Those conversations are continuing with different ideas being discussed to address this serious issue. Many people who weren’t sure this was the right solution are thinking about other solutions now. They actually want to see more specific rules regarding animal welfare and that is encouraging,” says King.
The Sonoma County Farm Bureau opposed Measure J. Dayna Ghirardelli, executive director of the bureau, says voter education on the benefits and economic challenges of local farms has become one of the organization’s primary goals in 2025 and beyond.
“Measure J has motivated us to do all we can to get out in the community and share our stories. Defeating the measure also required us to rally our neighbors, Sonoma County Farm Bureau members from all industries and various community organizations. Sonoma County agriculture is an established ecosystem. Everyone in agriculture and beyond is a part of that and joined in this effort,” says Ghirardelli.
“It was about sending an overwhelming message that our community stands by its farmers. That meant bringing together local business leaders, farmers and advocates. As a result, our agricultural community is more united than ever. Sonoma County residents gained a deeper understanding of how our family farms care for their land and animals. It was heartening to see our farmers connect directly with the generations of people who love Clo [the Cow, Clover’s cartoon bovine mascot], who in turn showed up for her at the ballot box,” says Benedetti.
An evolution of thinking on Measure J
The petition to put the measure on the ballot drew about 37,000 signatures; when the final tally was counted in November, Measure J received 36,268 votes. Opponents of the measure see this as an indication the initiative lost support between spring and fall of 2024.
“Several people called the Sonoma County Farm Bureau and told staff they signed the petition but wanted to get their name removed,” says Ghirardelli.
Matt Heath is the immediate past chairman of the Sonoma County Republican Party, which opposed Measure J. He knew individuals who signed the petition to get Measure J on the ballot.
“Then they voted no on it, because they realized how it could shut down small farms,” says Heath.
Evan Wiig is the director of membership and communications for the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, a Davis-based nonprofit. The alliance represents family farmers and opposed Measure J.
He believes some people who signed the petition may not have been fully aware of the measure’s potential impact.
“Once the measure got on the ballot, there was more coverage of it in the Press Democrat, as well as an investigation of its economic effects by Sonoma County. Then people saw how the measure would negatively affect farmland, farmworkers, local jobs, the local food supply and the local economy,” says Wiig.
Renata Brillinger is the co-founder and executive director of the California Climate and Agriculture Network (CalCAN), a Sacramento-based statewide coalition to advocate for climate solutions offered by sustainable and organic agriculture. CalCAN also opposed Measure J.
Brillinger, who is a resident of Sonoma County, monitored both sides’ campaigns.
“I saw a shift among some local voters, including some of my friends. They came to see that members of Direct Action Everywhere were centered on animal rights and veganism. It put the activists in conflict with those who make their living in animal agriculture. It seemed pretty irreconcilable,” says Brillinger.
She says future discussions about animal agriculture could focus on understanding the economic ecosystem in which farmers operate.
“The current marketplace means that profit margins are very slim for dairy producers. Their choices are so limited,” says Brillinger.
She says the public should veer away from shutting down animal agriculture businesses. Instead, they should offer incentives for continual improvement.
One example is the Alternative Manure Management Program, a program of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. This is a permanent program that focuses on manure management for small and medium-sized dairies to reduce methane emissions.
“When farmers have resources to make environmental improvements, it can result in a global benefit—curbing climate change,” says Brillinger.
Another shift regarding the legislation was opponents of Measure J expanded the list of organizations to which they presented. Ghirardelli says engagement began early with local, state and nationwide organizations.
“The Sonoma County Farm Bureau spoke to over 60 organizations about Measure J. Numerous organizations were interested because they saw the measure could be a steppingstone to broader legislation,” says Ghirardelli.
“While Measure J primarily targeted concentrated animal feeding operations, it posed restrictive policies that, if passed, could have set a harmful precedent for agriculture in Sonoma County and beyond. Our industry values collaboration among producers, recognizing that a strong, unified agricultural community benefits the entire sector. This is why many winegrape growers joined with animal agriculture producers to oppose Measure J,” says Collins.
Political and economic ripples
Even with Measure J defeated, local animal agriculture businesses are trying to calculate how they would have been affected. They want to crunch the numbers for the next time a similar measure might be on the ballot.
“If the measure had passed, I thought I’d have to go below 200 cows—that would mean selling off almost 40% of my herd,” says Doug Beretta, owner of Beretta Family Dairy in Santa Rosa and president of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau. “I talked to the Sonoma County Water Quality Control Board, which said that I would not have a concern because our farm had a water permit. Yet I didn’t trust this to remain static, because activists could bring a lawsuit.”
Beretta’s statement about the water quality permit goes to CEFF’s assertion that there are no Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), sometimes referred to as factory farms, in Sonoma County permitted to discharge waste. CEFF maintained animal agriculture facilities without such permits would have had three years to close, downsize or alter operations so they did not meet the definition of a CAFO.
Direct Action Everywhere is continuing to advocate for local measures that would ban businesses it terms CAFOs. In December, the group celebrated the passage of Measure DD, a November 2024 measure that banned CAFOs in Berkeley. The measure, which needed a majority of “Yes” votes to pass, passed by 61.89 percent, with 30,761 votes. At the time of Measure DD’s passage, there were no businesses that could be considered CAFOs in the city. The legislation now bans any such businesses from starting operations there.
“Direct Action Everywhere came to Sonoma County because they thought voters here would be sympathetic. We’re taking that seriously. We stand behind the Sonoma County Farm Bureau and other farm bureaus to support them going forward,” says Steven Fenaroli, director of political affairs and policy advocate for the California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF), a state organization that represents farm bureaus throughout the state. The CFBF opposed Measure J.
One of the unusual aspects about Measure J was the Democratic and Republican parties in Sonoma County both joined the “No” campaign. Heath says he was “ecstatic” when the Sonoma County Democratic Party joined the GOP to oppose Measure J.
“We saw a great movement of the two parties come together to support our agricultural community,” says Heath.
According to Ghirardelli, the Sonoma County Farm Bureau fielded calls from voters about how Measure J would affect local farms. Wendy Hudson, chief deputy registrar of voters for Sonoma County, says the Registrar of Voters received complaints and questions about signature gatherers, “which is not unusual.”
“We would explain to those with complaints that we do not oversee or manage petition gatherers and feedback (or) complaints should be given to the proponents or opponents of the petition. Any legal concerns should be reported to law enforcement,” says Hudson
Donors lined up
The list of donors for both sides was extensive. These lists grew after the Coalition to End Factory Farming gathered enough signatures for Measure J to be placed on the ballot.
The “No on Measure J” campaign accepted donations through a political action committee called the Sonoma County Family Farmers Alliance PAC, No on Measure J, sponsored by the Sonoma County Farm Bureau.
Campaign disclosure statements from the PAC showed large donations included $103,000 from Clover Sonoma, $50,000 from CoBank, a Colorado-based national cooperative bank that serves agribusinesses across rural parts of the U.S., $49,999 from the National Pork Producers Council, $25,000 from the Iowa Pork Producers Association, $20,000 from Sunrise Farms LLC, a Petaluma-based egg producer, $20,000 from Rock Island Refrigerated Distributors, a Petaluma-based natural foods distributor, $15,000 from the U.S. Agriculture Partnership Fund, a Kansas-based nonprofit that supports public education and resources to benefit consumers and agriculture, $10,000 from Straus Family Creamery and $10,000 from the California Grain & Feed Association PAC, a Sacramento-based trade association.
Campaign disclosure statements from the “Yes on Measure J” campaign showed large donations included $45,000 from Karuna Foundation, a Colorado-based nonprofit that supports the well-being of animals, $25,000 from Humane America Animal Foundation, a Claremont-based nonprofit that advocates for animal welfare and over $8,000 in goods, services and monetary donations from Direct Action Everywhere. Direct Action Everywhere also assisted with legal and travel assistance, as well as texting to inform supporters of Measure J about one or more marches.
Each side had numerous small donors who gave anywhere from a few dollars to over $5,000. These included a wide range of Sonoma County dairy owners on the “No” side and individuals throughout the Bay Area on the “Yes” side. King estimates the PAC outspent the “Yes on Measure J” campaign 8-to-1.
Notes on each organization’s spending indicate the “No on Measure J” campaign spent funds on legal services, public relations services and advertisements through social media platforms such as Meta/Facebook. The “Yes on Measure J” campaign spent some of its funds on gas cards and Airbnb fees to house volunteers.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) in Cotati, which files lawsuits to protect animals from harm, was not a direct sponsor of Measure J.
“[Yet] we actively work and support efforts to protect animals on factory farms and better enforcement of those laws,” says Chris Green, executive director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
A review of news and social media coverage
Sonoma Media Investments, which owns the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, the North Bay Business Journal and the Sonoma Index-Tribune, among other publications, extensively covered Measure J and concerns related to it. The coverage often contained perspectives from supporters and opponents of Measure J.
This magazine, NorthBay biz, dedicated a cover story to Measure J [“Holy Cow!,” July 2024] with comments from both local supporters and opponents, as well as neutral observers from the University of California’s environmental and dairy departments.
Other Bay Area outlets also provided coverage that shared views from both sides. For example, FOX KTVU 2, the Fox network outlet for the San Francisco Bay Area that is licensed in Oakland, ran an October story on Measure J that contained statements from Mike Weber, co-owner of Weber Family Farms in Petaluma, Ghirardelli of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau and Kristina Garfinkel, lead organizer of CEFF.
Similarly, the San Francisco Chronicle ran an October story about Clover Sonoma’s “No on Measure J” ads on its milk cartons. This story contained statements from Benedetti of Clover Sonoma and Garfinkel of CEFF.
Yet other publications ran stories that contained statements from only one side. For example, El Observador, a San Jose-based bilingual news site, ran a mid-November story that had been originally shared by a bureau of Public News Service, a Colorado-based nonprofit that provides stories in the public interest for free to news outlets. This story only contained statements from King of CEFF and Almira Tanner, lead organizer for Direct Action Everywhere.
Other publications relayed information about Measure J primarily through opinion-editorial pieces. Berkeleyside, one of the three local news sites of Cityside, a Berkeley-based nonprofit focused on nonpartisan journalism, mentioned Measure J only in a December op-ed piece from Tanner of Direct Action Everywhere. In the piece, Tanner discussed Measure J extensively by comparing it with Measure DD in Berkeley.
Measure J received state coverage through sites like Ag Alert, the news site for the California Farm Bureau and national coverage through sites like Salon, which terms itself as a digital site for progressive journalism.
On posts on nonprofits’ websites, Measure J gained attention through writeups on sites ranging from the National Association of Counties, a D.C.-based nonprofit that serves county elected officials and county employees to the American Farm Bureau Federation, a D.C.-based organization that advocates for farmers and ranchers. Supporters and opponents of Measure J also shared information about Measure J through social media platforms. For example, the Peace and Justice Center of Sonoma County, which started as a supporter of Measure J, posted an audio interview from September with Tanner of Direct Action Everywhere on Meta/Facebook.
As the focus on Sonoma County and animal agriculture businesses subsides, the concerns that farmers and activists share may be the starting point for finding common ground. King says issues that worry CEFF include greenhouse gas emissions, the spread of avian flu and the health of farm workers.
Ghirardelli says Sonoma County animal agriculture businesses are continuously protecting and improving the natural environment.
“Our post-op of the Measure J campaign is not just for us but for all of agriculture. Locally, this legislation generated very high interest. Other recent local campaigns ordered approximately 400 signs to be distributed. The ‘No on Measure J’ campaign ordered over 4,000 signs. We kept running out. We’re still evaluating how everything came together. We want to do the best we can to explain the importance and intricacies of local agriculture,” says Ghirardelli.
[Editor’s note: A portion of this story was updated to reflect the number of signatures fielded to place the measure on the ballot.]
