- 8 -
Petitioner made editorial space available to Landmark, so that it
could include its own discourse on cooperatives as well as
discussions of its general business. Petitioner also invited
representatives from Landmark and other cooperative organizations
to speak about cooperative issues at its farm bureau meetings.
In addition, pursuant to the service contract, petitioner
undertook various legislative efforts in cooperation with
Landmark. On several occasions, they were successful in securing
passage of legislation beneficial to Ohio farmers.
In conducting its activities pursuant to the service
contract, petitioner continuously emphasized the cooperative form
of doing business. In this connection, petitioner would often
mention Landmark specifically and permit Landmark representatives
to communicate with petitioner’s members through editorials in
the Buckeye Farm News and through appearances at youth camps and
other meetings. Petitioner would also refer its members to
Landmark. The nature of petitioner’s activities under the
service contract did not materially change from the time the
contract was executed in 1949 until the time it was terminated in
1985.
Petitioner had a similar service agreement with another,
much smaller agricultural cooperative, known as the Ohio
Agricultural Marketing Association. This agreement served
significantly fewer people and generated much smaller fees than
did petitioner’s service contract with Landmark.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011