CodePink leader adds muscle to well-funded fight to ban restaurant delicacy
Washington, DC residents are voting on Initiative 86, a ballot measure to ban foie gras and other products made from birds. Campaign-finance records cited in the article show the effort has substantial backing from a national animal-rights organisation, raising questions about how a local food-policy campaign is funded and connected to a wider movement.
Pro-Animal DC reported $474,190.62 in contributions between 23 September 2025 and 26 October 2026, including $386,435.77 from Pro-Animal Future, which launched the campaign. Its filings list $126,780.36 in stipends to organiser Cady Witt and $89,224 in payments to 64 petition circulators. Pro-Animal Future says the campaign seeks to end force-feeding birds and change views on animal agriculture; it says CodePink has no role beyond coordinator Olivia DiNucci appearing in a TikTok video.
In short
- DC voters are considering a ban on foie gras.
- The campaign reported nearly $475,000 in contributions.
- Most of its funding came from Pro-Animal Future.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters can argue that force-feeding birds for foie gras causes serious and avoidable suffering, and that voters should be able to prohibit products made through such practices. National animal-rights funding can provide the expertise and resources needed to qualify a local initiative, while the campaign’s stated aim is to change practices and public attitudes towards animal agriculture.
The case against
Opponents can argue that a ban would restrict consumer choice and impose a broad policy on a local food market, potentially extending beyond foie gras to other bird products. The substantial funding from a national organisation also raises fair questions about local accountability and whether residents are being asked to decide a genuinely local policy or advance a wider movement’s agenda.
Art Culture Elections Food Politics World