(NaturalNews) Everyone knows that money talks in D.C. But most people probably aren't aware of just how loudly it speaks, greatly influencing policy decisions like the recent passage of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, known as the "DARK" Act by its critics. This nefarious bill aims to bar states from passing their own laws requiring mandatory labeling of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

America's corrupt politicians only seem to make important decisions when their pockets are first lined in accordance with their respective financial lusts. This is exactly how the DARK Act was passed, it turns out, with nearly $30 million being dumped by Big Food into the greasy pockets of these amoral traitors, who quite clearly don't give a hoot about you or your family's health.

Details of the financial contributions made to the 275 politicians who voted in favor of the DARK Act have emerged, and the picture is ugly. Among the 230 Republicans and 45 Democrats who supported the bill, Big Ag and Big Food interests contributed a whopping $29.9 million during the 2014 campaign cycle to seal the deal.

As explained by Alex Lazar, writing for the OpenSecrets Blog, Representatives Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), the two original cosponsors of the DARK Act, received heavy payouts from the anti-labeling Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) to introduce the bill. Likewise, the bill's cosponsors have been exposed for accepting six-figure bribes from Big Ag in exchange for their resultant yes votes.

These cosponsors include Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), Mike Conaway (R-Tex.), and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.). Other cosponsors not on the agricultural committee, including Reps. David Valadao (R-Cal.), Steve Fincher (R-Tenn.), Devin Nunes (R-Cal)., and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), also accepted payouts from industries fighting against food labeling transparency.

"All told, the 230 Republicans and 45 Democrats who voted to pass the bill collectively received over $29.9 million from the agribusiness sector and food and beverage industry during the 2014 cycle, or about $108,900 per member," writes Lazar. "That's nearly three times as much as the average $38,977 per lawmaker drawn by the 138 Democrats and 12 Republicans voting nay. Their cumulative contributions from the interests came to $5.8 million."

"For all the election cycles since 1990, more than $115.1 million has gone to those who voted for the legislation this week (with an average of $418,644 per member), compared to almost $25.8 million for those who voted against it ($171,785 per member)."

Your views no longer matter in the District of Criminals unless you can pay up

At the helm of GMA's push to block state-level GMO labeling bills like those already passed in Connecticut and Vermont are none other than PepsiCo Inc. and Monsanto Co., two of GMA's most prominent members. These two poison manufacturers contributed $2.5 million and $2.6 million, respectively, towards anti-labeling lobbying so far this year.

And their efforts haven't been in vain, as the DARK Act seems to be moving through Congress with flying colors, despite overwhelming support among average Americans for mandatory GMO labeling, or even a full-scale ban on GMOs in food. So what makes Pepsi and Monsanto's position against GMO labeling more important than the 300 million-or-so odd Americans who support it? Money, of course, which is the root of all evil in the District of Criminals.

"The basic problem that our nation faces is that our original constitutionally limited representative democracy has died an ugly death," wrote one OpenSecrets Blog commenter. "We presently are in the hands of professional politicians (all flavors) who diligently respond to the one-% money with which they are showered, not to the people whom they nominally represent."

"The outlook for the future is extremely grim."

Find all the unfiltered and breaking stories on GMOs at GMOFood.news

Research GMOs and why they are being pushed on the American people at TruthWiki.org

Sources for this article include:

OpenSecrets.org