Because “public-interest” groups cloak themselves with the feel-good mantle of protecting consumers, the environment, animals, etc., the motives of such groups rarely get questioned. But several recent developments show that all too often, activists put their own self-interest before the public’s interest.

Consider, for example, environmental groups’ opposition to a Washington state ballot measure going before voters this fall. Initiative 732 pursues a major environmentalist goal—carbon-emissions reduction—by imposing an excise tax. Revenues from the carbon tax would in turn fund sales, manufacturing, and low-income-household tax cuts. In other words, it’s revenue neutral, and that doesn’t sit well with green activists who see climate change as an effective proxy for a broader ideological goal: expanding government.

The Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy, whose members include such national groups as the Natural Resources Defense Council and Union for Concerned Scientists, prefers that carbon-tax revenue be invested in “clean energy and protecting vulnerable communities.” The director of One America, a member of the Alliance, remarked, “It’s not about reducing carbon. It’s how we do it.” He also stated that if the initiative increased taxes, imposed new regulations, or funded government programs, One America would support it.

Another egregious example of self-interest supplanting the public interest arises from activists’ crusade for warning labels on food items containing biotechnology-derived ingredients, popularly known as “genetically-modified organisms” or “GMOs.” Citing the results of manufactured push polls and petitions, proponents have long declared that consumers want to know if food products contained GMOs.

“Right to know” was the rallying cry behind a 2012 California ballot initiative, Proposition 37. But an August 12, 2012 “Open Letter to the Organic Community” from the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) exposed mandated labeling as a means to other ends. It asked “how quickly can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming?” The answer: “The first step is to change our labeling laws.” It also spoke of driving “GMO-tainted foods … off supermarket shelves.” So in addition to advancing the Luddite goal of eliminating a technology that has inspired a second “green revolution,” the OCA saw a profit-making opportunity for a select few food companies through mandatory GMO labeling.