Those companies named as defendants are Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM), Cargill Inc., Corn Products International Inc., Penford Products Co., Roquette America Inc., Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas Inc. and the companies marketing and lobbying organization, the Corn Refiners Association Inc.

The suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, was brought by the Western Sugar Cooperative, Michigan Sugar Co. and C&H Sugar Company Inc. and seeks to end the corn industry’s marketing campaign, establish corrective marketing and collect damages for false advertising.

The Corn Refiners Association petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to allow manufactures the option of using “corn sugar” as an alternative name for high-fructose corn syrup — a moniker that has been tarnished in recent years as a link to obesity and other health complications. Independent research, according to the organization, indicated that despite the fact that high-fructose corn syrup and table sugar contain approximately the same amount of fructose, nearly 58 percent of respondents believed high-fructose corn syrup has more fructose than other table sugar.

“The term ‘corn sugar’ succinctly and accurately describes what this natural ingredient is and where it comes from — corn,” said Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, in a September 2010 press release about the government petition for the alternative name.

Since that time the Corn Refiners Association has created and developed the cornsugar.com domain, and has begun using the moniker “corn sugar” in several marketing blitzes, including on the sweetsurprise.com domain and a connected blog. The FDA has yet to decide on the petition.

The corn industry maintains that their marketing campaign is simply about educating end users of their product, the consumers. The Western Sugar Cooperative, which represents American sugar beet producers, argues that the stunt is false advertising, and contends that that if the public had a bad perception of the product, high-fructose corn syrup, then the product should have been improved or benefits should have been better explained.

But the battle over use of the word “sugar” comes at a time when the general public is hearing the call of some nutritionists and health care experts who are warning that all such substances — beet and sugar cane sugar, both white and brown, and high-fructose corn syrup — are “toxins” or “poisons.” But the controversy surrounding sugars has been ongoing for at least three decades, and is probably one of the primary reasons, other than manufacturers’ cost, that high-fructose corn syrup became so prevalent.

The Corn Refiners Association contends, however, that “our goal is not to present high-fructose corn syrup as a health food, nor is our goal to increase consumption of high-fructose corn syrup.” Instead the industry hopes to “clear up confusion about its role in the food and beverages Americans consume.”

Beyond the images, the ad paints a fairly dark portrait of illegal immigration: “Waves of illegal aliens streaming across our border, joining violent gangs, forcing families to live in fear,” the voice-over says. “And what’s Harry Reid doing about it? Voting to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits.”

Here’s the ad:

Several of the ad’s claims are questionable. Studies have found that crime often drops as more immigrants settle in a city. Likewise with the charges leveled at Reid: In addition to Social Security for undocumented immigrants (barely true, according to PolitiFact), the ad claims Reid voted to give them tax breaks (false) and college tuition (not really). The only fully truthful statement seems to be on Reid’s opposition to Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law.

But since much of the outrage over the previous ad focused on how it portrayed immigrants, let’s compare images. Here’s a screenshot from her last ad, which was eventually taken down from YouTube because of a claim by Getty Images. (The photographer who took the below image — of Mexicans in Mexico — said the photo was not licensed to be used for advertising.)

And here are the “illegal immigrants” depicted in her newest ad (red bandanas seem to be a common theme):

Angle’s recent doubling down on illegal immigration might drive away Latino voters, according to recent polling, which showed less enthusiasm for the midterms among Republican Latino voters than among Democratic Latino voters. Polling experts have said this might be due to anti-immigration ads and rhetoric from candidates such as Angle.

Univision will not be running any spots from Latinos for Reform related to voting. It is also important to clarify that while Mr. Robert de Posada has on occasion provided political commentary on Univision, representing one of various points of views, he is not in any way affiliated with Univision. Univision prides itself on promoting civic engagement and our extensive national campaigns encourage Hispanics to vote.

Deposada accused the station of succumbing to political pressure, telling Ben Smith, “They got a little bit of pressure from the Democratic Party and they pulled it off.”

ThinkProgress has more on the conservative ties of Latinos for Reform, including the group’s use of consulting firm Political Compliance Services, led by an aide of Dick Armey. The firm has also consulted with the Hoffmann Foundation and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which produced anti-John Kerry ads in 2004.

Some examples, from CAP’s interactive state-by-state breakdown:

• The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity spent $16.3 million this year on advertising, focusing in the last three months before the mid-term elections on Washington, D.C., Montana and Texas.
• The American Petroleum Institute spent $39.3 million on advertising this year, including $2 million in the last several months on ads in Washington, D.C., Michigan and Missouri opposing efforts to put new taxes on the industry.
• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $3.8 million this year on energy-related advertising.

CAP released the numbers just weeks before the midterm elections, when environmental groups are also spending millions on advertising. For example, the Sierra Club and the League of Conversation voters released a television and radio ad today targeting the Republican candidate for Congress in Virginia’s fifth district, Robert Hurt. Hurt is running against Rep. Tom Perriello (D), who has come under some criticism in the state for voting for the House cap-and-trade bill. The ad comes as LCV is spending more than it ever has on the midterm elections this year. Here’s a list of its other ads.

For starters, the commercial does feature Latinos — the picture is of three Mexican men in Mexico. But Angle went further, commenting on the appearance of the students in the room, who were all members of the Hispanic Student Union. “I don’t know that all of you are Latino,” she said. “Some of you look a little more Asian to me.”

Here’s a screenshot of the ad, which is no longer available on YouTube because of a claim by Getty Images. The photographer who took the photo told The Washington Post on Oct. 8 that the image was available on Getty only for editorial work, not for advertisements.

Angle’s argument seems to be that the ad could not be anti-Latino because her campaign did not purposefully pick a picture of Latinos. “Sharron has said several times before that illegal immigration is not about race, it is about the rule of law in this country,” her spokesman told the Los Angeles Times.

Reid, however, has brought up racial issues in arguing against Angle. “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK?” Reid told a group of Latino voters in August. “Do I need to say more?”

The ads, which will also run in Las Vegas and Denver, are meant to capitalize on anger by Latinos at a rash of harsh anti-immigration statements by Republican politicians. In addition to Arizona’s recent efforts to curb illegal immigration through its contested SB 1070 immigration law, Republican politicians have released a spate of ads attacking their opponents for immigration policy using images of Latinos, leading to charges of racism.

While Latinos largely identify as Democrats, recent nationwide polls indicate registered Latino voters have lower enthusiasm for this election than voters overall. Other progressive organizations have also rallied behind immigration causes to try to mobilize Latino voters. Immigrants rights groups purchased Spanish-language ads in a number of states tying the Republican Party to anti-immigrant fear-mongering.

Which one is really against immigration reform? It depends on your definition.

Both candidates have expressed support for non-comprehensive reform efforts, such as reform of the guest-worker system. Boxer voted in favor of moving forward with the defense authorization bill, to which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was planning to attach the DREAM Act, in August. Fiorina broke with many members of her party by saying in September she would support the DREAM Act, which would allow some illegal immigrants to gain legal status in exchange for college or military service.

But it’s difficult to say how Fiorina would vote if she got to office. Some Republicans supported the DREAM Act as a standalone measure, but still voted to filibuster the bill that could have included it. Fiorina’s hard-line stances on so-called amnesty — or any path to legal status for the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S. — and her insistence that the government do more to secure the border points to a far more minimal definition of “immigration reform.”

Boxer, on the other hand, has argued for comprehensive immigration reform, which would allow some of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. to gain legal status while increasing border security and cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers.

Both candidates are attempting to win over Latino voters, who account for 21 percent of California’s voting population and generally support immigration reform — and that’s immigration reform under Boxer’s definition, not Fiorina’s. So far, at least, polling numbers indicate far stronger support for Boxer among Latino voters: As of Sept. 29, she led Fiorina by 38 points among Latinos.

Here’s Boxer’s ad:

And NOM’s ad for Fiorina:

The non-partisan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Louisiana wasn’t amused by the add — they told a local TV station Thursday that Vitter’s immigration spot is “totally abhorrent and shocking” and “racist” in its depiction of illegal immigrants. “In this ad, he has these Hollywood stereotypes, caricature-types portraying Latino workers,” a spokeswoman from the Chamber said. “First of all, he uses the word ‘illegal’ so many times.”

Latino groups have pushed for politicians and media to stop using the word “illegal” in referring to undocumented immigrants, arguing its bad connotations create “an environment of hate.”

It isn’t Vitter’s first controversy over anti-illegal immigration campaign ads. Vitter also came under fire in the past week when ThinkProgress discovered he and Nevada GOP candidate Sharron Angle used the same stock photo to illustrate illegal immigrants. (Ironically, the photo is of Mexican citizens in Mexico, according to the photographer.) Angle’s ad, which is based on a rather dubious claim that opponent Harry Reid’s policies favor the undocumented over Americans, has also been criticized for its depiction of illegal immigrants:

“Sharron Angle is going way over the line with her anti-Latino campaign ads,” said Adam Luna, political director of America’s Voice. “While claiming to target the issue of unauthorized immigration, her campaign puts out a mailer demonizing the entire country of Mexico and her television ads paint a sinister picture of Dream Act-eligible youth who are, in reality, the poster children for the American success story. This is race-baiting at its worst, just like the Bush ‘Willie Horton’ ad or the Jesse Helms ‘hands’ ad. But in a state like Nevada, with its growing Latino population, this sort of thing may very well come back to bite Nevada Republicans where it hurts.”

While it is never a good thing for candidates to be accused of racism, it’s unclear to what extant outrage over the ads will impact Vitter and Angle’s campaigns. Both candidates have staked out hard-line stances on illegal immigration that are likely to scare off many Latino voters, a majority of whom support comprehensive immigration reform and favor Democratic candidates. Luna is right: The Latino vote is important in Nevada, where Latinos make up 26 percent of the population. But if Angle is not going to win Latino voters anyway, she may be tempted to play to her base with ads that overstate her opponent’s support for illegal immigrants.

“Effectively, what we’ve seen and a lot of other people have seen is we need to give them a better understanding of who we are and what we do,” David Wells, a spokesman for Goldman, told DealBook. “This is meant to help do that.”

The campaign, which is being overseen by the advertising agency Young & Rubicam, kicked off Wednesday with full-page advertisements in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.  It will include print advertisements in national, regional and local newspapers and banner advertisements on various Web sites and is planned to continue into 2011, Mr. Wells said.

I can just imagine the ads now:

Goldman Sachs. Making billions off the financialization of the U.S. economy since 1869. Making billions off the carry trade since 2008.

The company’s current slogan, addressed at other businesses, is “Our client’s interest always comes first.” Suspect.

According to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is conducting an investigation into the Gulf oil spill, BP spent more than $93 million on advertising from April to July 2010.

According to a Sept. 1 letter from Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who are leading the oil spill investigation:

BP’s increased spending was almost entirely targeted at national and local newspapers and magazines and national and local television advertising. A small portion of the increased spending was targeted at Internet advertising. With respect to television and radio spots, BP indicated that it aired fewer spots during the April-July 2010 time period than during the April-July 2009 time period, but a higher percentage were national and longer, 60-second spots.

BP also expanded the markets in which it ran advertisements from two states and Washington, D.C., to 17 states, the letter says.