| The American Beverage Association (i.e. the soda lobby) seems awfully happy about the school lunch bill in the Senate. Should we be worried? They began last year by spending a mere $200,000 in lobbying in the first quarter. They increased to $1,330,000 in the second quarter, $7,550,000 in the third quarter, and $11,010,000 in the fourth quarter. (Additionally, they began in the first quarter with their own lobbyists plus the help of two outside lobbying firms, added two new lobbying firms in the second quarter, and another one in the third quarter.) They've also testified at Congressional hearings on school lunch.
I realize that much of their spending is related to defeating a soda tax, but some of it is for school lunch and child nutrition programs too. They are scared shitless that Congress will ban vending machines from schools (a great idea!). Thus, they are promoting their own, voluntary, "self-regulation:"
The beverage industry is committed to the health and wellness of its consumers, including America's schoolchildren. Just this month, we announced the remarkable results of the final progress report on the implementation of our School Beverage Guidelines. The report shows that, when it comes to beverages, it's a whole new day in America's schools. In fact, we've removed full-calorie soft drinks and slashed beverage calories available in schools by 88 percent!
They don't mind cutting the calories because the same companies that sell soda (and diet soda) also sell water, juice, and sports drinks. So long as schools have vending machines with ANYTHING in them, these companies make money. Removing the calories doesn't harm the bottom line, but removing the vending machines does.
What I want to know is: what's in the Senate bill that the ABA likes so much? I've emailed the Center for Science in the Public Interest to see if they know anything. Also, I've included more on the ABA's lobbying below. |
American Beverage Association Lobbying Spending in 2009
In each quarter, I've listed what they spent with each lobbying firm they contracted with, as well as what they spent on their own in-house lobbying (i.e. paying ABA employees to lobby).
First quarter 2009:
In-house lobbying: $140,000
Bockorny Group: $50,000
Patton Boggs: Under $10,000
Total: $200,000
Second quarter 2009:
In-house lobbying: $1,200,000
Bockorny Group: $50,000
Heather Podesta + Partners: $40,000
O'Neill and Associates: $30,000
Patton Boggs: $10,000
Total: $1,330,000
Third quarter 2009:
In-house lobbying: $7,330,000
Bockorny Group: $90,000
Heather Podesta + Partners: $80,000
O'Neill and Associates: $10,000
Patton Boggs: $10,000
Thompson Smitch Consulting Group: $30,000
Total: $7,550,000
Fourth quarter 2009:
In-house lobbying: $10,800,000
Bockorny Group: $90,000
Heather Podesta + Partners: $80,000
Patton Boggs: $10,000
Thompson Smitch Consulting Group: $30,000
Total: $11,010,000 |
