| I encourage La Vida Locavore readers to click on this article by Philip Brasher in the Sunday edition of the Des Moines Register: "Big Ag favors Democrats this year."
The gist is that corporate ag interests that have strongly tilted Republican in the past are dividing their giving more evenly between the parties, or in some cases giving more to Democrats than to Republicans this year.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association endorsed George Bush four years ago but has not endorsed a presidential candidate this year.
Even more surprising,
Organizations and individuals with agribusiness ties have contributed $19 million to Democratic candidates for the 2008 election, up from $15 million in 2004, according to OpenSecrets.org, which tracks campaign funding. Contributions to Republicans have dropped from nearly $40 million in 2004 to under $30 million this year.
Agribusiness interests haven't steered this big a share of their money to Democrats, about 40 percent, since the 1994 campaign. That happens to be the last time Democrats controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Groups and individuals representing sugar, corn, wheat and other crops gave 61 percent of their money to Republicans in 2004. This time around, the split was close to even. Some $7.2 million has gone to Republicans, compared with $6.8 million to Democrats.
Sugar growers, who successfully fought this year to preserve their price-support program in the farm bill, were the biggest contributors. Minnesota-based American Crystal Sugar contributed $1.6 million, primarily through its political action committee, and 68 percent of that went to Democrats. An additional $456,750 in contributions came from individuals or the PAC associated with Flo-Sun Inc., a Florida-based sugar producer. Eighty-three percent of Flo-Sun money went to Democrats.
The National Corn Growers Association has contributed $69,375 during this election cycle. Nearly eight in every 10 dollars has gone to Democrats.
The article also credits Barack Obama with reaching out to agribusiness:
Among other things, Obama hasn't been bashing big farms, said former Democratic Rep. Charles Stenholm, a lobbyist for livestock and oil interests who is supporting Obama. And Obama advisers have been telling groups that his administration would base decisions on "sound science" rather than ideology. That is encouraging to livestock groups worried about environmental regulations and the animal-welfare movement.
Obama's campaign has "been very masterful in appealing to a centrist position," Stenholm said.
Notice how the Des Moines Register reporter puts industry on the side of "sound science" while potraying environmentalists and animal welfare activists as ideological. Sigh. If only our system of subsidies and regulations for agriculture were based on sound science! But that's a topic for a different post.
Like I wrote over the weekend, sustainable ag advocates have our work cut out for us even if there's a big Democratic landslide on Tuesday. |
