Farm Subsidies and Political Contributions
Giving to your congressman does pay off, but measuring the results is not that simple
by Leigh Pomeroy
It stands to reason that those politicians whose districts most benefit from agriculture receive the most political contributions from the agribusiness sector. But how can we prove that?
Thanks to the Environmental Working Group and opensecrets.org, Vox Verax and Minnesota Monitor have been able to draw a few cautious conclusions. What we found indicate that political contributions to representatives of districts that rely heavily on agriculture do yield farm subsidies returned to those districts. But it's not that simple.
Minnesota has eight congressional districts. Two are mostly urban (4 and 5), three mostly suburban (2, 3 and 6), and three mostly rural (1, 7 and 8). Districts 3, 4 and 5 have virtually no agriculture. Districts 2, 6 & 8 have some agriculture. And districts 1 and 7 have strong agricultural based economies, with district 7 relying almost entirely on agriculture for its economic base.
From table below it is clear that districts 1 and 7 receive by far the lion's share of agricultural subsidies, commanding fully $8.1 billion of the $9.3 billion doled out to Minnesota farmers between 1995 and 2005 — some 88 percent of all Minnesota farm subsidies.
It also shows that the U.S. representatives in those districts received the most campaign contributions from the agribusiness sector, and that agribusiness donations to those representatives yielded the best return if measured by farm subsidies — at $4,779 (Peterson) and $4,747 (Gutknecht) per dollar of donation.
In tabulating our results we included only those representatives who were in office through 2006. We did not include any of the legislators who took office in 2007: Reps. Michele Bachmann, Keith Ellison or Tim Walz.
Our process was to look at total farm subsidies from 1995 to 2005. From that we figured the total number of subsidies per farm over the same period of time. Then we took the total amount of donations from the agribusiness sector for each representative from 1989 to the present day (or the end of their careers in Congress) and figured the percentage that those donations made up of the total donations. Finally, we tabulated the amount of money returned to each district in farm subsidies per donation dollar.
While this chart gives an indication of where agribusiness money is going and what results it achieves, it is hardly conclusive. For one thing, political money in support of agriculture can come from many sectors, not just agribusiness. Examples include transportation (e.g. railroads), other business (e.g. food wholesalers), and finance, insurance and real estate (e.g. insurance companies and banks that specialize in farm business). These figures are not included in the results.
Further, agribusiness interests may give campaign contributions to representatives of primarily urban areas for other reasons. For example, production, warehousing and shipping facilities, as well as corporate headquarters, may be located in those districts.
Nevertheless, the figures indicate that agribusiness donations yield results if measured by farm subsidies.
The farm bill of 2006 will be a highly complex, book-length tome covering issues much broader that what happens on America's farms. It will be a challenge to understand for even those who know the issues involved. As for the majority of Americans whose only knowledge of the farm extends to shrink-wrapped packages of meat, displays of fresh produce under misting nozzles and the occasional news story of contaminated food, they have little option but to trust what their representatives in Congress will decide.
by Leigh Pomeroy
It stands to reason that those politicians whose districts most benefit from agriculture receive the most political contributions from the agribusiness sector. But how can we prove that?
Thanks to the Environmental Working Group and opensecrets.org, Vox Verax and Minnesota Monitor have been able to draw a few cautious conclusions. What we found indicate that political contributions to representatives of districts that rely heavily on agriculture do yield farm subsidies returned to those districts. But it's not that simple.
Minnesota has eight congressional districts. Two are mostly urban (4 and 5), three mostly suburban (2, 3 and 6), and three mostly rural (1, 7 and 8). Districts 3, 4 and 5 have virtually no agriculture. Districts 2, 6 & 8 have some agriculture. And districts 1 and 7 have strong agricultural based economies, with district 7 relying almost entirely on agriculture for its economic base.
From table below it is clear that districts 1 and 7 receive by far the lion's share of agricultural subsidies, commanding fully $8.1 billion of the $9.3 billion doled out to Minnesota farmers between 1995 and 2005 — some 88 percent of all Minnesota farm subsidies.
It also shows that the U.S. representatives in those districts received the most campaign contributions from the agribusiness sector, and that agribusiness donations to those representatives yielded the best return if measured by farm subsidies — at $4,779 (Peterson) and $4,747 (Gutknecht) per dollar of donation.
| Member | District | Total subsidies 1995-2005, in millions | Subsidies per farm (1995-2005) | Total agribusiness donations | Agribusiness donations as % of total donations | Amount of subsidy per $ of agribusiness donation (adjusted for years in donation sample) | Years in donation sample |
| Collin Peterson | D-Minn. 7 | $4,810.0 | $147,415 | $1,006,407 | 22.2% | $4,779 | 1989-2006 |
| Gil Gutknecht | R-Minn. 1 | $3,310.0 | $154,789 | $697,277 | 10.6% | $4,747 | 1989-2006 |
| John Kline | R-Minn. 2 | $613.0 | $90,360 | $286,794 | 4.5% | $2,137 | 1989-2006 |
| Jim Oberstar | D-Minn. 8 | $244.0 | $19,336 | $200,200 | 3.1% | $1,219 | 1989-2006 |
| Mark Kennedy | R-Minn. 2 (2000-02), 6 (2002-06) | $280.0 | $41,847 | $362,416 | 6.8% | $1,031 | 1989-2004 |
| Jim Ramstad | R-Minn. 3 | $19.5 | $32,500 | $299,967 | 3.8% | $65 | 1989-2006 |
| Betty McCollum | D-Minn. 4 | $1.8 | $16,216 | $53,409 | 1.7% | $34 | 1989-2006 |
| Martin Sabo | D-Minn. 5 | $0.7 | $33,333 | $129,300 | 3.5% | $5 | 1989-2004 |
In tabulating our results we included only those representatives who were in office through 2006. We did not include any of the legislators who took office in 2007: Reps. Michele Bachmann, Keith Ellison or Tim Walz.
Our process was to look at total farm subsidies from 1995 to 2005. From that we figured the total number of subsidies per farm over the same period of time. Then we took the total amount of donations from the agribusiness sector for each representative from 1989 to the present day (or the end of their careers in Congress) and figured the percentage that those donations made up of the total donations. Finally, we tabulated the amount of money returned to each district in farm subsidies per donation dollar.
While this chart gives an indication of where agribusiness money is going and what results it achieves, it is hardly conclusive. For one thing, political money in support of agriculture can come from many sectors, not just agribusiness. Examples include transportation (e.g. railroads), other business (e.g. food wholesalers), and finance, insurance and real estate (e.g. insurance companies and banks that specialize in farm business). These figures are not included in the results.
Further, agribusiness interests may give campaign contributions to representatives of primarily urban areas for other reasons. For example, production, warehousing and shipping facilities, as well as corporate headquarters, may be located in those districts.
Nevertheless, the figures indicate that agribusiness donations yield results if measured by farm subsidies.
The farm bill of 2006 will be a highly complex, book-length tome covering issues much broader that what happens on America's farms. It will be a challenge to understand for even those who know the issues involved. As for the majority of Americans whose only knowledge of the farm extends to shrink-wrapped packages of meat, displays of fresh produce under misting nozzles and the occasional news story of contaminated food, they have little option but to trust what their representatives in Congress will decide.
Labels: agriculture, Collin Peterson, farm policy
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home