Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
C alling itself the “voice of agriculture” 1 and promoting itself as a tireless defender
of farmers, the American Farm Bureau Federation has successfully positioned
itself as one of the most powerful interest groups in the United States.2 A cursory
look beyond its pro-farmer public relations campaign, however, reveals billions of
dollars in assets, close alliances with the insurance industry, and legions of lobbyists3
— making it difficult to view the Farm Bureau in a different light from the powerful
agribusiness corporations with which it regularly partners.
Far away from America’s farms, fields and ranches, the What is indisputable is the Farm Bureau’s sprawling,
Farm Bureau flexes its financial and political might in billion-dollar collection of interlocking non-profit organi-
statehouses, courthouses and the halls of Congress, shaping zations and high-stakes insurance companies. In the nine
everything from civil rights legislation to health insurance decades it has been in operation, the number of farms in
to agricultural policy.4 Sometimes advocating positions the United States has dropped from a peak of 7 million to 2
that actually hurt farmers or on issues which don’t concern million while the Farm Bureau has amassed a fortune that
them at all, the Farm Bureau appears to use farmers in one would stir the envy of many corporations, its deep coffers
of two ways: as a source of revenue or a front to advance cementing its political influence.5
the organization’s political agenda and financial portfolio.
How the Farm Bureau is able to maintain its non-profit
status with such vast financial reserves and close ties to the
insurance industry is a question that deserves fresh review.
tens of millions of dollars into Nationwide, an insurance and financial giant based in
Columbus, Ohio, was started by the Ohio Farm Bureau
corporate agribusinesses. decades ago, and the two entities maintain a close rela-
tionship. The company reported revenues of more than
$4.5 billion and assets exceeding $119 billion in 2007, the
last year in which it filed U.S. Security and Exchange Com-
mission documents as a public company.24 Nine of its 15
directors are associated with the Farm Bureau, six having
served in executive positions for the Ohio Farm Bureau or
the American Farm Bureau Federation.25 Nationwide is still
overcoming the public relations nightmare that followed
a $13 million settlement with the Department of Justice,
which charged the company with discriminating against
minorities in its insurance operations.26
Farmer Cooperatives
Amazingly, the behemoth Farm Bureau maintains these
vast riches and wide investments in the insurance industry
while also claiming non-profit status — a subject that has
been scrutinized by Congress and the Internal Revenue
Service.27
The Farm Bureau also takes advantage of tax law with its
participation in farmer cooperatives. Growmark, a $6 bil-
lion cooperative with far-ranging business interests in the
Midwest, was started by Farm Bureau members, and many
Growmark board members are Farm Bureau members or
involved with Farm Bureau affiliates.28 Only Farm Bureau
members are eligible to receive patronage funds — prof-
its that are redistributed back to farmer-members of the
cooperative.29 In addition to the millions it spends lobbying on specific
policies, the Farm Bureau chips in millions of dollars in fed-
Growmark is headquartered at the Illinois Farm Bureau,30
eral and state campaign contributions, giving $3.6 million
and the two organizations have joint-venture providing
in the 2007-2008 campaign cycle, the vast majority of it on
crop insurance to farmers.31 Growmark is involved in oil
the state level and to the Republican party.37 Between 2005
refining and distribution, gas stations and grain elevators,
and June 2010, the Farm Bureau contributed between two
and it has expansive ties to corporate agribusiness, in-
and three times as much money to Republicans as they did
cluding selling seeds endowed with Monsanto’s patented
to Democrats;38 it is not surprising that the Farm Bureau’s
Round-Up Ready traits under its own brand, FS seeds.32 It
political agenda frequently aligns with conservatives.
has formed alliances with Novartis Seeds, Land O’Lakes
and Syngenta, and in 1985, the cooperative consolidated The Farm Bureau also raises huge sums of money to influ-
its grain terminals and merchandising operations with ence ballot issues, as it did in Ohio in 2009. In a matter of
Archer Daniel Midlands (ADM).33 For more than a decade, two months, the Farm Bureau was able to raise more than
the president of Growmark was a member of the Board of $1.3 million from its national, state and county-level farm
Directors of ADM.34 bureau affiliates to help pass a ballot issue in Ohio that
transferred oversight of animal agriculture, including large-
Buying Influence scale factory farms, from government agencies to a politi-
cally appointed board, on which Farm Bureau affiliates
With coffers that would stir the envy of many corporations,
would eventually sit.39 This radical change to Ohio’s con-
the Farm Bureau has financial clout that commands atten-
stitution was also supported by Monsanto, Syngenta and a
tion on Capitol Hill and in statehouses around the country.
host of industry groups representing corporate agriculture,
which raised a combined $5 million, flooding the airwaves
The American Farm Bureau Federation, the parent orga-
and TV channels with advertising to influence voters.40 Two
nization of nearly 3,000 state and county-level bureaus,
positions on the politically appointed board were designat-
has been the largest or second-largest lobbyist from the
ed for members of “statewide farming organizations,” and
agricultural sector the last five years, putting as much as
following the victory, the governor appointed at least two
$8 million a year toward influencing legislation — in some
board members with ties to the Farm Bureau.41
years single-handedly representing close to a third of all
money spent on lobbying from agriculture.35 In the last five
years, the Farm Bureau (neck and neck with Monsanto) has Representing Farmers?
consistently ranked as the highest or second-highest spend-
The Farm Bureau regularly claims to speak on behalf of
ing lobbyist from the agriculture industry, shelling out tens
farmers — especially to the media and to Congress — and
of millions of dollars and employing hundreds of lobbyists
frequently cites its 6.2 million “member families” or its
to influence legislation.36
role as it the “nation’s largest and most influential gen-
eral farm organization.”42 An examination of the group’s reau’s ties to the insurance industry, mentioning the group’s
member support, however, suggests that the vast majority of opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a landmark
its members are neither farmers nor necessarily advocates piece of legislation that helped curb discrimination against
of the political platform that the Farm Bureau endorses on minority voters.51
their behalf. Most members are likely insurance policy
holders through a Farm Bureau affiliate, unaware that they In 1997, North Carolina’s first black lawmaker proposed a
are being counted among the supporters of the organiza- civil rights bill aimed at correcting longstanding discrimi-
tion’s political agenda. nation against minority farmers by the USDA,52 which the
Farm Bureau successfully opposed.53 The USDA has since
For example, the Cook County Farm Bureau, which in- agreed to pay more than $1 billion settling discrimination
cludes Chicago and its sprawling suburbs, has an incredible charges from African-American farmers.54
40,000 members,43 though there are only 184 farms in the
entire county.44 Similarly, Tennessee had fewer than 80,000 Bob Stallman, the president of the Farm Bureau, also has
farms in 2007,45 but it led Farm Bureau state rosters with invoked post-slavery reparations in a seemingly mixed
more than 600,000 members.46 In all of the United States, metaphor he used to condemn consumers and farmers
there are only around two million farms,47 casting more who oppose the industrial model of agriculture, referring to
doubt on the Farm Bureau’s six-million member claim. them as “extremists who want to drag agriculture back to
the day of 40 acres and a mule.”55
In all likelihood, the Farm Bureau’s base of support is not
rooted in the farms, fields and ranches of rural America, Is a group with these kinds of views on non-agricultural is-
but in its insurance affiliates, which require or incentivize sues really a credible “voice of agriculture?”
its policy holders to become members.48 Journalists have
investigated this point, finding Farm Bureau members who Corporate-Fueled Agricultural Policy
had joined the organization unwittingly through their car
insurance policies — and who were unfamiliar with or out- When the Farm Bureau does weigh in on agriculture policy,
right opposed to the Farm Bureau’s political agenda.49 its views frequently fail to support the interests of American
farmers.
This political agenda frequently has little to do with agricul-
ture. The American Farm Bureau was also a vocal oppo- The group’s routine partnerships with the dozen or so
nent to health care legislation in 2010, taking a particularly mega-corporations that control large sections of agriculture
strong stance against the public option. 50 and food production — corporations whose activities go
against the interests of independent family farmers — speak
Ten years earlier, the television journalism program 60 volumes to where the organization’s fidelities lie.
Minutes reported its scathing investigation of the Farm Bu-
A dozen or so corporate agribusinesses determine the eco-
nomic fate of most farmers in the United States. In 2007,
two seed companies controlled nearly 58 percent of the
seed market in the United States, with Monsanto’s patented
seed traits found in almost 90 percent of genetically modi-
fied corn;56 ranchers, meanwhile, face a similar dearth of
competition. In 2007, five companies controlled nearly
84 percent of the beef and 66 percent of pork markets,57
greatly restricting growers’ options for selling livestock —
and the prices they receive. These highly concentrated mar-
kets have hurt farmers, who, for example, have watched the
price of seed corn more than double in the last decade58
without seeing a comparable increase in the price of the
corn they produce .
(Endnotes)