After more than three years of squabbling over issues ranging from food stamps to farm payments, the House of Representatives passed a new five-year farm bill Wednesday that would slash spending by $23 billion over the next 10 years, including $8 billion in cuts to food stamps and $4 billion in cuts to conservation programs.

But despite those cuts, there is one program that is expected to see a $7 billion increase over the next decade: crop insurance.

Last year, the farm bill was the sixth-most heavily lobbied measure on Capitol Hill, with 350 organizations spending cash to get their voices heard as it was being shaped. Much of that lobbying was done by agricultural groups like the American Farm Bureau and the International Dairy Foods Association, which listed the bill on a combined 34 of their disclosure reports in 2013; crop insurance was the issue that appeared the most frequently on these reports. And the two groups weren’t alone in their push. Since 2006, the American Association of Crop Insurers and the National Association of Wheat Growers, for example, have each mentioned crop insurance in lobbying disclosure reports more than 60 times.

Together, the agricultural services (in the case of AACI) and crop production (in the case of the wheat growers) industries have some serious lobbying heft. In 2013 alone, the industries combined to spend more than $57.5 million on lobbying. Leading the charge among those groups were chemical giant Monsanto and the American Farm Bureau, which over the past five years have spent $36 million and $27.9 million, respectively.

But crop producers and other agricultural groups haven’t just been using their cash for lobbying; they’ve also sunk money into the campaigns of much of the congressional leadership in charge of crafting this year’s farm bill.

In the House, Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank D. Lucas (R-Okla.), has long been a favorite of agribusiness; he received more than $744,000 from the sector in the 2012 election cycle, nearly 46 percent of his total campaign haul. That included $27,500 from the American Farm Bureau (including several of its state affiliates), the most of any candidate. He also received significant sums from the PACs of related organizations: $10,000 from the American Association of Crop Insurers and $6,000 from CropLife America.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

Other members of the House Agriculture Committee, like Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Reid Ribble (R-Wis.), have also benefitted. In the 2012 election cycle, both Ribble and Goodlatte received more than $8,000 from the PAC for the International Dairy Foods Association. In total during that cycle, the crop production industry gave more than $28,000 to Goodlatte and his leadership PAC, and nearly $46,000 to Ribble and his PAC.

Those sorts of contributions haven’t only been reserved for Republicans. Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), the ranking member of the House Agricultural Committee, has relied on the industry for significant sums. Over his career, crop production and agricultural services have been Peterson’s top donor industries. In the 2012 election cycle alone, Peterson and his leadership PAC received more than $453,000 from the two groupings; a combined $27,500 of that came from the PACs of the American Farm Bureau and the American Association of Crop Insurers.

In the Senate — which is expected to give its final approval to the farm bill as soon as today — Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has received more contributions from the crop production industry than any other senator. In the 2012 cycle, it sent more than $346,000 to her campaign account, with PACs from the Dairy Farmers of America and Monsanto each giving more than $7,000.

Overall, the agricultural services and crop production industries, and the agribusiness sector as a whole, have heavily favored Republicans; in the 2012 election cycle, each invested more than 70 percent of their contributions in the GOP.

Image: Michigan farm via Flickr user smruti_damania



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]





Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜