Green harvest

He helps keep agribusiness in the corporate welfare line.

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Not all the corporate money that poured into the 104th Congress went to the Republican majority. Take the money given by the agricultural industry — Rep. Vic Fazio (D-Calif.) did.

In 1995, Democrats (and some Republicans) said they wanted to cut “corporate welfare” programs, including subsidies to the sugar, peanut, and tobacco industries. As chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Fazio’s job was to build party consensus — and the consensus rejected all three subsidy cuts.

Fazio, the Democrats’ top PAC recipient, with $642,000 so far this election, also defends the government’s heavily criticized Market Promotion Program (MPP), which gives $90 million a year to agricultural companies to fund their overseas ad campaigns.

Testifying on the House floor, Fazio described it as a program for family farms: “They are people who grow 10 acres of almonds or 50 acres of prunes or 30 acres of wine grapes.” Try 130,000 acres of almonds (like those controlled by Blue Diamond, which has received $38.6 million since MPP’s creation in 1986). Or 50,000 acres of prunes (Sunsweet, $23.7 million). Or 22,000 acres of wine grapes (Gallo Winery, $25.6 million). All of these companies are healthy Fazio contributors.

But the big daddy of Democrats’ agricultural subsidies is still Archer Daniels Midland, giving Democrats $632,441 (and Republicans a respectable $367,756) in 1993-94. Even after the Justice Department announced its investigation into ADM for possible price-fixing, both parties — and Fazio — continued to accept money from the company and its CEO, Dwayne Andreas.

Democrats who try to repeal corporate subsidies, such as Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), aren’t surprised. “When it comes to these programs,” says Jim Kessler, Schumer’s legislative director, “I never expect much from the Democratic leadership.”

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest