Tabling the presidential discussion, part I: Follow the money

How Obama and Clinton stack up on food and ag

Posted by Tom Philpott at 3:45 PM on 10 Jan 2008

farm-bill-money

Now that the Democratic campaign has narrowed to two clear front-runners -- each of whom has managed a surprise victory over the other in a major primary -- the time has come to take a look at how they stack up on food and ag policy.

If elected, would these prospective presidents kowtow to Big Food interests -- or work to rebuild local and regional food systems?

To gain insight, over several posts I'll compare and contrast Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on three fronts:

campaign contributions;
ties to agribusiness; and
their own campaign material.

Here's part one.

Follow the money

For campaign finance, I'll look to that venerable database, opensecrets.org, run by the Center for Responsive Politics.

In the 2008 campaign season, agribusiness interests gave Hillary Clinton $529,000 -- more than any other politician except Mitt Romney ($566,000). Obama came in at No. 5 (trailing Giuliani and McCain), drawing in $323,500.

Now, these numbers might not be telling us much about which front-runner agribusiness prefers. They could merely reflect a powerful industry's attempt to handicap the race. They include donations up to Oct. 29, 2007 -- a time when Clinton still exuded an air of inevitability.

So let's look at 2006, Clinton's last Senate campaign. That year, she reaped about $180,000 in agribiz cash -- ranking her 14th in the Senate. I note that at least four of the people above her on that list served on the Senate Agriculture Committee, a natural magnet for agribiz cash. So we can say that Clinton was in the top ten among noncommittee members -- a pretty remarkable place for someone from a state that doesn't house a large agribusiness industry. Again, though, by 2006 everyone knew HRC would likely run for president. The industry might have been just getting its chits together for the 2008 presidential race.

Now let's look at Obama in 2004, the year of his first (and only) Senate campaign. No one could have imagined then that Obama would be a serious presidential candidate in '08. Obama drew in $130,000 in 2004. That seems like a substantial number, but it wasn't enough to crack the top 20 among Senate candidates that year, a feat that would have required about $176,000.

In 2000, Clinton ran her first Senate campaign. And that year, she took in $152,000 in agribusiness cash, good enough for 18th among Senate candidates. Interestingly, her initial opponent in that race, Rudy Giuliani, brought in even more: $159,000.

It's hard to know how to interpret these numbers. It seems fair to say that in voting with its checkbook, the agribiz lobby seems comfortable with both of these candidates -- and perhaps a little more comfortable with Hillary Clinton.

For story: Tabling the presidential discussion, part I: Follow the money
7 Comments | Post a Comment

interest groups

One might also look at ratings from interest groups.

Obama receives a higher rating from the American Farm Bureau Federation (35 vs. 29), the National Farmer's Union (100 vs. 83), the National Association of Wheat Growers (50 vs. 25), and the National Council of Agricultural Employers (100 vs. 80).

Does this mean anything? Tom, can you shine some light on these numbers? Thanks.

Info from...

http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=949 ...

and...

http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=554 ...

by wiscidea at 4:04 PM on 10 Jan 2008

Being comfortable

Or, as an alternative explanation, they just found Clinton more influential and likely candidate.

by markos at 2:51 AM on 11 Jan 2008

Disservice

It is a disservice to the readership to limit this discussion to only two candidates after only two primaries/caucuses.

by dkpant at 6:05 AM on 11 Jan 2008

two candidate after THREE primaries/caucuses

I somewhat agree with with dkpant.

However, I think it is then up to those visiting this and other blogs to bring the other candidate to our attention and indicate why we should be interested in them, how their positions favor the environment, and suggest how we might deliver this information to voters in the remaining state.

Those who simply criticize Grist for limiting the discussion to a few candidates but refuse to present a case or even mention the name of alternative candidates are ALSO doing a disservice to the readership.

As I pointed out elswhere, votesmart.org has compiled a list of over 100 individuals running for President of the United States. There are links to voting records, financing, their speeches, surveys, et cetera. There is also information about state-level elections and I believe they are working on collecting information about local level elections.

If you feel Grist is not doing a good job, go to votesmart.org, study other candidates, and tell us why the media should be shining a spotlight on them.

I might be rough on you at times, especially Mr. Roberts, but I actually respect the Grist staff and appreciate their efforts. I'm pretty sure most of the contributors are not even paid. We are fortunate that professionals like Tom Philpott are willing to present their views, based on their own experience. They probably don't have time to cover over 100 candidates... and that's just the Presidential primary/caucus.

Sorry if this message offends some people. If it helps... it probably applies to me as much as it applies to others. We should all try to be more informed -- on our own -- and get the message out to our fellow citizens in a calm and rational manner.

Peace.

by wiscidea at 8:25 AM on 11 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

PS

Sorry about all the typos. I realize "candidate" and "state" should be PLURAL! I'm sort of in a hurry. Probably made a bunch of other mistakes.

by wiscidea at 8:27 AM on 11 Jan 2008

Could be a New York Thing

It turns out that New York's biggest industry is agriculture. Yup. A bit hard to fathom, because farms are not the first thing one thinks of when one thinks of New York. I was, until very recently, a lifelong New Yorker and I took that particular piece of news pretty hard myself.

So it is possible that large farms in NY gave money to both Hillary and Rudy simply because they are businesses in that state.

by Sophie at 5:11 PM on 11 Jan 2008

Re disservice

By only discussing Clinton and Obama, Grist is falling into the corporate media trap where it seems as though these are the only two that count. As Edwards stated in his remarks after the New Hampshire primary, 99% of the nation has not been heard yet. I understand that voters should inform themselves, but I find it discouraging when an alternative form of media starts to sound like the corporate folks.

by vr24 at 9:56 AM on 12 Jan 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.