Rep. Richard Neal’s sugar money leaves consumers with sour taste
Unlike the Red River Valley of Minnesota and North Dakota, no sugar beets are grown in Massachusetts. And neither do we grow sugarcane like the states of Florida and Louisiana. But during his years in Congress, Rep. Richard Neal (D-Springfield) has had no problem voting to maintain a costly government sugar program that benefits a handful of giant sugar processors and less than 6,000 farmers.
First enacted 89 years ago, the U.S. sugar program uses import quotas, marketing allotments, price supports and tariffs to artificially raise the price of sugar. One think tank called the program a classic government-created cartel.
Rep. Neal has decided that siding with the sugar lobby can pay off for him with succulent donations of campaign contributions from the industry. Between 1999-2018, Neal has voted numerous times against cutting sugar price supports and reducing sugar loan rates and in 2018 against an amendment to begin dismantling the outdated sugar support program.
Here in Massachusetts, approximately 13,400 jobs are generated among the 436 establishments that produce breads and bakery products, chocolate and chocolate confectionery manufacturing, ice cream and frozen desserts, snack foods, breakfast cereals, soft drinks and other products. The U.S. Census Bureau says that our current sugar program has killed some 123,000 jobs between 1997 and 2015 and the Department of Commerce estimates that for every sugar-producing job protected through high U.S. sugar process, about three manufacturing jobs are lost.
These lost jobs don’t seem to bother Rep. Neal who has fattened his campaign war chest on sugar industry cash. Between 2000 and 2014, Neal pulled down $16,000 in PAC checks from seven groups like American Crystal Sugar Co., a Minnesota-based sugar beet cooperative and the Florida Sugar Cane League, which represents large sugar conglomerates such as Florida Crystals and the U.S. Sugar Corporation.
In his July 2023 campaign finance report covering the second quarter of this year, Neal is showing a total of $14,500 in campaign cash from five sugar PACs including The Amalgamated Sugar Co. ($1,500), American Sugar Cane League ($1,000) and American Crystal Sugar Co. ($10,000).
Rep. Neal’s support for this corporate welfare program makes him a special interest sweetheart while his constituents pay higher prices for food at the grocery store.

Matt L. Barron
Chesterfield