Members of Congress could be caught between their constituents and industry interests when it comes to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as “food stamps.”

A recent study by the nonpartisan nonprofit group Voice of the People found that more than 70 percent of Americans favor banning the use of food stamps to buy soda and candy. However, both the sugar and soda industries are large campaign donors to the House agriculture committee, which approves the SNAP program’s operations.

Sugar growers and cooperatives have contributed more than $1 million to campaign efforts for the 46 current members of the committee. Non-alcoholic beverage companies have contributed about $225,000.

The findings come as the committee is considering a new farm bill, which will set the parameters for SNAP funding. The congressional panel considered the pros and cons of restricting food stamp purchases at a hearing earlier this year. “Our goal is to provide much-needed nutrition and to encourage Americans to eat healthier,” said Rep. K. Michael Conaway, a Texas Republican who leads the panel and is a proponent of the sugar restriction.

The debate over a potential restriction of sugary food and drinks by SNAP recipients has emerged amid growing concerns over the nutritional health of Americans. Recent studies have found links between sugar and heart disease, and soft drinks have been linked to diabetes, strokes, and dementia. This is not the first time the issue has been raised; in 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rejected a request by New York City officials to test a two-year ban on the purchase of soda and other sugary drinks with SNAP dollars.

“This issue has pitted anti-obesity and public health groups against the anti-hunger community,” said Dr. Kelly Brownell, dean of Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy. “On the one hand, the public health community says these beverages are contributing to ill health through obesity and diabetes. On the other hand, the hunger community says people are already stigmatized for using these benefits, and that to take something away would further stigmatize them.”

In 2013, the American Medical Association came out in favor of banning the purchase of sugary drinks with SNAP benefits. Anti-hunger groups, however, remain opposed to SNAP restrictions. In a February research brief the Food Research and Action Center listed numerous reasons for opposing a restriction on SNAP purchases. The center said the program should avoid “singling out poor people based on misconceptions or exaggerations.”

While the arguments for and against the restrictions vary, there’s no dispute that sugary food and drinks are big business, even among SNAP recipients. A November 2016 USDA report showed that roughly 20 cents of every food stamp dollar were spent on sweetened drinks, desserts, or salty snacks. Sweetened beverages were the second most-purchased item with SNAP benefits, accounting for slightly more than 9 percent of the bill. Prepared desserts made up 7 percent of purchases, and candy totaled 2 percent.

Any restriction on food stamp purchases poses a potentially major problem for the sugar and soda industries, and they are lobbying Congress heavily in the hopes of shaping the final farm bill legislation.

Efforts to restrict SNAP purchases have drawn the attention of soda manufacturers during previous farm bill debates. The American Beverage Association filed 10 different lobbying reports during the debate over the last farm bill. Industry political action committees (PACs) also contribute heavily to members of the House agriculture panel considering the issue. Sugar industry PACs have given $1 million to committee members since 2015; soda industry committees kicked in another $190,700.

“The beverage industry is a very powerful political force,” Brownell said. “The individual companies have a good bit of political sway, and then they also act through their trade association. They stand to lose a lot of money if there is a change in SNAP policy, so I would imagine they would be very active on this front.”

Coca-Cola Co. donated the largest amount from the soda industry, contributing $100,750. The biggest sugar industry donor to the House Agriculture Committee was American Crystal Sugar, which gave $451,900. The Moorhead, Minn.-based cooperative is the largest beet sugar producer in the United States.

The industry’s largest individual donor has so far been Edwin C. Rice, chief executive of the Ozarks Coca-Cola/Dr Pepper Bottling Co. He gave $10,700 to Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., whose district includes Rice’s business.

The West Palm Beach, Fla.-based Fanjul family—which owns Florida Crystals and Domino Sugar—have been major donors as well. Jose F. Fanjul gave $8,870, making him the highest individual donor for the sugar industry, while the company itself contributed $500,000 to President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee. Fanjul and his brother Alfy hosted fundraisers for both Hillary Clinton and Trump.

The recipients of the most donations were top committee lawmakers. Rep. Collin C. Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat and former committee chairman, received $61,000. Rep. Frank D. Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican and former panel leader, received $35,500. Conaway, the committee chairman, has gotten $66,000.

Regardless of the amount of money spent on campaign contributions, the SNAP program may be faced with significant changes by the time lawmakers craft a 2018 farm bill. Trump has proposed slashing the food stamp program by more than 25 percent, and USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue has said the administration doesn’t want the program “to become a lifestyle for people who become dependent on a government program.”

The post Congress Could Cut Soda and Candy from SNAP, but Big Sugar is Pushing Back appeared first on Civil Eats.

This article was produced by MapLight in partnership with Civil Eats.

When Tom Schwarz was growing up on his family’s 2,500-acre Nebraska produce farm and their International tractor broke down, fixing it was pretty simple.

“You bought a new part,” said Schwarz, 58. “Or, you bought a used part. You replaced what was broken, and you moved on.”

Today, repairs are much more complicated. Recently, a component in the guidance system on Schwarz’s John Deere 7230 tractor, which he uses to plant his crops, broke. Since the Moline, Illinois-based company no longer supports his tractor’s system, Schwarz is looking at a $3,000 bill for a used electrical part. He would like to just get his current component repaired, but manufacturers won’t provide independent shops with the guides or technology that would allow them to fix it, and Deere—one of the few tractor manufacturers with an authorized repair shop in south-central Nebraska—won’t repair older parts if it no longer supports them.

Schwarz is far from alone. Once capable of fixing their mechanical workhorses in a barn or under the shade of a tree, many of the nation’s 3.2 million farmers are now faced with tractors that can only be fixed by a manufacturer—a situation that benefits manufacturers’ bottom lines but puts added burdens on often-struggling farmers. But Schwarz and other farmers are fighting back. They’re pushing “right-to-repair” legislation, which would require manufacturers to provide the same information and parts to farmers or independent repair shops as they do for the manufacturers’ repair shops.

This year, right-to-repair bills have been introduced in 11 state legislatures, including Kansas, Minnesota, New York, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, and Nebraska. Supporters of the bill are at a distinct monetary disadvantage, though, and policy victories frequently are won by the side that spends the most. A MapLight analysis of state lobbying reports found proponents of right-to-repair legislation have been outspent by a 28-to-1 margin. Companies opposed to the legislation spent more than $2.6 million in New York, Massachusetts, and Nebraska. Meanwhile, the coalition that wants farmers to be able to fix their own tractors has spent $93,620.

“We never doubted that it was going to be difficult, in a David-vs.-Goliath kind of way, to go up against some of the most iconic brands in the world,” said Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of The Repair Association, a New Jersey-based coalition that works to promote right-to-repair legislation.

The Case Against Right-to-Repair

Nebraska isn’t short of farmers like Schwarz who want to be able to repair their own equipment. This year, the Nebraska Farm Bureau approved a resolution expressing support for a right-to-repair bill.

Meanwhile, equipment makers—including Deere, which controls as much as 60 percent of the tractor market in the U.S. and Canada—are opposed to the legislation. In a letter laying out its position, Deere argued that current regulations are necessary to maintain product safety and compliance with emissions standards.

“Allowing untrained individuals to modify equipment software can endanger operators, bystanders, dealers, mechanics, customers, and others,” said Ken Golden, a Deere spokesman. He added that customers, dealers, and manufacturers “should work together on the issue rather than invite government regulation that could add costs with no associated value.”

Golden confirmed Deere has lobbied on right-to-repair legislation, but declined to say in which states or how much the company spent. However, records show Deere has retained lobbyists in New York and reported spending $42,000 while lobbying on a 2015 right-to-repair bill in Massachusetts without reporting a position on the bill.

Deere and other equipment dealers have strong incentives to fight right-to-repair legislation. If farmers are forced to visit authorized dealers, it provides increased business for the manufacturers, and allows them to set the price for parts. Additionally, having only authorized shops able to repair machines means farmers are more likely to buy equipment from manufacturers with authorized shops nearby—which in most areas are the bigger companies such as Deere or Case IH.

Beyond Agriculture

Right-to-repair legislation has attracted more than just tractor manufacturers’ attention, though. If a right-to-repair bill were to pass, it could also affect people ranging from heavy equipment operators to mobile-phone users. Caterpillar, the world’s largest manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, has spent $38,700 while lobbying on right-to-repair legislation in New York. The Iowa-Nebraska Equipment Dealers Association spent $38,000 while lobbying against a 2015 right-to-repair bill. And corporate heavyweights including Apple, Verizon, and the Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) oppose the legislation.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative dark-money organization that proposes model legislation for the states, has also declared its opposition to right-to-repair bills. The council, whose funders include billionaire libertarian brothers Charles and David Koch, describes right-to-repair legislation as “government mandates on innovators” that would force them to hand over proprietary information. Both e-commerce trade association NetChoice and telecom giant AT&T, which are opposed to right-to-repair legislation, are also on ALEC’s private enterprise board.

Nebraska, the nation’s fourth-largest agricultural economy, emerged in 2015 as a key battleground for legislative efforts to give farmers like Schwarz the ability to repair their own tractors. Telecom companies and trade associations that lobbied against the bill, including Verizon and CTIA, as well as manufacturing companies such as the Iowa-Nebraska Equipment Dealers Association, spent more than $78,000 combined. The lone supporter, the Nebraska Farmers Union, spent $4,400.

Senstor Bob Krist, an Omaha Republican who sits on the legislature’s agriculture committee, said he had mixed feelings about the bill. “When you’re charging $4,500 for a software update for a GPS, I think you’re out of line,” Krist said. He didn’t have to balance his reservations about the bill in a vote on the 2015 measure, though; a series of procedural maneuvers in the state legislature doomed the bill, and it died in committee.

Outside of farm country, right-to-repair laws are also hotly contested. When Massachusetts considered right-to-repair legislation in 2015, opponents included medical companies such as Boston Scientific Corporation and Johnson and Johnson, automotive organizations like the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and technology companies including Apple. Opponents of the bill spent $1.27 million. Its lone supporter, The Repair Association, spent $31,500.

New York also considered right-to-repair legislation in 2015. Opponents spent $1.3 million lobbying in the state, while the coalition that supported the failed bill spent more than $57,000.

Senator Phil Boyle, a Long Island Republican, said he sponsored the legislation after hearing complaints from repair shops in his district, who felt their growth was being stifled by manufacturers.

Future Outlook

If history is any guide, right-to-repair advocates may look to bypass legislatures in favor of direct voter initiatives. A 2012 Massachusetts ballot measure to give diagnostic and repair information to car owners and repair shops passed with 86 percent of the vote.

“I think the way forward is a state is going to pass [right-to-repair legislation], or we’re going to do a ballot initiative,” The Repair Association’s Gordon-Byrne said. “But is it going to be next year or is it going to be in 10 years? That, I don’t know.”

Meanwhile, Tom Schwarz, the Nebraska farmer, is saving his money so he can afford a new guidance component for his $120,000 tractor. Since Schwarz is an organic farmer who can’t use herbicides, the machine’s guidance system ensures that stray weeds can be removed without damaging his crops. In the meantime, he’s resigned to buying a $3,000 second-hand part from Deere—the only source for the component.

“I’m going to have to buy another receiver,” he said. “This is the second receiver I’ve bought—and every time I do this, it’s thousands of dollars.

“You have no other option,” he said. “You have to go to John Deere for everything.”

[Editor’s note: Visit MapLight.org to read more about the methodology for the data in this article.]

The post Farmers Face Uphill Battle in Right to Repair Tractors appeared first on Civil Eats.