June, 28 2012, 04:37pm EDT

Taxpayers paid $6.2 million in Farm Subsidies to Members of Congress or Their Family Members
Environmental Working Group's latest update of the EWG farm subsidy database shows that 23 members of Congress, or their family members, benefitted from $6,199,807 in taxpayer-funded farm subsidy payments between 1995 and 2011. The much-referenced database tracks $240 billion in commodity, crop insurance, and disaster programs and $37 billion in conservation subsidies paid to farmers in that period.
WASHINGTON
Environmental Working Group's latest update of the EWG farm subsidy database shows that 23 members of Congress, or their family members, benefitted from $6,199,807 in taxpayer-funded farm subsidy payments between 1995 and 2011. The much-referenced database tracks $240 billion in commodity, crop insurance, and disaster programs and $37 billion in conservation subsidies paid to farmers in that period.
"Members of Congress who receive farm subsidies are part of a system that cries out for reform and poses stark choices between propping up the largest and most successful businesses or helping working farmers, struggling families and the environment," said Craig Cox, senior vice president of agriculture and natural resources at EWG.
According to EWG's analysis of the data, derived from U.S. Department of Agriculture records, among those members of the House of Representatives who received substantial subsidies were:
* Rep. Stephen Fincher, R-Tenn. and his wife received $3,528,295
* Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D received $480,790
* Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa received $332,446
The distribution of subsidies among lawmakers reflects the highly distorted distribution of farm subsidies in the U.S. Just five crops - corn, cotton, rice wheat and soybeans - account for 90 percent of all farm subsidies. Since 1995, just 10 percent of subsidized farms have raked in 75 percent of all subsidy payments.
"These farm payments are not improper or illegal, but they do create a conflict of interest for these members of Congress," said Cox. "Some of them are major players in the 2012 farm bill debate and all of these lawmakers will be forced to cast a vote on the final bill."
The recently passed Senate farm bill would do away with the discredited direct payments, which go out regardless of economic need and cost taxpayers $5 billion a year. However, it includes a provision to replace those wasteful subsidies with another potentially more expensive entitlement that would guarantee income for the same farm businesses that have benefitted from the lion's share of traditional farm subsidies.
The same congressional families that benefitted from farm subsidies have likely received crop insurance premium subsidies too. That question cannot be answered until Congress changes the law that bars the federal government from releasing recipients' names. An EWG analysis found that 26 policyholders nationwide each received more than $1 million in premium subsidies and more than 10,000 policyholders each received $100,000 or more in 2011. With the identities of individuals cloaked, it is not possible to establish the extent to which members of Congress and their families reaped crop insurance subsidies.
"We are deeply disturbed by the public's inability to see who gets what when it comes to taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies," said Scott Faber, EWG vice president of government affairs. "The names of recipients should not be a state secret."
EWG supported a farm bill amendment introduced by Sens. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, and John McCain, R-Ariz. that would have lifted the veil of secrecy that has protected crop insurance subsidy recipients' identities for more than a decade, but it was never considered on the Senate floor.
"House lawmakers have a real opportunity to increase government transparency and make meaningful reforms that will create a safety net for working family farmers who need the help and will improve America's diets and protect the environment," Faber said.
Members of Congress who have received checks from the federal government include:
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (in alphabetical order)
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.)
Aderholt's wife, Caroline Aderholt, is a 6.3 percent owner of McDonald Farms according to ownership records as of 2008. McDonald Farms received a total of $3,262,386 in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011. She received $1,101 in commodity subsidies directly between 2009 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of farm subsidies to Caroline Aderholt, using the percentage share information received by USDA, comes to $206,631.
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa)
Boswell is listed as directly receiving a total of $16,235 in subsidies between 2001 and 2008.
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.)
Campbell is listed as a 1.5 percent owner of the Campbell/McNee Family Farm LLC according to ownership records as of 2008. The farm received a total of $16,876 in federal farm subsidies between 2007 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Campbell received, based on the percentage share, is $253.
Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.)
Costa is listed as a 50 percent owner of Lena E Costa Living Trust, which received $2,494 in federal farm subsidies between 2006-2007.
EWG's estimate of farm subsidy benefits Costa received, based on the percentage share information submitted to USDA, is a total of $1,247 between 2006 and 2007.
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas)
Farenthold received a total of $1,205 in farm subsidies directly from USDA between 1999 and 2005.
Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.)
Fincher is listed as directly receiving a total of $114,519 from USDA between 1995 and 1999. Fincher's farm, Stephen & Lynn Fincher Farms, is also listed in the EWG database as receiving a total of $3,413,776 between 1999 and 2011. Fincher and his wife Lynn are each 50 percent partners in that farm.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Fincher and his wife received totaled $3,528,295 between 1995 and 2011.
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.)
Hartzler is listed in the EWG Farm Subsidy Database, but no subsidies were directly paid to her. Her husband, Lowell Hartzler is listed as 98 percent owner of Hartzler Farms, which received a total of $820,768 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011. His ownership percentage rose from 53 percent in the years up to 2005 to 98 percent in 2006.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Lowell Hartzler received, based on the percentage share information (assumed to be 53 percent prior to 2006) supplied to USDA, totaled $514,645 between 1995 and 2011.
Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.)
Holt is listed as a 10.5 percent owner of Froelich Land Trust No. 1, which received at total of $34,623 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011. Holt's wife, Margaret Lancefield, is listed as a 25 percent owner of Lancefield Farm, which received a total of $24,681 in subsidies between 1996 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Holt received, using the percentage share information provided to USDA, is a total of $9,806 between 1995 and 2011.
Rep. Timothy Huelskamp (R-Kan.)
Huelskamp is listed as directly receiving $258 in 2002.
Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.)
Kline's wife, Vicky Sheldon Kline, is listed as a 20 percent owner of Sheldon Family Farms LP, which received a total of $29,717 between 2000 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Ms. Kline received, based on the percentage share information supplied to USDA, is a total of $5,943 between 2000 and 2011.
Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa)
Latham is listed as part owner of four entities: 33 percent owner of Latham Seed Co., which received a total of $448,925 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2003; 25 percent owner in Latham Hospital Farm, which received a total of $76,612 between 1995 and 2001; 25 percent owner in Latham Kanawha Farm, which received a total of $15,648 between 1995 and 2001; and 3 percent owner in DTB Farms LLC, which received a total of $552,017 between 2003 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of farm subsidy benefits Latham received, based on the percentage share information submitted to USDA, is a total of $332,446 between 1995 and 2011.
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)
Lummis is listed as a 31.3 percent owner of Lummis Livestock, which received a total of $47,093 in farm subsidies in between 1996 and 2002. Lummis listed her ownership of Lummis Livestock in her 2009 financial disclosure form.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Lummis received, based on the percentage share information submitted to USDA, is a total of $14,289 between 1996 and 2002.
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas)
Neugebauer is involved in two business entities. He owns 50 percent of Lubbock Land Company Five LTD, which received a total of $3,369 in farm subsidies between 1998 and 2003. He also owns 50 percent of Lubbock Land Company Two LTD, which received a total of $4,608 in farm subsidies in between 1998 and 1999. Neugebauer's financial disclosure forms for 2009 do not list either company.
EWG's estimate of farm subsidy benefits Neugubauer received, based on the percentage share information submitted to USDA, is a total of $3,989 between 1998 and 2003.
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.)
Noem is listed as having a 13.5 percent share in Racota Valley Ranch between 2000 and 2001 and a 16.9 percent share between 2002 and 2008. Racota Valley Ranch received a total of $3,198,617 in farm subsides between 1995 and 2011. Noem's 2009 financial disclosure form listed her as a partner in Racota Valley Ranch.
EWG's estimate of farm subsidy benefits Noem received, based on the percentage share information submitted to USDA, is $480,790.
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)
Peterson is listed as receiving a total of $828 between 2005 and 2009.
Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont.)
Rehberg received a total of $7,971 directly from USDA between 1995 and 2002. Rehberg's wife, Jan Rehberg, also received $1,455 directly from USDA between 2008 and 2011. Jan Rehberg also has ownership in two entities that received payments. She has a 33 percent stake in Lenhardt Property LP, which received a total of $1,039 between 2006 and 2011. She also has a 5.6 percent stake in Teigen Land and Livestock Company, which received a total of $31,890 between 2002 and 2003.
EWG's estimate of farm subsidy benefits Rehberg and his wife received, based on the percentage share information provided to USDA, is a total of $11,418 between 1995 and 2011.
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.)
Stutzman is listed as directly receiving a total of $190,226 in farm subsidies between 1997 and 2011.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas)
Thornberry listed as William M. Thornberry, directly received a total of $4,306 in farm subsidies from USDA between 1995 and 1999. Thornberry is also a one-third owner of Thornberry Brothers, which received a total of $76,401 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011. His financial disclosure form in 2009 lists him as an owner in Thornberry Brothers Cattle.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Thornberry received, based on the percentage share information provided to USDA, is a total of $29,773 between 1995 and 2011.
US SENATE (in alphabetical order)
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)
Bennet's wife, Susan Daggett, is listed in his 2010 financial disclosure forms as 5.5 percent owner of Daggett Farms LP and LMD Farms LP. Daggett Farms LP received a total of $268,969 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of farm subsidy benefits Daggett received, based on the percentage share information provided to USDA, is a total of $20,419 between 1995 and 2011.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Grassley is listed as directly receiving a total of $316,535 in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011.
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)
Lugar is listed as a 9.39 percent owner of Lugar Stock Farm. His wife, Charlene Smeltzer , is listed as a 7.42 percent owner in Lugar Stock Farm. Lugar Stock Farm received a total of $168,343 in farm subsidies in between 1995 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Lugar and his wife received totals $28,304 between 1995 and 2011.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)
Tester received a total of $177,744 directly from USDA between 1995 and 2011. Testers' wife, Sharla, is listed as a 50 percent owner of T-Bone Farms - Tester is listed as owning the other 50 percent. T-Bone farms received a total of $306,638 in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011.
EWG's estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Tester and his wife received, based on percentage share information provided to USDA, is a total of $484,382 between 1995 and 2011.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
EWG'S estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Hatch and his wife received, based on the share information provided to USDA regarding Ms. Hatch's share of Edries N Hansen Properties LLC which received $189,026 in subsidies between 2008 and 2011, is a total of $1,890 between 2008 and 2011.
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982LATEST NEWS
While Silent on Apartheid, Israelis Protest Netanyahu Firing Minister Who Urged Halt to Judicial Coup
"This is all so inspiring—and at the same time, so dreadful to know that all these forces have been silent for so long on apartheid. Silent, or actively participating and profiting from it," said one Israeli journalist.
Mar 26, 2023
Decades into the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, massive crowds flooded Israel's streets on Sunday for another round of demonstrations to "save a democracy that never existed," as one journalist recently put it.
Sunday's protests were sparked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu firing Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who a day earlier advocated for a one-month pause to an ongoing judicial overhaul "for the sake of Israel's security," given military reservists' concerns. Saturday also saw hundreds of thousands of Israelis join nationwide rallies, the 12th straight week of mass action against the looming changes.
"The state of Israel's security has always been and will forever be my life's mission," Gallant, a member of Netanyahu's Likud party and former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) commander, declared in response to his dismissal.
A White House National Security Council spokesperson said, "We are deeply concerned by the ongoing developments in Israel, including the potential impact on military readiness raised by Minister Gallant, which further underscores the urgent need for compromise."
The Movement for Quality Government in Israel, which is also fighting against the judicial overhaul, argued Gallant's ouster "proves once again" that Netanyahu "is not institutionally, ethically, or morally qualified" to serve as prime minister and vowed to consider legal action to stop the "scandalous and disgraceful" dismissal.
Israeli analyst Meron Rapoport
toldMiddle East Eye that Gallant's firing was "a desperate, extreme move by Netanyahu," whose decision was blasted by political opponents and other key Israeli figures while praised by far-right leaders.
"Netanyahu's descent into authoritarian madness," as one U.S. reporter described it, leaves Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich—the Religious Zionism leader who recently said that "there's no such thing as Palestinians" and Israel should "wipe out" the Palestinian village of Hawara—as the only minister in Israel's Ministry of Defense.
Israeli Defense Ministry Director General Eyal Zamir on Sunday decided to cut short his trip to the United States. In Israel, demonstrators filled Tel Aviv's main highway. Police used water cannons on protesters who broke through barricades at Netanyahu's residence in Jerusalem. Universities announced an indefinite strike. On Monday, dozens of doctors intend to call in "sick" while 26 heads of local authorities plan to launch a hunger strike at the prime minister's office.
In what one reporter said "could be a game-changer," the head of Histadrut, the Israeli trade union federation that has so far resisted pressure to join protests against the judicial coup, scheduled a press conference for late Monday morning.
After 18 "fulfilling and rewarding" months as the Israeli consul general in New York, Asaf Zamir resigned Sunday, saying that "following today's developments, it is now time for me to join the fight for Israel's future to ensure it remains a beacon of democracy and freedom in the world."
Meanwhile, Israeli journalist Haggai Matar, executive director of +972 Magazine and Local Call, said in a series of tweets that Gallant, who should be tried at the International Criminal Court "for his war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza," was fired "for the wrong reasons."
"Netanyahu fired him for trying to slow down Israel's transition into a fully authoritarian state toward Jews," Matar wrote. "Of course, it has been a dictatorship toward Palestinians for decades, and now that logic is expanding into Israel and Jews, while paving the way for even worse attacks on Palestinians."
Of the latest protests, he added: "This is all so inspiring—and at the same time, so dreadful to know that all these forces have been silent for so long on apartheid. Silent, or actively participating and profiting from it. And yet now they are on an all-out battle under the slogan of democracy."
American-Israeli reporter Mairav Zonszein wrote for The Daily Beast on Wednesday that "Israelis who have bent the rule of law to suit their ideology for decades are now themselves becoming the target of a far-right that is using its newly won power to bend it even further."
"Each party in the Israeli government has specific and explicit goals that the various laws in this judicial overhaul package would serve," Zonszein explained. Ultra-Orthodox parties want to ensure "their constituency does not have to serve in the military" and the Shas Party aims to enable leader Aryeh Deri "to serve as a minister despite several recent convictions of tax fraud."
"For the religious, nationalist, racist, far-right parties—Jewish Power and Religious Zionism, both headed by settlers who are now senior ministers in government—it's about extending Israeli sovereignty over all occupied territory," she continued. The Likud party wants to keep expanding "Israel's settlement enterprise, consolidate power over media, culture, and public institutions—and for Netanyahu, it is about assuming enough control over the courts, through appointing judges, to evade conviction."
Netanyahu, who
did not campaign on judicial reforms, returned to power last year—and established the most far-right government in Israel's history—despite facing various charges of corruption, which he denies.
"The act of creating new laws in order to serve its interests on the ground is precisely what Israel has been doing for 56 years as an occupying power," Zonszein stressed, adding:
While protesters—many of them among the most privileged in Israeli society—walk in the streets demanding the "rule of law" and "democracy," Israeli forces are demolishing Palestinian homes; standing alongside settlers who are terrorizing Palestinians; denying freedom of movement and assembly; holding people in prolonged detention without trial; killing unarmed protesters; carrying out torture; and deporting Palestinian activists. And within Israel, Palestinian citizens face structural discrimination and inequality under an explicit policy that prioritizes Jewish rights.
[...]
There is also a small but dedicated anti-occupation bloc that carries signs at the protests with messages like: "There is no democracy with occupation" and "Democracy for all from the river to the sea." At one of the recent protests, a gray-haired woman held up a sign that may sum it up best: "We were silent about occupation, we got a dictatorship."
U.S.-Palestinian journalist and Palestine Chronicle editor Ramzy Baroud contended in an opinion piece for Common Dreams earlier this month that "a proper engagement with the ongoing protests is to further expose how Tel Aviv utilizes the judicial system to maintain the illusion that Israel is a country of law and order, and that all the actions and violence in Palestine, however bloody and destructive, are fully justifiable according to the country's legal framework."
"Yes, Israel should be sanctioned, not because of Netanyahu's attempt at co-opting the judiciary, but because the system of apartheid and regime of military occupation constitute complete disregard and utter violation of international law," Baroud concluded. "Whether Israelis like it or not, international law is the only law that matters to an occupied and oppressed nation."
Yonah Lieberman, co-founder of the U.S. group IfNotNow, noted that earlier in the weekend, Israeli soldiers forced Palestinian worshippers out of the Al-Aqsa Mosque during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
Responding to footage from Israeli protests Sunday night, Lieberman said: "Furious young people fighting an authoritarian for their rights. Reminds you of popular uprisings that have happened over and over again across the world. But if these were young Palestinians they would have been shot—the Jewish privilege inherent in Israel's apartheid system."
"A popular uprising to overthrow Netanyahu and his extremist government will not lead to democracy and equality for all in Israel," he added. "Only overthrowing the entire apartheid system will lead to democracy and equality for all."
This post has been updated with comment from Yonah Lieberman.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In First TikTok, AOC Says Solution Is Not Ban But Strong Privacy Laws
"Our first priority should be in protecting your ability to exist without social media companies harvesting and commodifying every single piece of data about you without you and without your consent," the Democrat argues.
Mar 26, 2023
Amid a national debate over whether Congress should ban TikTok, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Saturday posted her first video on the social media platform to make the case for shifting the focus to broad privacy protections for Americans.
The New York Democrat's move follows TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testifying before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as rights content creators, privacy advocates, and other progressive lawmakers rallying against a company-specific ban on Capitol Hill earlier this week.
Supporters of banning TikTok—which experts say would benefit its Big Tech competitors, Google, Meta, and Snap—claim to be concerned that ByteDance, the company behind the video-sharing platform, could share data with the Chinese government.
Meanwhile, digital rights advocates such as Fight for the Future director Evan Greer have argued that if really policymakers want to protect Americans from the surveillance capitalist business model also embraced by U.S. tech giants, "they should advocate for strong data privacy laws that prevent all companies (including TikTok!) from collecting so much sensitive data about us in the first place, rather than engaging in what amounts to xenophobic showboating that does exactly nothing to protect anyone."
Ocasio-Cortez embraced that argument, saying in her inaugural video: "Do I believe TikTok should be banned? No."
"I think it's important to discuss how unprecedented of a move this would be," Ocasio-Cortez says. "The United States has never before banned a social media company from existence, from operating in our borders, and this is an app that has over 150 million Americans on it."
Advocates of banning TikTok "say because of this egregious amount of data harvesting, we should ban this app," she explains. "However, that doesn't really address the core of the issue, which is the fact that major social media companies are allowed to collect troves of deeply personal data about you that you don't know about without really any significant regulation whatsoever."
"In fact, the United States is one of the only developed nations in the world that has no significant data or privacy protection laws on the books," the congresswoman stresses, pointing to the European Union's legislation as an example. "So to me, the solution here is not to ban an individual company, but to actually protect Americans from this kind of egregious data harvesting that companies can do without your significant ability to say no."
"Usually when the United States is proposing a very major move that has something to do with significant risk to national security, one of the first things that happens is that Congress receives a classified briefing," she notes, adding that no such event has happened. "So why would we be proposing a ban regarding such a significant issue without being clued in on this at all? It just doesn't feel right to me."
The "Squad" member further argues that "we are a government by the people and for the people—and if we want to make a decision as significant as banning TikTok," any information that could justify such a policy "should be shared with the public."
"Our first priority," Ocasio-Cortez concludes, "should be in protecting your ability to exist without social media companies harvesting and commodifying every single piece of data about you without you and without your consent."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Passing on Senate Run, Ro Khanna Endorses 'Progressive Leader' Barbara Lee
"I know Barbara will not only fight for, but will deliver on our progressive priorities that are long overdue like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and ending the filibuster," said the Democratic congressman.
Mar 26, 2023
Congressman Ro Khanna announced on CNN Sunday that he will not run for U.S. Senate and is endorsing fellow California Democrat Rep. Barbara Lee in the closely watched 2024 race for retiring Sen. Dianne Feinstein's seat.
"I have concluded that despite a lot of enthusiasm from Bernie folks, the best place, the most exciting place, action place, fit place, for me to serve as a progressive is in the House of Representatives," said Khanna, who co-chaired the 2020 presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
"And I'm honored to be co-chairing Barbara Lee's campaign for the Senate and endorsing her today. We need a strong anti-war senator and she will play that role," the congressman told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union."
In a statement, Khanna stressed that "Barbara is the progressive leader Californians need right now, and her solid record as one of Congress' most outspoken champions of justice speaks for itself."
"I know Barbara will not only fight for, but will deliver on our progressive priorities that are long overdue like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and ending the filibuster," he continued. "There's a reason she's beloved by Gen Z. Because Barbara understands the issues facing young people today and knows it is our responsibility to protect our rights, our democracy, and the planet for the next generation."
"What's more, I believe that representation matters. And for far too long, our country's institutions have failed to reflect that reality," added Khanna, noting that there is not currently a Black woman serving as a Democratic senator.
So far, Lee's opponents are two other Democrats representing California in the U.S. House of Representatives: Katie Porter and Adam Schiff. Feinstein, who is 89, confirmed her long-anticipated retirement plans last month.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.