WASHINGTON -- Look at the public pronouncements on the leading food association Web sites and one would be hard pressed to know who the associations are supporting in this week's hard-fought, too-close-to-call election that will determine party control of Congress. Quietly, however, the associations have been giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates, mostly -- although not exclusively -- to Republicans in an effort to elect a Congress more closely aligned to the associations' legislative goals.
John Motley, senior vice president for government and public affairs, Food Marketing Institute here, told SN, "The overriding issue is who is in control of setting the agenda, and what they will be looking at. If the wrong people are in charge, we're going to be on the defensive."
He cited two Democratic senators -- Tim Johnson, S.D., and Tom Harkin, Iowa -- who FMI would like to see defeated for their role in putting country-of-origin labeling requirements in the farm bill passed this year by Congress. "We're very active in seeing they don't return," he said.
According to the Federal Election Commission, FMI actually contributed $1,000 to Johnson's re-election fund in February 2001, before the country-of-origin labeling dispute arose; however, since December, it has contributed $5,000, the legal limit, to Johnson's Republican challenger, Congressman John Thune. FMI has also contributed $5,000 to Rep. Greg Ganske, Harkin's Republican opponent.
Motley also said FMI would "very much like to see someone other than Tom Daschle, D-S.D., run the U.S. Senate."
The Grocery Manufacturers of America here appears somewhat more eager to stay in the good favor of the current Senate majority leader. GMA contributed $1,000 to Daschle's campaign fund in June 2001, even though he is not up for election until 2004. Also, as of Oct. 16, GMA had not contributed any money to Senate candidates in either the South Dakota or Iowa contests.
Susan Stout, GMA's vice president for federal affairs, said the key issues shaping her organization's participation in the midterm election are "food safety, biotechnology and international trade."
FMI has by far the largest political war chest of supermarket industry associations. As of Oct. 16, FMI's political action committee, known as FoodPAC, had distributed some $492,828 to 166 candidates and political organizations, according to the FEC.
In contrast, the PAC at Grocery Manufacturers of America here had distributed $119,500 to 71 candidates and one other political organization as of Oct. 16, according to the FEC.
And the PAC at National Grocers Association, Arlington, Va., had given out only $1,300 as of Sept. 30, according to the FEC, to support only one candidate, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, chairman of the House committee on education and the workforce. (Boehner received no donations from FMI or GMA.)
Tom Zaucha, NGA's president and chief executive officer, said his organization focuses on encouraging its members to work directly for political candidates rather than the building of an NGA PAC.
He noted that NGA members are serving as campaign treasurers in Congressional races in Ohio and Texas.
Industry association money goes overwhelmingly to Republicans. FMI has given money to 110 Republicans and 24 Democrats in House races and to 28 Republicans and four Democrats in Senate races. GMA has given money to 46 Republicans and 11 Democrats in House races and to 12 Republicans and two Democrats in Senate races.
Incumbency is nearly as big a draw for association dollars as party affiliation, with FMI supporting re-election efforts in 135 races and GMA in 64 races. All Democrats receiving association funds are incumbents except in one House race in Tennessee where FMI gave money to a Democrat seeking an open seat.
These figures cover only the industry PACs' so-called hard-money contributions, those that go directly to a candidate.
The associations also contribute so-called soft money to political parties and other organizations. These funds, currently unregulated and unmonitored by the FEC, cannot be used by the candidates themselves but can be used by other organizations to sponsor ads that inform voters on issues or attack an opposing candidate's position.
This spring both houses of Congress voted to ban soft money as of Wednesday, the day after Election Day. However, the bipartisan measure's sponsors -- Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and Reps. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., and Christopher Shays, R-Conn. -- early last month said the FEC has issued regulations for enforcing the law -- regulations that subvert the ban's intentions -- and they have proposed bills in the House and Senate that would rescind the FEC rules.
Meanwhile, published reports have noted that the level of soft-money donations -- perhaps fueled by the impending ban -- has been at least as high during this midterm election as during the presidential campaign two years ago, and FMI and GMA told SN their soft-money contributions in this election cycle are running close to the 2000 level.
In the 1999 to 2000 election cycle, FMI gave $298,000 in soft money to Republican organizations, according to an estimate by Common Cause, the campaign finance reform organization here. Motley called that figure "a little high" but "in the ballpark." He said FMI's soft-money spending in the current election cycle would be "between $200,000 and $300,000, with 75% going to Republicans."
According to Common Cause, GMA gave $170,857 to Republican organizations and $15,000 to Democratic groups during the 1999 to 2000 election cycle. Stout said Common Cause's number "sounds a little high" to her.
