Where the candidates stand on agriculture

Presented by

With help from Catherine Boudreau, Annie Snider and Jason Huffman

WHERE ARE THEY ON AGRICULTURE? While the presidential campaign hasn’t exactly been flush with prominent mentions of agricultural policy priorities, the details we do have about the candidates’ policy perspectives stem from areas of importance to ag — immigration, energy and trade. Hillary Clinton has undoubtedly been more specific in her approach to rural development. Her plan for rural America, released in August, centered largely on infrastructure improvements and immigration reform and how those measures would also benefit agriculture. But the Clinton campaign’s main thrust has been in urban and suburban areas, not in rural America.

On the other side, Donald Trump doesn’t have a formal agricultural policy platform, but he does have a committee of more than 70 agricultural advisers that includes many top Republican farming officials and business owners — and his top policy adviser, Sam Clovis, hails from Iowa and is well versed on agricultural issues. And the GOP nominee, in contrast to his opponent, has spent time stumping in rural parts of the country.

So here’s what we know:

— They both oppose the TPP. Clinton says it doesn’t pass her test for trade deals — that they create American jobs, raise wages, and improve national security. Her campaign told the American Farm Bureau Federation, in a response to a questionnaire in late September, that she “opposes it now, she opposes it in November, and she will not move it forward in January.” Trump not only opposes TPP, but has said he would also look to renegotiate existing multilateral trade deals, like NAFTA, and potentially withdraw from the WTO. “What we are opposed to is countries that have a competitive advantage coming out of the shoot,” Clovis said of the campaign’s trade stance during a Farm Foundation Forum in October. The WTO and other international trade groups must enforce their own rules, or the U.S. should look to get out of those agreements, Clovis said.

— Trump aims to build a wall along the Mexican border, while Clinton has pledged to submit “comprehensive immigration reform” during her first 100 days that would include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are already in the country. Clinton’s concept would need congressional buy-in, but it could potentially allow for the undocumented workers who underpin the U.S. agriculture industry to become legal. Trump, who laid out his immigration plan in a speech in August, wants to make Mexico pay for the wall and vows to get rid of anyone who is in the U.S. illegally.

— Trump wants a farmer to head EPA, while it lasts. The GOP nominee has said he would get rid of the agency, but while it’s still around, he would have it be led by someone familiar with agriculture. Trump also has said he would scrap the controversial Waters of the United States rule (more on that in a moment), and also EPA rules on energy production, but he’s backed the Renewable Fuel Standard. Clinton is expected to focus her EPA on climate change issues. She intends to have a broad renewable energy plan, which will include promoting creation of renewable fuels — including a goal of a half-billion solar panels in four years — and expanding access to higher-ethanol-blend fuels.

HAPPY TUESDAY, NOV. 8! Welcome to Morning Ag and happy Election Day! No, MA can’t believe it’s finally here, either. Make sure to enjoy the last day of get-out-the-vote messages, negative campaign ads and presidential candidate burger specials. You know the deal: thoughts, news, tips? Send them to [email protected] or @jennyhops. Follow the whole team at @Morning_Ag.

IF AT FIRST YOU DON’T SUCCEED: We’ve got more election craziness for you, but we’ve got a little WOTUS news for you first. More than 80 congressional opponents of the rule will weigh in on the legal fight today with an amicus brief, obtained by Pro Energy’s Annie Snider. Lawmakers’ efforts to block the rule legislatively came up short in the Senate last year, and unless opponents pick up seats today, the main fight will remain in court. In their brief to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, congressional opponents argue the rule, also called the Clean Water Rule, encroaches on states’ authorities and violates the Clean Water Act.

SHOW MA THE (FARM SUBSIDY) MONEY: Potential nominees for Agriculture secretary on both sides of the aisle have received crop subsidies and support payments from the USDA. In a search of the Environmental Working Group’s farm subsidy database, which includes disaster, conservation and crop payments from 1995 until 2014, MA found that three names recently under consideration by the Clinton transition team in its search for a USDA head have received government payouts totaling $734,402. But that number is dwarfed by the $30.4 million in total payments received by 33 members of Trump’s agricultural advisory committee — though the number of recipients is, of course, much larger.

One thing to keep in mind: The payments detailed in the EWG database are from before the new Title 1 programs in the 2014 Farm Bill took effect. The changes in the law did away with direct payments in favor of market-based ones, which are expected to be less expensive over time.

From the Clinton camp: The potential Agriculture secretary pick who netted the most was Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, who has received $531,500 over the past 20 years for his organic T-Bone Farm. Then there was former Rep. John Salazar of Colorado, who got $178,254 for oats and wheat on his ranch. And Karen Ross, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and her husband, Barry, netted $24,653 for their share of her family’s farm in western Nebraska.

And, since there’s a good chance Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack could be involved in a potential Clinton administration, it’s worth noting that he has received $96,238 in payments for his Iowa farm.

In the land of Trump: Before we break down the $30.4 million, MA wants to provide a bit more context. Not only were the payments spread out over 20 years, but Trump has seemingly made it a point for his advisory committee to feature a sizable contingent of owners of large farms, which represent much of how agriculture is now done in this country. Clinton, by contrast, appears to be mainly considering former and current lawmakers and government officials.

The bulk of the money — $21.6 million — went to Charlotte Kelley, whose family owns 14,000 acres in Tennessee, mostly producing cotton, and a ginning facility. The other top recipients were: Jay Armstrong, former chairman of the Kansas Wheat Commission, who netted $1.3 million; Garry Niemeyer, former president of the National Corn Growers Association, who received $1 million; and Mike Brandenburg, a state legislator from North Dakota, who got $990,000. Charles Herbster, the Nebraska rancher and businessman who chairs the committee, received $197,000.

ARE FARM SUBSIDIES OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL FIRING RANGE? When Vilsack was nominated to head USDA in 2008, the $42,782 he’d received in USDA payments for his crops from 1995 until 2006 was big news, thanks to then-President-elect Barack Obama’s calls to cut crop subsidies. Since then, crop subsidies have fallen out of favor with both parties, as reflected in the 2014 Farm Bill, which overhauled the system and attempted to have the farm safety net focus more on crop insurance.

In this election, the candidates haven’t been making as much of a fuss about crop-support payments. Clinton’s rural platform calls for maintaining “a focused safety net for farmers and ranchers by continuing to make progress in targeting federal resources in commodity payment, crop insurance, and disaster assistance programs to support family operations that truly need them in challenging times.”

Trump hasn’t made plain his thoughts on crop-support payments, but Clovis, his top policy adviser, told the Farm Foundation Forum that the payment system is probably “going to have to be addressed down the road. ... We are going to have to start taking a look at weaning ourselves” from crop support payments, and “allow the markets to settle some of these factors.”

COLICCHIO INTROS CLINTON IN PA: While we’re on the presidential race, Tom Colicchio, the celebrity chef and co-founder of Food Policy Action, introduced Clinton at a campaign stop in Pittsburgh on Monday. He told the audience he remembered talking to Clinton some 15 years ago at one of his restaurants. She had asked him about food sourcing, he said, and wanted to know if he was buying from upstate New York farmers. “I was really surprised about how much she knew about the issue,” Colicchio said. Watch the intro here.

FIVE HOUSE AG MEMBERS TO WATCH TODAY: Moving away from the top of the ticket, there are a handful of House Agriculture Committee members who could be in trouble today. Democratic Reps. Brad Ashford(Neb.) and Rick Nolan (Minn.) are in close races in GOP-leaning districts. The Cook Political Report has called both contests toss-ups — along with Republican Rep. Jeff Denham’s reelection bid in California’s 10th District. Denham’s fellow Republicans Mike Bost (Ill.) and Jackie Walorski (Ind.), who chairs the committee’s nutrition subpanel, both seemed likely to keep their seats.

OPPOSITION TO MASS. ANIMAL WELFARE INITIATIVE M.I.A.: In recent days, money has poured into campaigns over Massachusetts ballot questions, but the “No on 3” effort has almost been a no-show in the cash war. Question 3 would ban the sale of eggs, veal or pork from animals raised in confined spaces. Opposition to it finally emerged with big-ticket donations in mid-October, but the help came from outside the state: Forrest Lucas, the oil industry executive from Indiana who was on Trump’s short list for Interior secretary as of September, donated $195,000; and the National Pork Producers Council threw in $100,000, state campaign finance disclosures show.

But that’s pretty much been it for No on 3 — and it pales in comparison to supporters’ fundraising. Since the “Yes on 3” campaign launched in 2015, it has raised a total $2.6 million, with $2.4 million of that coming from the Humane Society of the United States.

The head of No on 3, Diane Sullivan, chair of Citizens for Food Tax Injustice, calls the race a “Diane versus Goliath fight.” Since mid-October, the campaign got a $2,000 boost from the New England Brown Egg Council, another $1,000 from the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, and $500 from Sullivan. As an anti-poverty activist, Sullivan was hoping to frame the conversation as an economic justice issue. Should the ballot question pass, it’s estimated egg prices could increase between 12 and 18 cents per dozen. Polling shows the electorate has remained solidly in favor of passing Question 3.

Paul Shapiro, the Humane Society’s vice president of policy, defended the Yes on 3 campaign’s efforts. “We have always been running this campaign as if we’re in a dead heat,” he said. Read more from POLITICO Massachusetts’ Lauren Dezenski here.

BLOOMBERG SINKS $1M INTO CHICAGO SODA TAX BATTLE: Michael Bloomberg launched a new TV ad Monday in Cook County, Ill., where county commissioners are scheduled to vote Thursday on a soda tax to help close a budget gap. The former New York mayor is spending $1 million between broadcast and digital advertising efforts, according to an adviser.

The move means the beverage industry is being challenged on six fronts. Voters in San Francisco, Oakland and Albany, Calif., and Boulder, Colo., will consider soda tax ballot initiatives today — and the group is also fighting the Philadelphia soda tax in court.

The American Beverage Association criticized Bloomberg’s Chicago ad campaign, but declined to say how much the industry has spent in Cook County to fight the tax proposal. “No amount of spending by wealthy outsiders will change the fact that these taxes are regressive, harm small local businesses and won’t make people healthier,” said Lauren Kane, an ABA spokeswoman.

In case you missed it: Pro Agriculture’s Helena Bottemiller Evich reported from the Bay Area on the crazy-expensive soda tax fight. Read her story here.

PETERSON TO HEAD U.S. WHEAT: The U.S. Wheat Associates board of directors unanimously selected Vince Peterson as its next president, during their meeting in Denver, Colo., over the weekend. Peterson has worked as VP of overseas operations for the group — which focuses on export market development for the wheat industry — for more than 31 years. USWA had formed a search committee to replace Alan Tracy, who announced in July he would retire after almost 19 years with the group. Peterson is expected to take the reins in July 2017.

MA’S INSTANT OATS:

— There is a war brewing in the Senate over whether Arkansas or Texas makes better cheese dip. The Wall Street Journal details the churning fight here.

— Attorneys general from “about seven states” are joining the federal government’s probe of the Dow-DuPont merger, Reuters reports.

— The election is unlikely to hurt the push for lawmakers to take up the Farm Bill early, American Farm Bureau Federation policy director Dale Moore tells ABC’s Cedar Rapids, Iowa, affiliate.

— The farm vote is still important in Arkansas, which trails only Iowa and Idaho in its concentration of farmers, according to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

THAT’S ALL FOR MA! See you again soon! In the meantime, drop your host and the rest of the team a line: [email protected] and @ceboudreau; [email protected] and @jennyhops; [email protected] and @hbottemiller; [email protected] and @IanKullgren; [email protected] and @mjkorade; and [email protected] and @jsonhuffman. You can also follow @POLITICOPro and @Morning_Ag on Twitter.