By Annika Harshbarger, Char Jones, Haley Miller and Komlavi Adissem
Arnolt Center for Investigative Journalism, University of Missouri and Investigate Midwest

INDIANAPOLIS — Danielle and Grace Perkowitz packed up and left Chicago two years ago for Houghton, Mich., to start a career in goat farming.

As beginner farmers, they said, they hoped for support from the Michigan Farm Bureau to get their farm started. But they found the Farm Bureau didn’t align with their values, both as small farmers and as queer women.

“I think we like the idea of farming as rebellious, self-sustaining and community-oriented,” they wrote in an Instagram message to the Arnolt Center. “The farm bureau doesn’t seem to capture those ideals. It also doesn’t seem inclusive or supportive of diversity in farming.”

The couple is not alone in their concerns, as Investigate Midwest reported in 2022. Many members of state farm bureaus and the American Farm Bureau Federation noted similar concerns, and some have left their local farm bureau for alternative industry groups as a result.

A seven-month long investigation by the Arnolt Center for Investigative Journalism, the University of Missouri, the University of Illinois and Investigate Midwest, including a review of campaign finance records, social media, lobbying disclosures, websites and policy books in nine Midwestern states revealed that state farm bureaus threw their weight behind political and social causes with little or nothing to do with farming:

• Election security laws in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska and Wisconsin.
• State constitutional amendments and/or ballot initiatives in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Ohio.
• Availability of government services for immigrants lacking permanent legal status in Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri and amnesty for immigrants lacking permanent legal status in Illinois.
• Removal of tenure in Illinois, opposition to teaching critical race theory in Indiana and advocating for teaching abstinence in Missouri.
• Reading the Bible in schools and voluntary prayer in Indiana and Missouri.
• Recognition of only two genders: female and male, in Missouri.

The Illinois Farm Bureau, the largest in the Midwest, claims a membership of nearly 400,000, with revenue of $57 million and expenditures of $55.7 million in 2022, according to the most recent tax filings. The Minnesota Farm Bureau, the smallest in the Midwest, has nearly 30,000 members, revenue of $3.4 million in 2023 and expenditures of $3.45 million.

Farm bureaus in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin did not respond to multiple calls and emails for comment. The Ohio Farm Bureau is the only organization to respond.

Developing policy from the roots up

Across the Midwest, farm bureaus are supporting policies that have little or nothing to do with agriculture: from the Indiana and Illinois farm bureaus favoring leaving “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance to the Missouri Farm Bureau opposing cloning humans.

National issues are sent with delegates to be discussed and voted on for the American Farm Bureau Federation’s national policy book, which helps direct its political efforts. With $35.5 million in revenue and $31.7 million in expenditures in 2022, where the American Farm Bureau Federation directs its own political efforts matters.

The Farm Bureau’s policy book is only available to members.

Platform policies in practice

A long-held common policy shared by the Ohio and Missouri farm bureaus is that there should be a higher threshold to amend the state constitution. Both bureaus have gone on to support legislation that would make their policy law.

The Ohio Farm Bureau donated $7,500 to “Protect Our Constitution,” a campaign in favor of state Issue 1 — a Republican-backed measure to raise the threshold for passing constitutional amendments to 60%. In a special election held in August 2023, the measure failed.

The Missouri Farm Bureau has long supported making it more difficult to amend the state constitution via initiative petition and said in several policy books, “A constitution should be a framework for action rather than a collection of special-interest taxes and programs.”

While both farm bureaus were lobbying for different bills to pass, efforts to add legal abortion to the Ohio and Missouri state constitutions also were in progress.

Had Ohio’s state Issue 1, from the special election held earlier in 2023, passed it would have — like SJR 74 — made legalizing abortion through the state constitution more difficult.

The Missouri Farm Bureau also has long opposed abortion, according to several of its policy books.

“We oppose abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger,” the Missouri Farm Bureau said in several of its policy books. “We oppose government funding of abortion. Partial birth abortions should not be performed under any circumstance.”

Missouri voters in November will consider a constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights in the state.

Some farmers feel represented, others left out

Farm bureaus represent around 1.3 million farmers across the nine Midwestern states researched for this story, but not all members think that the organizations represent them.

Heather Wright Wendel, owner of Apple Acres Farm in Houghton, Mich., noted that the farm bureau lobbying does not support sustainable farming or regenerative agriculture, which she said prioritizes soil health and limits the use of pesticides and fertilizers. At her solar-powered farm, she said she values sustainability, focusing on upcycling and boosting native plant life.

The farm bureau does not share those priorities, she said, but supports farms with heavy machinery, growing one crop/monoculture and other industrial practices, such as automation, to produce as high a yield as possible. All of which, Wendel added, makes farmers highly vulnerable to market fluctuations.

“The farm bureau is entrenched in that setup,” she said. “There are people making lots of money off of it.”

Farm bureaus cultivate candidates for public office

Farm bureaus exercise influence through advocacy and lobbying and, in many states, grow their own candidates.

The Arnolt Center found that farm bureaus in Missouri, Nebraska, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin have programs of varying length and intensity that train farmers to run for local or statewide offices.

Participants are taught a variety of lessons including campaign strategies in Nebraska, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin and media training in Nebraska, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Participants’ individual policy positions were not part of the training, said Dan Hughes, a former Nebraska state senator of Venango who attended the training in August 2013.

These programs teach farmers across the Midwest how to win elections.

As the Michigan Farm Bureau notes on its website, “In the era of term limits there is a constant need for farmers to run for office.”

Read the full article here.