2002_0415_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Family Farms and Clean Elections Minnesota's family farmers are in trouble. Their average income is only $15,500 and the state lost 9,000 farms between 1989 and 1 X99. Recent legislation has picked away at family farmers' interests, and while they're not without political victories. the overall trend has been to squeeze them out in favor of industrial agriculture. Strong, well docu- mented arguments show that corporate farms have negative effects on rural economies, the environment, food safety and animal treatment. With so many concerns, why does this trend continue, often with the support of our elected officials? Consider that: During the 1999-2- election cycle, interests with ties to agriculture made the following contributions: Republican Party of Minnesota $1179924 Minnesota DFL Party $26,9000 Republican Legislative Caucuses $759775 DFL Legislative Caucuses * $209925 * Caucuses arc the legislative leader~'PACs Agribusiness gets its way Agribusiness influence is evident in legislation recently passed in Minnesota. For example, the Limited Partnerships and Limited Liability bill ( 1999-2000) creates a loophole in the corporate farm law that lets outside investors profit from production agriculture. It allows the "limited liability company" model to enter farming, whereby family farmers can sell up to 49% of their operation to outside interests. Though a majority of the farm is still owned by the original family, they no longer need to live on the farm, and the degree of their control is questionable. Meanwhile. outsiders passively invest in local farms and usually buy equipment. seed, etc. from elsewhere, which harms local economies. In addition, limited liability companies have tax advantages over family farmers and avoid financial responsibility for hazards such as pollution F--- i NPAJ