Agriculture industry has history of making political donations

Campaign contributions The Daily Briefing Buckeye Forum Podcast

The Dispatchpublic affairs team talks politics and tackles state and federal government issues in the Buckeye Forum podcast.

After a huge toxic-algae bloom in the western part of Lake Erie contaminated Toledos public water supply this summer, environmentalists, politicians and scientists scrambled.

Summits were held. Money was allocated for research and infrastructure improvements. Bills were introduced.

But state lawmakers and agency directors have been reluctant to pass regulations that would limit farm runoff, one of the major contributors to phosphorus and nitrogen in watersheds. Both chemicals help create algae blooms in lakes worldwide.

In fact, little has been done to limit farm runoff despite years of blooms that have affected as many as 19 lakes in Ohio since 2010. Erie has endured even larger blooms than the one that forced Toledo officials to tell 500,000 residents to keep their taps closed for two days.

And despite calls from various groups, the state wont declare the Maumee River in distress, a designation that would allow tougher restrictions on farm fertilizers. That has some groups wondering about the agriculture industrys influence at the Statehouse.

The agriculture industry, including fertilizer manufacturers, has given nearly $3.1 million to political candidates, parties and ballot issues in Ohio since 2010, according to the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization Follow the Money, which tracks campaign contributions and industry influence.

Of that $3.1 million, the Ohio Farm Bureau and the bureaus Agriculture for Good Government political-action committee contributed about $766,000 about one-quarter of the total agriculture contributions.

Environmental groups, by comparison, donated less than $112,000 over that same time period.

Go here to see the original:
Agriculture industry has history of making political donations