Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sick of global warming/change propaganda!2
The Obama regime alone controls the corn ethanol mandates.
The majority of Republicans Congressman and Senators (joined by some Democrats) asked the Obama controlled EPA to follow the RFS law and reduced the mandates. Despite a world on fire the EPA claimed mandates have no added materially to the cost of food. Guess we have democracy in the Middle East as well?
Do you really believe we can destroy 40%+ of the corn crop and not impact prices?
That is the sad thing. The Progressive shadow puppets will do anything to rationalize rather than reason for themselves like the unique individual creation God hope they would make the choice to be.
This is not a Republicans verses Democrat thing. This is all rational Americans against never before witnessed levels of hard heart and mean spirit Progressive corruption.
Editor's note: A version of this OpenSecrets Blog story appeared in the Des Moines Register on Jan. 2.
In habitually partisan Washington, D.C., a bipartisan group of senators late last month helped extend contentious federal tax provisions designed to aid domestic ethanol production.
The senators mostly shared common ground on two fronts: geography and contributions from the political action committees of ethanol producers, high-profile ethanol promoters and the leading industry groups for corn, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis indicates.
This bipartisan group of 15 senators signed a letter in late November demanding an extension of U.S. ethanol subsidies, and they have received notable campaign contributions during the past six years from pro-ethanol companies and interest groups.
These senators each collected, on average, $5,000 from bioengineering and agricultural chemical company Monsanto, $4,100 from farming giant Archer Daniels Midland, $1,600 from the National Corn Growers Association, $1,200 from ethanol producer POET LLC and $200 a piece from Growth Energy and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association. (You may download a spreadsheet showing the Center's calculations of these totals and the itemized totals for all senators signing either letter here: EthanolMoney2010.xls)
The leading Republican behind the letter was Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who argued in the pro-ethanol missive that "allowing the provisions to expire or remain expired would threaten jobs, harm the environment, weaken our renewable fuel industries and increase our dependence on foreign oil." (Letter available as a pdf file here, via the Washington Post.)
Since January 2005, Grassley's political committees have received about $36,000 from the PACs of the Monsanto, POET LLC, Archer Daniels Midland, the National Corn Growers Association, Growth Energy and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics. Because senators run for re-election every six years, using data for six-year periods gives a more complete -- and more accurate -- picture of what interests are bankrolling a senator.
Grassley's office told OpenSecrets Blog that campaign contributions from ethanol supporters do not influence the senator's thinking on the issue.
"Sen. Grassley's campaign committee takes contributions that are legal and have no strings attached," Beth Levine, Grassley's press secretary, told OpenSecrets Blog. "Sen. Grassley fights for ethanol because it's good for our national security, it's good for our environment, and it's good for good-paying jobs."
Sens. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who all signed onto Grassley's letter, have each received at least $20,000 to their campaign committees and leadership PACs from these same ethanol-supporting political action committees since January 2005, according to the Center's research.
And Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who likewise signed the pro-ethanol letter, each received between $10,000 and $15,000 from these interests as well.
Among all pro-ethanol letter-signers, only Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) collected no money from any of these six companies and trade groups. (Brownback is retiring from the Senate in January, having been elected governor of Kansas.)
Like Grassley, Nelson stressed the economic benefits of ethanol in his home state as the reason for his support for the tax provisions.
"Sen. Nelson supports the extension of the ethanol tax credit because it will promote renewable energy, jobs and economic development in Nebraska, the number two corn-producing and number two ethanol-producing state in the country," Jake Thompson, Nelson's communications director, told OpenSecrets Blog. "That's why he wants the ethanol tax credit extended, not because of campaign contributions from either supporters or opponents of ethanol."