The Reach of County, State Farm Bureaus Extends Beyond Ag Policy
By Annika Harshbarger, Arnolt Center for Investigative Journalism, Char Jones, Arnolt Center for Investigative Journalism, Haley Miller, Arnolt Center for Investigative Journalism and Komlavi Adissem, University of Missouri
This story was originally published on Investigate Midwest.
Danielle and Grace Perkowitz packed up and left Chicago two years ago for Houghton, Michigan, to start a career in goat farming.
“I had a joke for years — I’m going to start a goat farm,” Danielle Perkowitz said, co-owner of BigGoat Farm. “What are we waiting for? Let’s do it.”
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.
While farm bureaus across the Midwest lobby for agricultural issues, a seven-month long investigation by the Arnolt Center for Investigative Journalism, the University of Missouri, the University of Illinois and Investigate Midwest found that isn’t where the advocacy stops.
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.
Farm bureaus in all nine Midwestern states researched for this story champion being grassroots organizations. Members vote on every policy included in a state’s annual policy book that directs the bureau’s political efforts.
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.
Darcy Maulsby, a fifth-generation Calhoun County, Iowa farmer, has been speaking with farmers in her area for years to get a policy around foreign ownership of farmland in the books. As an Iowa Farm Bureau member since about 1999, the former president of the Calhoun County Farm Bureau and current member of the board of directors, she knows the process well.
“We do want investment in Iowa, but we don’t want to have farmers shut out of an opportunity to own farm grounds.” Maulsby said. “It’s a real complex, tricky issue with a lot of legal ramifications, but you try and work with groups like (the) Farm Bureau to figure out solutions to this issue.”
There is no policy concerning foreign ownership of farmland in the Iowa policy book, according to Maulsby. (The Farm Bureau’s policy book is only available to members.)
But even without the Iowa Farm Bureau’s lobbying for such a policy, Iowa and other states across the Midwest are taking action to bar or restrict foreign ownership of farmland.
In Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa laws have been passed to limit or track foreign ownership of farmland. Meanwhile in Illinois, Missouri and Michigan, they are still in the process of passing legislation on the topic.
“We have a support structure,” Maulsby said, “from the county level and the state level. But really, this is all driven by the 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.
Whittney Bowers, the Ohio Farm Bureau’s director of state policy and grassroots engagement, said the bureau’s position was consistent with their policy. The Ohio Farm Bureau supported changing the procedure to amend the constitution, Bowers said.
“Our (support) was based on our policy,” Bowers said. “It has nothing to do with social issues.”
In Missouri, Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 74 was prefiled on Jan.1, 2023, and would have required constitutional amendments to receive a majority of votes across the state as well as a majority of the votes in most of the congressional districts, raising the threshold to pass an initiative petition on the ballot.
SJR 74 would have allowed rural districts to have more influence over constitutional amendments. The bill was the subject of a 50-hour filibuster by Democrats on May 15, 2024. The legislation didn’t pass before the session ended on May 17.
Currently in Missouri, to change the constitution an amendment must receive a majority of the votes across the state.
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.
In Ohio, the Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative, was approved by 56.78% of voters on Nov. 7, 2023. In Missouri, the ACLU turned in 380,000 voter signatures on May 3, 2024, double the minimum needed to qualify for the ballot.
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.
Ben Travlos, the director of state and local legislative affairs for the Missouri Farm Bureau, appeared before the Senate Rules Committee in late January 2024 to testify in support of SJR 74.
During the hearing, Travlos expressed the Missouri Farm Bureau’s opposition to the current threshold for passing ballot initiatives.
State Sen. Barbara Washington, D-Kansas City, questioned him about how the current rules for passing a ballot initiative have previously benefited the farm bureau and its members.
“The initiative petition process, as it stands today, provided our farmers in this state the Right-to-Farm, is that correct?” she asked, which Travlos affirmed.
Right-to-Farm was passed in 2014 as Amendment 1 with 50.12% of the vote and would not have passed under the threshold stipulated in SJR 74, the legislation that would have changed the rules.
When Washington asked for clarification about opposing the current petition process after benefitting from it, Travlos said, “A lot of our members are concerned about the ease of changing the Missouri Constitution, which is why they’ve been taking the stance they have on wanting to call for initiative petition reform to make it more difficult to change and amend the state’s constitution.”
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.”
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.
The Missouri Farm Bureau did not answer several emails and phone calls requesting comment. Farm Bureau representatives declined to comment on its policy book when a reporter went to their Missouri headquarters.
The American Farm Bureau Federation does not participate or comment on policy making at the local and state levels. Mike Tomko, the director of communications at the American Farm Bureau Federation, said in an email, each state farm bureau is autonomous.
Some farmers feel represented, others left out
Maulsby, the fifth-generation farmer, was born into farming. Her family has been working the same land in Calhoun County, Iowa, since 1889.
She joined the Iowa Farm Bureau because she liked how it developed agriculture policy through a grassroots system. She has been heavily involved with Iowa’s policy process, contributing several policies that have made it into the state policy book.
But she doesn’t agree with every policy that has been passed.
“You’re not going to win on every issue you care about. But that’s the same as when you vote for a senator or representative or the president,” Maulsby said. “It would be very rare that you would agree on absolutely everything that that person stands for.”
At the local level, the farm bureau is involved in the community. Every year Maulsby, other volunteer board members, a local veterinarian and banker, and the district conservationist with USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, go to South Central Calhoun and Manson Northwest Webster Middle School to participate in an agriculture career day.
They talk about their work to show what types of agriculture careers students could have without leaving the county.
Annually, the Calhoun Farm Bureau also donates to local food pantries, Maulsby said.
“One of the things we’re passionate about is helping provide safe, affordable, abundant food supplies,” Maulsby said. “And part of that means taking care of those in need right in your local community.”
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, Michigan, is a member of the Michigan Farm Bureau for insurance but said the organization’s lobbying does not represent her views.
“I’m basically helping them lobby, which doesn’t align with small-farm values,” Wendel said. “I feel like they’re out for large corporate interests.”
Wendel also 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.
In Minnesota, the two-day program costs $200 for members and $300 for non-members.
In Ohio, the members-only program holds classes over the span of a year. The cost was not listed on their website.
In Illinois, the $800 program started in 1979 and has trained more than 1,200 people, with a class size of 25 participants a year.
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.
“My district was very heavily Republican … if you want to get in the ideology, that’s pretty much where (the) Farm Bureau is at,” Hughes said. “I don’t think very often that I would have been opposed to overall issues – the implementation or the nuances is probably where we would have differences.”
These programs teach farmers across the Midwest how to win elections.
Missouri State Sen. Rusty Black, R-Chillicothe, was invited to forums back when he taught agriculture and now while he is in the legislature.
Forums have ranged from 30 to 250 people, Black said, and covered topics like funding for roads and broadband. He said generally a Farm Bureau employee presents on the topic, followed by a bureaucrat to help explain the government’s goals, and wrapped up with a question and answer session.
“(I am) always willing to listen to that organization,” Black said.
And there is always a need for prospective candidates.
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.”
Christy Avery, of the Arnolt Center, contributed reporting. Talia Duffy, of the University of Illinois, Emily Hook and Zeke Shapiro, of the Arnolt Center contributed research.
Sourcing & Methodology Statement:
Reporters for the Arnolt Center for Investigative Journalism at Indiana University, the University of Missouri, and the University of Illinois in partnership with Investigate Midwest spent seven months delving into the political reach of nine Midwest state farm bureaus.
Reporters reviewed annual IRS 990s filed by the farm bureaus, lobbying disclosures filed at the state level, and campaign contribution filing data for initial research. Reporters reviewed the farm bureaus’ websites, social media pages and annual policy books to capture interactions with politicians, advocacy positions and other political activities. They also tracked legislative activity of farm bureau organizations and political action committees by reviewing legislative records and testimony.
Nine midwestern state farm bureaus were asked for comment on how they develop policy positions and use members’ money on political activities via email and phone. Only the Ohio Farm Bureau responded to a reporter’s inquiry.
Reporters posted in social media farm-related groups and reached out to agricultural organizations via email and social media to find farmers willing to talk about their experiences as members of their state farm bureau.
Citations & References:
Sources:
Danielle Perkowitz and Grace Perkowitz, interviewed via phone and Facebook message April 9, 2024.
Indiana Farm Bureau contacted via email Feb. 26 and March 22, 2024. Contacted via phone April 30, 2024. Did not respond.
Michigan Farm Bureau contacted via email Feb. 26 and March 22, 2024. Contacted via phone on April 20, 2024. Did not respond.
Iowa Farm Bureau contacted via email Feb. 26 and March 25, 2024. Did not respond.
Illinois Farm Bureau contacted via phone April 30, 2024. Did not respond.
Minnesota Farm Bureau contacted via email Feb. 25, 2024 and by phone May 2, 2024. Did not respond.
Nebraska Farm Bureau called May 2, 2024. Did not respond.
Wisconsin Farm Bureau contacted via email on Feb. 26, 2024 and phone May 2, 2024. Did not respond.
Ohio Farm Bureau contacted via email Feb. 26, 2024. Whittney Bowers, director of state policy and grassroots engagement, interviewed March 5, 2024.
Darcy Maulsby, interviewed via phone July 3rd, 2024.
Missouri Senate Rules Committee hearing attended, Jan. 29, 2024, Jefferson City, Missouri.
Missouri Farm Bureau visited in person May 7, 2024.
Mike Tomko, of the American Farm Bureau Federation, email response sent on June 11, 2024.
Heather Wright Wendel, interviewed via phone on April 11, 2024.
Dan Hughes, interviewed via phone Feb. 21, 2024.
Rusty Black interviewed via phone March 4, 2024.
Citations:
BigGoat Farm LLC business license, accessed via Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs on April 30, 2024.
Farm Program of the American Farm Bureau Federation, Feb. 7, 1947
Illinois Farm Bureau 2024 policy book, Year of the Farmer 2024 Policy Resolutions, pages 1, 4, 72, 86
Indiana Farm Bureau 2024 policy book, Indiana Farm Bureau 2024 State Policy, pages 4, 51, 53, 76, 78
Michigan Farm Bureau 2024 policy book, Michigan Farm Bureau 2024 policy book, under #51, #62
Missouri Farm Bureau 2024 policy book, Guided by Tradition, pages 33, 37, 46, 47, 80, 81, 98, 104, 118
Nebraska Farm Bureau Supports Voter ID Constitutional amendment news release, Sept. 21, 2022
Wisconsin Farm Bureau 2024 policy book, 2024 Farm Bureau Policy, pages 9, 28
Wisconsin Farm Bureau, 2023 Farm Bill Priorities, page 4
Ohio voters to decide on constitutional change before determining abortion rights, PBS, Aug. 8, 2023
Democratic initiative petition filibuster ends after record 50 hours, Komu 8 News, May 15, 2024
Ohio Issue 1, Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative (2023), Ballotpedia, accessed July 16, 2024
Missouri abortion-rights campaign turns in more than double the needed signatures to get on ballot, AP, May 3, 2024
SJR 74, Modifies provisions relating to constitutional amendments, All Actions, accessed July 16, 2024
Illinois Agricultural Association, tax filings by year, ProPublica, 2004-2022
Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation, tax filings by year, ProPublica, 2005-2023
Missouri Farm Bureau, Grassroots Policy Development Process
Minnesota Farm Bureau, Policy Development
Nebraska Farm Bureau, About Policy Development
Iowa Farm Bureau, Farm Bureau Policy
Indiana Farm Bureau, Policy Development
Michigan Farm Bureau Family of Companies, Policy Development
Illinois Farm Bureau, Developing IFB policy
Ohio Farm Bureau, Growing our Generation: Grassroots advocacy, April 25, 2024
Wisconsin Farm Bureau, Agricultural Policy & Farming Legislation
American Farm Bureau Federation, tax filings by year, ProPublica, 2004-2022
Indiana General Assembly, House Bill 1183 Foreign ownership of land
Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota’s Alien Farm Law
Ohio Secretary of State, Save our Farmland and Protect our National Security Act
Wisconsin State Legislature, Wis. Stat. 710.02, Dec. 19, 2014
Nebraska Legislature, Legislative Bill 1301, April 16, 2024
The Iowa Legislature, SF 2204, April 9, 2024
Illinois General Assembly, Bill Status of HB4345, Jan. 16, 2024
Missouri Senate, SJR 52 Prohibits foreign ownership of agricultural land in Missouri, Jan. 25, 2024
Michigan Legislature, Senate Bill No. 270
Ohio Secretary of State, State Issue 1
Missouri Senate, SJR 74
Missouri Secretary of State’s Office, approved ballot petition, accessed July 11, 2024
Missouri Farm Bureau, 2003 Policy book, under subhead “County and State Government”, under subhead “Moral Issues”
Missouri Farm Bureau, 2004 Policy book, pages 31, 71
Missouri Farm Bureau, 2005 Policy book, under subhead “County and State Government”, under subhead “Moral Issues”
Missouri Farm Bureau, 2006 Policy book, under subhead “County and State Government”, under subhead “Moral Issues”
Missouri Farm Bureau, 2007 Policy book, under subhead “County and State Government”, under subhead “Moral Issues”
Missouri Farm Bureau, 2021 Policy book, pages 42, 103
Missouri Farm Bureau, 2023 Policy book, pages 38, 91
Indiana Farm Bureau, Membership
Iowa Farm Bureau, About Us
Michigan Farm Bureau Family of Companies, About Michigan Farm Bureau Family of Companies
Minnesota Farm Bureau, The Voice of Minnesota Agriculture
Rural Mutual Insurance Company, Membership benefits
Illinois Farm Bureau, Who we are
Nebraska Farm Bureau, The Voice of Agriculture 2023 Annual Report
Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio Farm Bureau sees membership growth in 2021, April 15, 2021
NRDC, Regenerative Agriculture 101, Nov. 29, 2o21
Michigan Farm Bureau Family of Companies, Join MFB
Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Farm Bureau IMPACT
Nebraska Farm Bureau, Campaign Management Training Seminar, 2023
Indiana Farm Bureau, Campaign School, 2021
Indiana Farm Bureau, L.E.A.D. Program
Ohio Farm Bureau, AgriPOWER leadership, advocacy program accepting applications, May 2, 2024
Michigan Farm Bureau Family of Companies, Academy for Political Leadership
Iowa Farm Bureau, Leadership Training
Minnesota Farm Bureau, Campaign School
Illinois Farm Bureau, Agricultural Leaders of Tomorrow
Wisconsin Farm Bureau, Campaign School
Articles:
The American Farm Bureau Federation claims it’s the ‘Voice of Agriculture,’ Feb. 8, 2022
Type of work:
Investigative / Enterprise In-depth examination of a single subject requiring extensive research and resources.
