Political donations from 15 of America’s largest food and beverage manufacturers plummet

Contributions to political causes from PACs, employees and family members associated with America’s largest food and beverage companies have fallen to their lowest levels in years this election season, with contributions falling nearly in half so far compared to 2020. Food Dive analysis of OpenSecrets data.

These organizations, which are affiliated with 15 of the largest U.S. food and beverage companies by market capitalization, have donated to political organizations, including trade organizations, PACs, presidential and congressional candidates, and partisan groups. One month of election period four years ago.

Barring a significant uptick in the final weeks of the year, donations would be the lowest during a presidential election cycle since $3.9 million in 2008 as companies retreat from an increasingly divisive political environment.

“The climate right now is so bitter, so harsh and so divided, there’s nothing for companies to gain by getting involved in politics,” said Juda Engelmayer, CEO of HeraldPR, a New York-based public relations firm. “By giving less and talking less, they end up staying out of trouble.”

The data shows that the decline in donations was nearly identical across political parties. Donations to Democrats fell 46% to $1.8 million, while donations raised by Republicans fell about 42% to $1.5 million.

Contributions to both parties exclude political donations that are not used directly for explicitly partisan activities, such as candidates or political parties. Other spending may ultimately be partisan, but indirectly. This explains why donations to Democrats and Republicans combined are less than the total donations given to political causes.

Contributions come from the company’s PAC, individual members, employees or owners and their immediate families. Under federal law, corporations cannot donate to candidates and political party committees. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia allow corporations to donate to state and local candidates, according to the latest data provided by government relations firm MultiState.

Among the groups involving major food and beverage companies, the largest decline was Hormel Foods. Contributions from spam manufacturers fell 99% to $3,725 during this election cycle. Campbell Soup fell 80% to $23,785.

Coca-Cola, Keurig Dr Pepper, Conagra Brands, General Mills, Hershey, Kellanova, Mondelēz International and PepsiCo all reported a decline in donations between 45% and 64%. Monster Energy, part of Monster Beverage, was the only company whose donations nearly tripled to $101,732. Corona brewer Constellation Brands was little changed from 2020 at $417,238.

Some of the shortfall is likely due to the slightly shorter length of the 2024 election cycle (data covers only through September 22), although factors including a heated political environment are responsible for the larger decline. Contributions from elections four years ago Includes the entire 24-month period ending December 31, 2020.

Playing the long game

With donations to corporations dropping significantly, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have seen fewer dollars flowing into their campaign coffers. Harris has received $322,261 so far, half of what Joe Biden received during the last presidential election. During the same period, President Trump’s donations decreased by 76% to $66,476.

Political scientists say even small financial donations can bring benefits. By donating to presidential or congressional elections, companies can increase their chances of having a seat at the table if something happens that affects them later.

The opportunity to meet with government officials or their employees can be invaluable in developing regulations or legislation that could benefit competitors and harm your business or industry. It could save billions of dollars in the process.

“Politics is about relationships,” said Jon Schaff, a political science professor at Northern State University in Aberdeen, South Dakota. “The easy way to maintain that relationship is to put some money behind it.”

Food Dive has reached out to several companies for comment. Many did not respond. In most cases, people directed Food Dive to corporate websites that outlined their political positions. Companies that did not respond also had websites that provided additional insight.

The Conagra brand, which makes Slim Jim meat snacks and healthy choice meals, pointed out “Political participation at all levels of government is important to our business and our country, so we encourage voluntary participation by our employees in public policy discussions affecting the food manufacturing sector.”

General Mills said: Occasionally contribute to candidates and organizations. The cereal and pet food manufacturer maintains a list of political donations and updates it twice a year on its website. There are also employee-run PACs that use donations to make political contributions to federal and, in limited cases, state political candidates.

“As a corporate citizen, we support the legislative process by contributing thoughtfully to state and local candidates and political organizations when donations are permitted under federal, state and local laws,” General Mills said. “We recognize the importance of accountability and transparency regarding political contributions.”

What is causing the decline in donations?

According to political experts, there are several reasons why donations to political candidates are down this election cycle.

Food and beverage manufacturers face little risk this time. Issues like war, abortion, and immigration are making headlines. It is unlikely that the donation will have a significant impact on the company’s operations or directly affect the purchasing habits of American consumers. One notable exception is that the economy and inflation have caused cash-poor shoppers to make fewer purchases.

Engelmayer said food companies may not be able to afford to donate significant money to PACs while consumers continue to struggle with high prices at grocery stores and elsewhere.

If companies closely watch their political spending, they can show the public that they are “reducing spending on items that may have a negative impact on food production and shipping costs,” Engelmayer said. “Basically, if you spend less on political donations, you can apply those savings to lowering your food costs.”

Food and beverage manufacturers have also been reluctant to get involved in politics after companies have previously attracted unwanted attention.

During the last presidential election, Goya was criticized After the CEO praised Trump in a speech at the White House. People flooded social media urging shoppers to stop buying the company’s products.

Oatly came under fire from activists two months later and consumers threatened to boycott the company after it signed off. July 2000 million dollar contract This included an investment from Blackstone Growth, a private equity firm led by a major Trump donor.

Last year too, Bud Light decided to collaborate with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. Brands Send Sales and Market Shares PlungingConstellation Brands’ Modelo Especial has lost its spot as America’s best-selling beer.

Although it’s not election-related per se, it shows how seriously companies can be affected by taking a stand. For many businesses, donating money isn’t worth it. This is especially true if you risk upsetting half your employees or customer base by endorsing a candidate or speaking out on a particularly controversial issue.

“The people who run these companies are not stupid and they know where their interests lie,” said Mack Shelley, a political science professor at Iowa State University. They are “pretty good at reading the general political tea leaves and opinion polls, and I think they have a pretty good sense of what will work and what won’t work.”

Shelley and others have pointed out that what is likely to be more effective is to take money that could be spent on political candidates and put it into brand marketing or advertising. Financial capital can also be used to speak out on specific issues, such as trade or taxes, that directly affect business.

cokeThe world’s largest non-alcoholic beverage company says it does not use company funds to directly support state or local political candidates, but it does donate money to state ballot initiatives that have a significant impact on its business, even if permitted by law.

Conagra says government affairs initiatives do not focus on the personal agendas of directors, boards, or employees, but instead focus on issues “that will create or preserve shareholder value” (most recently product and ingredient safety, sustainability, packaging, nutrition, and labeling). He said he was adjusting. These efforts are complemented by employee voluntary contributions to the Conagra Employee PAC and membership in trade organizations.

Lunch box manufacturer Kraft Heinz noted: “Active participation in the political process and public policy debates serves the best interests of the company and its shareholders.” The packaged foods giant added: “Our goal is to ensure that officials representing our employees, products and factories understand the issues that affect our business.”