The House Agriculture Committee’s reconciliation plan cuts millions in SNAP benefits to offer ever more subsidies to struggling farmers, who haven’t seen a new Farm Bill since 2018. Instead of simply moving money around -- much to the detriment of states and their poorest residents -- congressional agriculture advocates ought to address some of the underlying, substantive issues plaguing small and independent farmers. Atop the list for many: reforming checkoff programs to ensure that farmers’ hard-earned dollars don’t end up in the hands of corporate lobbyists who actively work against them. 

Commodity checkoff programs are generic marketing and research initiatives funded by producers of agricultural commodities (like beef, pork, milk, eggs, and soybeans) through mandatory fees. Responsible for memorable marketing slogans like “Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner” and “Pork. the Other White Meat,” checkoff programs have over the years been revealed as troughs of corruption and corporate influence.  

Purportedly overseen by USDA, checkoff programs actually operate with very limited oversight and often fail to comprehensively demonstrate how their funds are used. That may be for good reason; evidence suggests checkoff dollars have been used for lobbying efforts that actively harm small-scale and independent producers. 

These programs work like this: All producers are forced to pay into them, regardless of whether they agree with how their money is used. Checkoff boards, in turn, are closely aligned with the biggest agricultural producers, who by nature of their positions are more concerned with market share than with leveling the playing field for their smaller competitors. 

These close connections often lead to biased decision-making and outright favoritism towards the dominant market players. They also lead to misalignment with growing consumer preferences for sustainability and humane husbandry practices. 

Back in 2010, an audit of the beef checkoff program revealed that the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) improperly spent over $200,000 on lobbying and overseas vacations. Since then, groups like Farm Action have dedicated themselves to unearthing instances of checkoff corruption at both the federal and state levels. Among their findings: 

Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of checkoff abuse was when the American Egg Board used checkoff dollars to wage a PR campaign against plant-based mayo startup Eat Just from 2014-2016, violating federal regulations. A sophisticated operation involving public relations firm Edelman, the effort was nonetheless crassly anti-competitive in origin. Emails divulged through a Freedom of Information Act request revealed the antipathy with which commodity programs seem to view competitors. “Can we pool our money and put a hit on [Eat Just CEO Josh Tetrick]?” wrote one participant. 

Funny joke, but it’s emblematic of the coordination that seems to go on behind the scenes to oppose pro-animal innovations. No doubt similar effects on small and ethical farmers are purely coincidental. 

In a vacuum, these are troubling incidents. Taken in totality, they show a systemic rot at the heart of these seemingly innocuous commodity programs. They need comprehensive reform -- and comprehensive oversight. 

The Opportunities for Fairness in Farming (OFF) Act would do just that. The bill, recently reintroduced in both the U.S. House and Senate, would simply and logically prohibit checkoff organizations from working with outside lobbying groups, while requiring regular audits and budget transparency. One of the more bipartisan efforts currently pending in the U.S. Congress, the OFF Act is cosponsored by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in the Senate and by Reps. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Dina Titus (D-GA) in the House. 

The OFF Act -- supported by more than 200,000 small farmers and ranchers -- would go a long way towards addressing one of small and independent producers’ largest concerns: compelled speech. When the government forces private individuals to express a message or opinion with which they do not agree, as happens repeatedly in the case of checkoff programs, they violate the First Amendment. Forcing producers to indirectly pay lobbyists who work for the largest producers at the very least implicates this principle.

Obviously, checkoff reform is just one way to help struggling farmers, who are losing their operations year over year. Another might be shifting government food procurement policies towards smaller producers. But it’s one common-sense step with bipartisan support that would allow for more free-market competition, introduce greater transparency and allay the concerns of those smaller agricultural players who rightly wonder where their money is going. 

Let’s get Big Ag OFF their backs. 

John Cleveland is a senior fellow at Wilberforce Institute. 

Image: PxHere