Research Paper
ENG101
ENG101
Food Companies Influence On Republican Politicians
When food combines with politics, it could turn into a war zone. Especially when all Republican's want are improvements around their personal agenda instead of the people themselves. Republican’s campaign contributions are connected to food companies which creates alot of unhealthy problems to the people. The components in this paper will include a discussion of the way business campaign contributions have had a negative impact on democracy in general. This paper will also include numerous statistics about the Republican’s campaign contributions and how they are connected with food companies. Also it will show what political agenda the Republicans are for and who it impacts the most. Who gains the most out of it, and how does it affects everyone else?
When food combines with politics, it could turn into a war zone. Especially when all Republican's want are improvements around their personal agenda instead of the people themselves. Republican’s campaign contributions are connected to food companies which creates alot of unhealthy problems to the people. The components in this paper will include a discussion of the way business campaign contributions have had a negative impact on democracy in general. This paper will also include numerous statistics about the Republican’s campaign contributions and how they are connected with food companies. Also it will show what political agenda the Republicans are for and who it impacts the most. Who gains the most out of it, and how does it affects everyone else?
Okay so let’s start from the beginning. Before going into statistics or proof about Republicans political agendas, we will talk about the negative influences food companies have on Republicans in general. It expresses the views of the negative impacts that business campaign contributions provide within democracy (Dollars). They explain that most contributors have a specific interest at heart, and that they do this to have ‘accesses inside democracy' in general. One of their many examples that proves their points revolve around the Clean Air Act, and how it was dealt with, and all the influences that heavily impacted their decisions. Quoting a section from the book, it states that, “Members of the congress all want to vote for clean air but also want to get campaign contributions from corporations and they want to pass a law that business will accept as reasonable…… The compromised solution is to gut the bill by crafting dozens of loopholes (Dollars)." It also mentioned that the meeting where they make these decisions so they won’t get any attention from the press, because it is what people would say is ‘below the radar’. This section also talks about the devious ways food companies get around government laws and actions. “Corporations control the production process unless the government specifically intervenes. Therefore, any delay in government action leaves corporations free to do as they choose; business often prefers a weak, ineffective, and unenforceable law……. The 1970 law ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the hundreds of poisonous chemicals that are emitted by corporations…..”In twenty years of stalling, dodging, and fighting off court orders, the EPA has managed to issue regulatory standards for a total of seven toxins(Dollars).”” What this means us that democracy has their flaws, and corporations use it to their advantage to get what they want. But if you continue to read, they don’t always get what they want. “In 1997, the Environment Protection Agency proposed tough new rules for soot and smog. Business fought hard to weaken or eliminate the rules: hiring experts to attack the scientific studies…… put a raft of lobbyists…… creating pseudo-grass roots campaign (business operating under a disguised name)….. Paid for television ads (advertisement)…. But the makers of the rules stood their ground (Dollars).”
The book has explained the negative impacts that company contributions have had effected democracy in general. But now this part will use statistics and charts to show the contributions Republicans got, and where the money came from. In the public records about the political raising record amounts of cash, “Republicans raised a total of $616,705,664, and spend $636,716,715.” (Open secrets (parties)) Now, top contributions (using only a few contributors) sources states that, “Publix Super Markets contributed $743,810 and 74% of it went to Republicans, while 23% went to Democrats. General Mills contributed $382,844, and 53% went to Republicans, while 47% went to Democrats.” (Open secrets (industries)) What this is trying to say is that, food companies contribute more to Republicans than Democrats. Now some other food companies support Democrats more than Republicans. However these companies are only being mentioned because it’s not only Republicans that get donations. For example, “American Crystal Sugar contributed $2,260,050 and 67% of it went to Democrats, while they gave Republicans 32%. Farm Credit Council contributed $774,910 and 57% of it went to the Democrats, while 43% went to the Republicans (Open secrets (industries))."
This part is about how the Republican’s agenda will affect us. In an article talking about public health and meat inspections states that “Republicans in the house of representatives have passed budget cuts to weaken the American food safety system. Already inadequate meat inspections could be further weakened putting Americans in danger of deadly food poisoning (greathealthconnection).” It continues by stating some facts which includes, “Republican’s in the U.S Congress have proposed cutting $88 million from the Food Safety Inspection Service and $241 million from the Food and Drug Administration…… Meat borne pathogens cause 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations and about 5,000 deaths a year in the United States (greathealthconnection).” Now realize this, if the budget gets slashed like that proposal, the numbers will increase dramatically. Now do you think this proposal is helping us the citizens or the companies that will have less health inspections to deal with?
This part is about how the Republican’s agenda will affect us. In an article talking about public health and meat inspections states that “Republicans in the house of representatives have passed budget cuts to weaken the American food safety system. Already inadequate meat inspections could be further weakened putting Americans in danger of deadly food poisoning (greathealthconnection).” It continues by stating some facts which includes, “Republican’s in the U.S Congress have proposed cutting $88 million from the Food Safety Inspection Service and $241 million from the Food and Drug Administration…… Meat borne pathogens cause 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations and about 5,000 deaths a year in the United States (greathealthconnection).” Now realize this, if the budget gets slashed like that proposal, the numbers will increase dramatically. Now do you think this proposal is helping us the citizens or the companies that will have less health inspections to deal with?
The Republicans agenda also threatens food safety. There is a law that’s trying to get passed but Republicans in congress don’t believe it’s necessary. “The new law is needed not only to restore FDA authority to prevent such deadly incidents but also to modernize the inspection of the global food market (Political Affairs)” This explains the reason why this law would benefit the people in general. “The new law requires food producers to adhere to tougher standards to eliminate hazards in their handling of the food supply – from processing to transportation. The law gives the FDA greater authority through inspections and establishing 'science-based' safety standards, rather than the voluntary standards and corner-cutting(Political Affairs). ” This obviously is talking about the advanced power the FDA would have over their food inspections and their authority to do what is necessary to ensure the safety of the processing. “In addition the FDA will have authority to halt importation of food producers deemed unsafe or from multinational companies that refuse FDA inspections (Political Affairs).” That is what the law would do if it was passed. It would improve our quality of life by giving us more standards that will lower the amount of deaths that come from the food supply. But here will be the final quote being used by this source. “Despite the data showing the growth in outbreaks since the reduction in regulatory oversight under Bush and the large numbers of Americans impacted by food contamination, republicans in congress who will likely control the purse strings that fund the FDA, have downplayed the problem insisting that the food supply is safe enough for them (Political Affairs).” Ending with that quote, are you able to fully trust your life within the hands of the republicans?
In conclusion, this paper should have showed you the side that food companies did not want to show you about democracy; and that it is easily influenced for the very worst. Campaign contributions can bring out the worst out of democracy, because they would have never made it as far as they did without the help. The facts that are within this paper that was mentioned included the agenda’s being covered by republicans, how contributions campaign negatively impacts democracy, and some statistics showing the donations giving to the democracy parties.
