As pesticide companies struggle to cap legal payouts to plaintiffs who claim they were injured by Roundup and other products, money from two political committees affiliated with major pesticide manufacturers has surged into state-level politics. In recent years, total contributions to state legislators have reached hundreds of thousands of dollars, a significant increase from previous election cycles.

Uncovering the Influence of Pesticide Companies in State Politics

The Rise of Pesticide Company Employee PACs

In the past, pesticide companies have spent a relatively small portion of their political contributions at the state level, focusing more on federal-level politics. However, this trend has shifted dramatically in recent years. Data from the Federal Election Commission shows that in the 2016 and 2018 election cycles, the Bayer employee PAC gave less than $25,000 to state and local candidates. But during the election cycles ending in 2020, 2022, and 2024, those contributions totaled between $70,000 and $144,000 per cycle. Similarly, the Corteva employee PAC, which gave zero dollars to state and local candidates in the 2016 and 2018 cycles, has since contributed between $9,800 and $48,000 per election cycle at the state and local levels.This surge in state-level political activity from pesticide company employee PACs has not gone unnoticed. According to a campaign finance expert, "Nobody wastes money. There is a big reason they're making their contribution. It's not a charity." The representatives from the companies have acknowledged that the PACs allow employees to support legislators who align with the companies' interests, but they have not provided specifics on their political priorities in statehouses.

Targeting Key Legislators and Committees

The pesticide company employee PACs have focused their contributions on a combination of legislative leaders and emerging leaders, with a particular emphasis on legislators who chair agricultural and environmental committees. This strategic approach suggests a concerted effort to influence the political landscape in states where pesticide-related legislation is being considered.In many of the targeted states, such as California, Iowa, and Idaho, legislation has been introduced that would limit companies' payouts in lawsuits related to pesticide injuries. Other recent issues in these states include bans on neonicotinoids and other pesticides, as well as proposals to prevent states from setting higher standards for labeling on the uses of pesticides that exceed the standards set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

The Influence of "Dark Money"

While the campaign contributions from pesticide company employee PACs represent a direct form of political influence, the article notes that this may only be one segment of the companies' political activity. Lobbying efforts and "dark money" donations to nonprofits and shell companies that then contribute to super PACs without disclosing the individual donors can also play a significant role in shaping the legislative landscape.

Limiting Liability: The Industry's Push for "Failure to Warn" Laws

One of the key issues driving the pesticide companies' political push at the state level is the desire to limit their liability in lawsuits related to pesticide injuries. Bayer, in particular, has struggled with the weight of injury awards to plaintiffs in cases involving Roundup, an herbicide that has been the target of more than 11,000 lawsuits due to links to cancer.In response, pesticide companies have launched massive lobbying campaigns at both the state and federal levels, pushing for mechanisms that would limit damages awarded by courts in pesticide injury lawsuits. This includes the introduction of "failure to warn" legislation, which would prohibit states and local governments from imposing labeling requirements on pesticides that differ from federal labeling requirements, effectively shielding companies from liability.

The Partisan Divide: Pesticide Company PACs Favor Republicans

The political influence of pesticide company employee PACs extends beyond the state level. At the federal level, these PACs have donated the highest proportion of money to Republican candidates, by a ratio of nearly 2-to-1 over the past eight years. This partisan divide in campaign contributions suggests that the industry is aligning itself more closely with the Republican party, potentially seeking to leverage its political influence to advance its legislative agenda.

The Ongoing Battle: Pesticide Regulation and Corporate Responsibility

The article highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of the battle over pesticide regulation and corporate responsibility. While some states have passed legislation aimed at improving disclosure, increasing buffer zones, and reclassifying certain pesticides, the industry's push for liability-limiting laws has met with mixed success. In states like Iowa and Missouri, lawmakers have introduced and defeated bills that would have provided immunity for chemical companies in pesticide-related lawsuits.As the debate continues, environmental groups and advocates for consumer and worker safety remain vigilant, challenging the industry's efforts to limit its legal liability and maintain its influence in state legislatures. The outcome of these battles will have far-reaching implications for the health and safety of communities across the country.