Pesticide Makers Want Free Pass for Injuries Caused by Their Chemicals. So They’re Spending Big to Influence State Lawmakers

In most states, the pesticide company employee PACs contributed to a combination of legislative leaders…

Children's Health Defense

by U.S. Right to Know

By Rebecca Raney

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.

By contrast, in 2016, the two leading agrochemical companies gave less than 5% of contributions to candidates at the state level.

This year, however, state candidates received about 30% of contributions to candidates from political action committees (PACs) for employees of Bayer, which is headquartered in Leverkusen, Germany, and Corteva, which is based in Indianapolis.

In particular, legislators in California, New Jersey, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Hawaii, North Carolina and Texas have benefited from the largesse of pesticide company employee PACs during the last two years, according to data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

In many cases, individual candidates received small amounts from the PACs, such as $500 or $1,000, but a campaign finance expert said that all donations count.

“Suppose you have two people outside your office who want to go to lunch, and you only have time for one,” said Bob Stern, former general counsel of the California Fair Political Practices Commission. He said that typically, a politician would be more likely to go to lunch with the one who has made the donation.

“Nobody wastes money,” Stern said. “There is a big reason they’re making their contribution. It’s not a charity.”

Representatives from the companies did not answer questions about the specific political priorities of their employee committees in statehouses. Rather, they noted that the PACs allow employees to support legislators who align with the companies’ interests.

In many of the targeted states, legislation has been introduced that would limit companies’ payouts in lawsuits that find that consumers, groundskeepers and farmers were sickened or killed by pesticides.

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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In most states, the pesticide company employee PACs contributed to a combination of legislative leaders and emerging leaders, with emphasis on legislators who chair agricultural and environmental committees.

“They’re definitely all people who are close to leadership,” said Anne Frederick, executive director of the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, a nonprofit organization in Hawaii, after she reviewed the list of recipients.

Contributions at the state level from employee PACs from Bayer and Corteva have quintupled in recent years.

In the 2016 and 2018 election cycles, which cover two-year periods, the Bayer employee PAC gave less than $25,000 to state and local candidates.

During the election cycles ending in 2020, 2022 and 2024, those contributions totaled between $70,000 and $144,000 per cycle.

The Corteva employee PAC gave zero dollars to state and local candidates in the 2016 and 2018 cycles. In the years since the PAC donations at the state and local levels totaled between $9,800 and $48,000 per election cycle.

The campaign contributions represent one segment of political activity that surrounded pesticide-related legislation. In some cases, companies’ efforts focused on lobbying, which is disclosed separately.

Another form of influence can come by way of so-called “dark money,” a mechanism by which nonprofits and shell companies donate to super PACs without disclosing the individual donors behind the contributions.

For that reason, tallies of the most direct form of political influence — individual campaign contributions — may present an incomplete picture of corporate involvement in legislative processes…