Corn Ethanol Advocates Trash Dems

by David C. Holzman

Published: October 16th, 2010

At least one of the institutions financing ads damning Democratic candidates this election season wants to put ethanol in your gas tank. The American Future Fund was founded by one Bruce Rastetter, the CEO of Hawkeye Energy Holdings, one of the larger ethanol companies in the US, according to an article in the New York Times. The fund is financing ads aimed at Democrats in key positions to influence booze fuel… so is the problem their “liberal” policies, or the fact that they’re insufficiently supportive of the farm lobby’s beloved corn juice?

“Of the 14 “liberal” politicians singled out in a list it released last month, nearly every incumbent sits on a panel with a say over energy or agriculture policy,” according to the Grey Lady. “Five sit on the Agriculture Committee; four others are on related committees with say. One candidate was a staff member on a related panel.”

One of the first politicians the American Future Fund supported was former Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman, who had been co-chairman of the Senate Biofuels Caucus. American Future also attacked the Indy Racing League, because of a deal the League made to power Indy cars with Brazilian ethanol, in sharp contrast to its proclaimed mission “to provide Americans with a conservative and free market viewpoint.” Rastetter also helped start a trade group, Growth Energy, that pushes for tariffs on foreign producers, according to the NYT.

The NYT quotes a spokesperson for the American Future Fund, who claimed that ethanol and agriculture policy were not the reasons behind its attack ads. “We’re targeting liberal spending policies,” the newspaper quotes her as saying. Sure. As long as they get their ethanol subsidies.

#Biofuels #Ethanol #Government #Politics

David C. Holzman

I'm a freelance journalist covering science, medicine, and automobiles.

More by David C. Holzman

Comments

Join the conversation

3 of 27 comments

Engineer on Oct 18, 2010
I should also point out that for all the column inches that this website has dedicated to criticizing the ethanol industry, I can’t recall ever seeing a single editorial pointing out the billions we waste on subsidizing oil. Yes, what is more fun than knocking around those #@$$%^%^ at Big Oil? Except, unlike many other industries (including auto, finance and ethanol, to name a few of those 'apple pie' examples), Big Oil has yet to ask Uncle Sam for a bailout. No matter how bad things get (and in the 90s it was very bad), they somehow slug it out. Pity that isn't the American way anymore. Not sure what subsidies you are referring to. The break on royalties that a Democratic president (Clinton) enacted because he feared Big Oil might give up drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? Sure. let's blame Big Oil for Clinton's cowardace. War in Iraq? Yeah, that worked swell. How come we gave them back their oil industry? How did Dick Cheney let that happen? Ethanol = garbage fuel. I think of better uses for it. Prost! No reason to give up on making fuel from waste. But we also need to realize that it may not be feasible. The technology exists. One example would be gasification followed by Fischer-Tropsch. Making it affordable - now there's a challenge...

Like Reply
- Psarhjinian on Oct 18, 2010
  Big Oil has yet to ask Uncle Sam for a bailout Big Oil sees much of it's costs externalized (or socialized). Energy security and environmental repercussions are largely not their problem, though carbon taxation stands to fix the latter. Ask yourself what oil would cost if you had to extract it from places where security wasn't an issue, and if you had to pay upfront for the cost of extraction in it's price, rather than downloading it into social costs. You'd be stuck with Canada as your only source, and you'd be paying five times the price at least. More industries and groups than you think benefit from government largess. The problem is that people only complain about the ones they don't like.
  
  Like
Engineer on Oct 18, 2010
Big Oil sees much of it’s costs externalized (or socialized). True. Can you name even one politician that would be interested in having an honest discussion about that topic? I see a bunch of cowards, whether it's from the "Drill, baby, drill" side or the green-jobs side. The point being, that it seems harsh to blame Big Oil for Washington politicians' lack of spine. Ask yourself what oil would cost if you had to extract it from places where security wasn’t an issue, and if you had to pay upfront for the cost of extraction in it’s price, rather than downloading it into social costs. He he he. Let's not even start that discussion. Which country did 15 of the 19 hijackers come from? What did we do about it? Same as we always do: Demand more oil. For a reasonable price, of course. Plus our president will hold your king's hand, like a nerd on prom night...

Like Reply