A few months back I discovered that Paul Hodes had received a one time $10,000.00 donation from American Crystal Sugar (A major US Sugar conglomerate), at about the same time as the 288 billion dollar 2007/2008 Farm bill was being pushed through congress, and vetoes overrode. US Sugar is a protected industry with a good amount of political influence. American Crystal Sugar wanted to get into the ethanol industry but could not justify the up front costs. Hodes and the farm billed solved that problem with your money.
Here’s the original piece I wrote on the relationship.
THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2010
Paul Hodes has a dirty little secret. His ‘commitment’ to green energy has strings attached that lead directly to the sugar industry and a significant campaign cash “Thank You.”
Back in 2007 and 2008 Congress waged an epic battle over the Farm Bill. They didn’t call it the farm bill they called it the Food Nutrition and Bio-Energy Act. What it was (or became) was a 288 billion dollar sop to the agriculture industry with a focus on approving billions into ethanol subsidies for the farm belt before the 2008 elections.
To muddy up the real purpose the democrat majority in congress tossed in money for food stamps and school lunches so that any effort to kill it could be spun as evil Republicans starving the poor and denying underprivileged students a hot nutritious lunch. When some republicans balked, the left jumped. And when George Bush, who was still friendly to the idea of ethanol mandates, vetoed both the bill (HR 2419) and the supplement that added in some items left out of the original (HR 6124) the democrat majority House overturned both vetoes. (Both henceforth to be referred to simply as the “farm bill”)
So Paul Hodes not only voted for the hand outs, he voted for them four times: twice to pass the original bills and twice to overturn the vetoes. Does that show commitment? I think it does.
Yahoo! News has a morning headline titled "How Democrats Lost ‘Don’t Ask’ Repeal." 
The economic relationship between government, the private sector, and the people, has been the object of much debate as democrats try to convince people that spending trillions we don’t have has some kind of payoff at the other end. The fact that we can’t see that "end" and none of their predictions have come true fuels the fires of the opposition while encouraging proponents to claim we just need to wait a bit longer–or spend a few trillion more.
Every election year the RINO’s do us a favor by announcing themselves as the Republican’s for Lynch. They have done so again, and we are presented with another unique opportunity to demonstrate the need to clarify an important distinction.