Political donations from the 15 of the largest US food and beverage makers plunge

Contributions from PACs, employees and family members associated with the United States’ largest food and beverage companies to political causes have plunged to a multi-year low this election season, with donations dropping nearly by half so far compared to 2020, according to a Food Dive analysis of OpenSecrets data.

These entities tied to 15 of the biggest U.S. food and beverage firms by market capitalization donated to trade organizations, PACs and political bodies — including presidential and congressional candidates and party groups — $4.5 million as of Sept. 22 compared to $8.2 million for the 24-month election period four years ago.

Barring a significant uptick during the final weeks of this year, contributions will be the lowest for a presidential election cycle since $3.9 million in 2008 as businesses pull back in an increasingly divisive political environment.

“The atmosphere is so bitter and harsh right now and so divided, there’s nothing [for companies to] gain by getting involved in politics,” said Juda Engelmayer, CEO of HeraldPR, a New York City-based public relations firm. “By giving little and saying little, they end up staying out of trouble.”

The data showed the decline in contributions is nearly even by party. Donations to Democrats declined 46% to $1.8 million, while those collected by Republicans dropped about 42% to $1.5 million. 

Donations to both parties exclude political contributions that do not go directly to explicit partisan activity, such as candidates or parties. Other spending might end up being partisan, but it is indirect. This explains why donations to Democrats and Republicans collectively are less than the total figure given to political causes.

Contributions come from a company’s PACs, its individual members, employees, or owners, and their immediate family members. Under federal law, companies cannot contribute to candidates and party committees. Twenty-nine states and Washington, D.C., allow corporations to contribute to state and local candidates, according to the latest data provided by MultiState, a government relations firm.

The largest percentage decline among the major food and beverage companies is Hormel Foods. The Spam manufacturer’s donations fell 99% to $3,725 during the current election cycle. Campbell Soup followed with a decline of 80% to $23,785.

Coca-Cola, Keurig Dr Pepper, Conagra Brands, General Mills, Hershey, Kellanova, Mondelēz International and PepsiCo all reported a drop in contributions between 45% and 64%. Monster Energy, part of Monster Beverage, was the lone business to report an uptick in donations, nearly tripling to $101,732. Corona brewer Constellation Brands was roughly unchanged at $417,238 compared to 2020.

While factors including a heated political climate are responsible for the broader decline, some of the shortfall is likely attributed to a slightly shorter period during the 2024 election cycle, with data covering only until Sept. 22. The donation numbers for the election four years ago cover the full 24-month period ended Dec. 31, 2020.

Playing the long game

With contributions tied to businesses down significantly, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have seen fewer dollars flow into their election coffers. Harris has received $322,261 so far, half the amount of Joe Biden during the last presidential cycle. Trump’s donations have fallen 76% to $66,476 during the same period.  

Political academics suggest that even a small monetary contribution can bring benefits. By donating to a presidential or congressional race, companies can increase the likelihood that they’ll have a seat at the table later on if something happens that affects their businesses.

The opportunity to meet with an official or their staff could be crucial in getting a regulation or piece of legislation that might help their competitors and hurt their business or industry get watered down or quashed altogether — saving them billions of dollars in the process. 

“Politics is about relationships,” said Jon Schaff, a political science professor at Northern State University in Aberdeen, South Dakota. “A way to facilitate maintaining that relationship is to put a little money behind it.”

Food Dive reached out to several companies for comment. Many did not respond. In most cases, those who did directed Food Dive to their corporate websites where their positions in politics were outlined. Businesses that did not respond also had websites that provided additional insight.

Conagra Brands, which makes Slim Jim meat snacks and Healthy Choice meals, noted that “political participation at all levels of government is important to our business and our country and as such encourages voluntary participation by its employees in public policy debates impacting the food manufacturing sector.”

General Mills stated that it sometimes contributes to candidates and organizations. The cereal and pet food manufacturer keeps a list of its political contributions and updates it twice a year on its website. It also has a PAC run by employees that uses donated funds to make political contributions to federal, and in limited cases, state political candidates.

“As a corporate citizen, we occasionally support the legislative process by contributing prudently to state and local candidates and political organizations, when such contributions are permitted by federal, state and local law,” General Mills said. “We recognize the importance of accountability and transparency for our political contributions.”

What’s behind the drop in donations?

There are several reasons why contributions to political candidates are down this election cycle, according to political experts.

Food and beverage manufacturers have little at stake this time. Issues, such as war, abortion and immigration, are grabbing the headlines. Donations are unlikely to have a major impact on a company’s operations or directly influence consumer buying habits in the U.S. One notable exception is the economy and inflation, which have caused cash-strapped shoppers to cut back on what they buy. 

Engelmayer said food companies can ill-afford to donate significant money to a PAC while consumers continue to grapple with high prices at the grocery store and elsewhere.

If businesses are closely watching their political spending, they can exhibit to the public that they are ”lowering expenditures on items that could adversely impact the cost of food production and delivery,” Engelmayer said. “Basically, if we spend less on political giving, we can apply those budgetary savings to helping keep food costs lower.”     

Food and beverage makers also have been hesitant to wade into politics after companies previously have attracted unwanted attention. 

During the last presidential election, Goya was criticized after its CEO praised Trump in a speech at the White House. People flooded social media urging shoppers to stop buying from the company.

Oatly came under fire from activists two months later, and consumers threatened boycotts after the company signed a $200 million deal in July that included an investment from private equity firm Blackstone Growth, headed by a major Trump donor. 

Even as recently as last year, Bud Light’s decision to collaborate with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney sent sales and market share for the brand plunging, forcing it to cede its position as the top-selling U.S. beer to Constellation Brands’ Modelo Especial.

While not election-related in nature, it shows how a business could be seriously impacted by taking a stand. For many corporate entities, donating money is not worth it, especially if they risk upsetting their employees or half of their customer base by backing a candidate or speaking out on a particularly controversial issue. 

“The people who run these companies aren’t stupid, clearly, and they understand where their interests lie,” said Mack Shelley, a political science professor at Iowa State University. They “are pretty adept at reading the usual political tea leaves, reading public opinion polls, and I think they do have a fairly decent sense about what is likely to work and what doesn’t.”

What is more likely to be effective, Shelley and others noted, is to put money that could have gone toward political candidates into marketing or advertising a brand. Financial capital also could be directed to speaking out against particular issues, such as trade or taxes, that directly impact the business.

Coca-Cola, the world’s largest nonalcoholic beverage company, stated that while it doesn’t use corporate funds to directly support state or local political candidates, even if permitted by law, it does contribute money to state ballot initiatives that have a material impact on its business.

Conagra said its government affairs initiatives do not focus on the personal agendas of its directors, board or employees, but instead issues — most recently product and ingredient safety, sustainability and packaging and nutrition and labeling — that “will create or preserve shareholder value.” Its efforts are supplemented by voluntary giving by workers to a Conagra employee PAC and membership in trade groups, among other initiatives.

Lunchables maker Kraft Heinz noted that “active participation in the political process and public policy debates are in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders.” The packaged food giant added that its “goal is to ensure public officials representing our people, products and plants understand the issues that impact our business.” 

Methodology

To determine the top 15 US food and beverage companies, Food Dive downloaded a list of stocks from iShare Core S&P Total US Stock Market ETF on Oct 11, 2024. It filtered the data based on the sector to only include “Consumer Staples” and “Consumer Discretionary” and ranked the stocks based on their market capitalization. Food Dive then went through each stock to find the top 15 food and beverage companies, defined as companies making food and beverage products sold in stores. Ingredient manufacturers, restaurant chains, food distributors and foodservice companies were not included.

Food Dive collected campaign finance data for those companies from OpenSecrets.org. Each company was listed in the firm’s database, with the exception of Monster Beverage. OpenSecrets, however, did include Monster Energy, part of Monster Beverage. Those figures were used for the story.