Political donations from major US food and beverage companies plummet by nearly half

According to a Food Dive analysis of OpenSecrets data, political donations from political action committees (PACs), employees, and families associated with the largest U.S. food and beverage companies have fallen to multi-year lows this election season, down nearly half compared to the same period in 2020.

Donations from affiliated entities of the 15 largest U.S. food and beverage companies by market cap to trade organizations, PACs, and political bodies, including presidential and congressional candidates and party groups, totaled $4.5 million as of September 22, compared to $8.2 million during the same period in the 24-month election cycle four years ago.

Unless there is significant growth in the final weeks of this year, this will be the lowest amount donated in a presidential election cycle since 2008 ($3.9 million), as companies retreat in an increasingly divided political environment.

"The current atmosphere is so acrimonious, harsh, and divisive that there is no benefit for companies to engage in politics," said Juda Engelmayer, CEO of New York-based public relations firm HeraldPR. "Give less money, say less, and they can avoid trouble."

The data shows the decline in donations is nearly even between the two parties. Donations to Democrats fell 46% to $1.8 million, while Republicans received about 42% less, totaling $1.5 million.

Donation data for both parties excludes political contributions not directly used for explicit partisan activities, such as candidates or parties. Other spending may ultimately be partisan in nature but is indirect. This explains why combined donations to both parties are lower than total political contributions.

Donation sources include company PACs, individual members, employees or owners, and their immediate family members. Under federal law, companies cannot donate to candidates and party committees. According to the latest data from government relations firm MultiState, 29 states and Washington, D.C. allow businesses to donate to state and local candidates.

Among groups tied to major food and beverage companies, Hormel Foods saw the largest decline. Donations from the maker of Spam luncheon meat fell 99% this election cycle to $3,725. Campbell Soup followed, down 80% to $23,785.

Donations from Coca-Cola, Keurig Dr Pepper, Conagra Brands, General Mills, Hershey, Kellanova, Mondelēz International, and PepsiCo all fell between 45% and 64%. Monster Energy, under Monster Beverage, was the only company to report an increase, nearly tripling to $101,732. Constellation Brands, maker of Corona beer, was roughly flat at $417,238, comparable to 2020.

While factors such as the heated political climate contribute to the overall decline, part of the gap may be attributed to the slightly shorter 2024 election cycle—data only covers through September 22. In contrast, donation data for the election four years ago covers the full 24-month period through December 31, 2020.

Looking ahead

With corporate-related donations sharply lower, campaign funds for Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have noticeably decreased. Harris has received $322,261 so far, just half of what Joe Biden had received at the same point in the previous presidential cycle. Trump's donations fell 76% to $66,476 over the same period.

Political scholars note that even small donations can bring benefits. By contributing to presidential or congressional campaigns, companies can increase the likelihood of gaining a voice in matters affecting their business down the road.

Opportunities to meet with officials or their staff can be crucial in weakening or blocking legislation or regulations that favor competitors or harm their own business or industry—potentially saving companies billions of dollars.

"Politics is about relationships," said Jon Schaff, political science professor at Northern State University in Aberdeen, South Dakota. "One way to maintain that relationship is to put a little money into it."

Food Dive contacted several companies for comment, and most did not respond. Among those that did, most directed Food Dive to their corporate websites, which outline their political positions. Websites of non-responding companies also provided more information.

Conagra Brands, maker of Slim Jim jerky and Healthy Choice meals, noted that "participation in the political process at all levels of government is important to our business and our country, so the company encourages employees to voluntarily engage in public policy debates affecting the food manufacturing industry."

General Mills said it occasionally makes donations to candidates and organizations. The cereal and pet food maker maintains a list of political contributions on its website, updated twice a year. The company also has an employee-run PAC that uses donations to make political contributions to federal and a few state-level political candidates.

"As a corporate citizen, we occasionally make prudent contributions to state and local candidates and political organizations where permitted by federal, state, and local law to support the legislative process," General Mills said. "We recognize the importance of accountability and transparency in political contributions."

Reasons behind the decline in donations

Political experts believe there are multiple reasons for the decline in donations to political candidates this election cycle.

Food and beverage manufacturers have less at stake this time. Issues such as war, abortion, and immigration dominate headlines. Donations are unlikely to significantly impact company operations or directly affect U.S. consumer buying habits. A notable exception is the economy and inflation, which have led cash-strapped shoppers to cut spending.

Engelmayer said that as consumers continue to cope with high prices at grocery stores and elsewhere, food companies find it difficult to donate large sums to PACs.

If companies closely monitor their political spending, they can show the public they are "cutting spending items that could adversely affect food production and distribution costs," Engelmayer said. "Basically, if we reduce political donations, we can use those budget savings to help lower food costs."

Food and beverage manufacturers are also cautious about engaging in politics after companies previously drew unwanted attention.

During the last presidential election, Goya faced criticism after its CEO praised Trump in a speech at the White House. Social media was flooded with calls for consumers to boycott the company.

Two months later, Oatly faced backlash from activists and consumer boycott threats after signing a $200 million deal reached in July, including an investment from Blackstone Growth, a private equity firm led by a major Trump donor.

Even as recently as last year, Bud Light's decision to partner with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney caused the brand's sales and market share to plummet, forcing it to cede its status as America's best-selling beer to Constellation Brands' Modelo Especial.

Although this matter is unrelated to elections, it shows that companies taking a stance can be severely impacted. For many corporate entities, donations are not worth it, especially if there is a risk of offending employees or half the customer base by supporting a particular candidate or speaking out on a particularly controversial issue.

"The people running these companies are clearly not stupid; they understand where their interests lie," said Mack Shelley, political science professor at Iowa State University. They are "quite good at reading common political winds and polling, and I think they have a fairly accurate sense of what might work and what won't."

Shelley and others note that a more effective approach may be to invest funds that could go to political candidates into brand marketing or advertising. Financial capital can also be used to speak out on specific issues that directly affect the business, such as trade or taxes.

Coca-Cola, the world's largest non-alcoholic beverage company, said that although it does not use corporate funds to directly support state or local political candidates (even where legally permitted), it does contribute to state ballot initiatives that significantly impact its business.

Conagra said its government affairs initiatives do not focus on the personal agendas of directors, board members, or employees, but rather on issues that "will create or preserve shareholder value"—recently involving product and ingredient safety, sustainability and packaging, nutrition, and labeling. Its efforts are supplemented by initiatives such as voluntary employee contributions to the Conagra employee PAC and membership in trade groups.

Kraft Heinz, maker of Lunchables, noted that "active participation in the political process and public policy debates is in the best interest of the company and its shareholders." The packaged food giant added that its "goal is to ensure that elected officials representing our employees, products, and plants understand the issues affecting our business."