Rick Santorum, Puppy Lover—and Scourge of the Meat Industry?

Shock and awwwww: If these make you melt, you may not get Big Ag's support. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/niallkennedy/5232716855/sizes/m/in/photostream/">niallkennedy</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Rick Santorum has a thing for puppies. Not a creepy fixation, mind you—apparently, he just doesn’t like to see them raised in vast “puppy mills.” Santorum also evidently likes horses, and would prefer not to see them slaughtered. And these stances has led him to make common cause with the Humane Society of the US.

Strange then, that a man who deplores the stuffing of puppies into confined spaces and recoils from the slaughter of innocent horses, has no beef with an industry that stuffs cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys into tight spaces with the intention of slaughtering them.  

I know all of this, because of an exposé on Forbes.com posing the question: “Is Rick Santorum a Closet Animal Rights Activist?”; and a piece in the industrial-ag trade weekly Agri-Pulse ($ub only) called “Santorum raises ‘aggie’ eyebrows over HSUS [Humane Society of the US] ties.”

It turns out that during his stint as a US Senator, Santorum worked with the Humane Society of the United States to try to rein in puppy mills. In his Forbes piece, Frank Miniter reveals this shocking episode:

In one example, in 2001 then Sen. Santorum (R-PA) introduced S. 1478, the Puppy Protection Act of 2001, with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). This act intended to improve conditions for dogs at “puppy mills” by addressing socialization and breeding issues, and by creating a “three strikes and you’re out” system for violators of the Animal Welfare Act. “The bill will require commercial breeders to provide socialization for dogs at their facilities,” Santorum said at the time.

Socialization…. isn’t that just like socialism? And that’s not all: “[I]n 2006 Santorum voted to stop horse slaughtering by defunding mandatory federal inspections of horse-processing facilities.” Whoa! And then there’s this:

Santorum did more than back animal-rights legislation; he even held a press conference in 1995 in which he was pictured alongside Wayne Pacelle, an animal-rights activist who now heads the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

And here we get to the real scandal. HSUS, you see, isn’t just about socializing puppy-dogs or protecting horses from having their throats slit. It’s also about exposing cruel, reckless practices on factory farms. And Santorum’s nearly two-decades-old alliance with this “anti-farming” (Miniter’s words) group has Big Ag sharpening its pitchfork and aiming it at at the former Senator from Pennsylvania.

Blake Hurst, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau and author of a scathing critique of Michael Pollan (which I commented on here) put it this way to Miniter:

I can say with a great deal of confidence that Santorum’s relationship with HSUS is a deal killer for much of the agriculture community. As far as I can tell he’d be comfortable with requiring regulations on agriculture—and large dog breeders are a part of this market—that would make it much less efficient to raise livestock.

Santorum, for his part, rejects the charge that he’s hostile to ag interests. According to Miniter, before last month’s Missouri primary, Santorum  acknowledged that he is indeed guilty of having a soft spot for dogs. “I am a pet owner who believes they should be treated humanely, not someone who ties them to the top of a car,” he declared, referring to one of my very favorite anecdotes about Mitt Romney—the time he and his family lashed their dog Seamus to the roof of their car while driving to a vacation.

But puppy-love, Santorum emphasized, should not be mistaken for an appetite to take on Big Ag’s livestock-rearing methods:

As President, I will be equally committed to protecting and supporting all facets of the agriculture industry for the benefit of American jobs and American consumers … … I have always believed that a commitment to the humane treatment of animals must be balanced with strong protections for licensed small animal breeders and large animal agriculture operators who function ethically to do so without onerous and unreasonable government regulations.

While Santorum wrestles with the charge that he’s just too soft on animals to fight for Big Ag, his opponent has more than just mean dog-transportation tales to prove his fealty to agribusiness and its ways. As I reported a few days ago, Romney recently rolled out an ag-advisory committee that features a Big Ag lobbyist, an agrichemical exec, and an industrial-corn shill.

With the GOP nomination process going the way it is, Santorum may soon find himself publicly kicking a puppy—or lashing one to the roof of his campaign bus—to prove his bona fides as an industrial-agriculture champion.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate