Scott Walker Just Blatantly Pandered to Iowa’s Corn Farmers

He opposed federal pro-ethanol rules for years. Now he’s in favor of them.

Ron Sachs/Zuma Press

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


As the Republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker has resisted the federal government’s support of the biofuel industry. But last weekend, within the borders of corn-rich Iowa—the state upon which Walker appears most intensely focused for his all-but-announced presidential bid—he sang a different tune. Joining other potential candidates at the Iowa Ag Summit, Walker said he was “willing to go forward on continuing the Renewable Fuel Standard,” a federal policy that requires fuel used in the US to contain at least 10 percent “renewable fuel,” usually ethanol and other biofuel.

As the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel noted, this represents a complete about-face for Walker, who made enemies in Wisconsin for his long resistance to robust ethanol subsidies. Corn is Wisconsin’s most important crop, and in 2012, the state was the nation’s second-biggest ethanol exporter. In January 2014, Walker stayed quiet on a federal proposal to cut ethanol use by three billion gallons. That silence angered biofuel producers in the state, according to the Journal-Sentinel, as well as the governors of nearly every other Midwestern state, including Iowa’s Terry Branstad.

Walker’s opposition to the federal ethanol mandate stretches back to 2006, when he was the Milwaukee county executive running for governor. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was a year old, and it was considered a viable way to reduce US use of foreign oil, improve the environment, and help out American farmers. However, Walker said, “it is clear to me that a big government mandate is not the way to support the farmers of this state.” Bruce Pfaff, Walker’s then-campaign manager, told Wisconsin’s Daily Reporter, “How can you justify the mandate when it is not proven whether or not it will help gas prices, the economy or the environment?”

Indeed, studies have found that ethanol is worse for the climate than fossil fuel. Though the mandate has been a boon to corn producers—40 percent of American corn is now used for biofuel—it also caused food prices to rise in the United States and abroad. Beyond that, given the recent increase in fossil fuel production in the US, environmental groups and taxpayer organizations are arguing that continued federal support of ethanol production—once considered an important alternative to foreign oil—is unnecessary.

But in Iowa, which produces nearly a third of US ethanol, the industry is far from unnecessary. The RFS will expire in 2022. This past weekend, Walker said that he’d continue the mandate, but he added that he hoped the United States will eventually not need it.

Walker’s evolution on the issue is already handing his critics and opponents ammunition. The conservative blog Hot Air called Walker’s stance a “big let down.” It praised the lone conservative who opposed RFS last weekend: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. “I recognize that this is a gathering of a lot of folks where the answer you’d like me to give is ‘I’m for the RFS, darnit.’ That’d be the easy thing to do,” Cruz said. “I’ll tell you, people are pretty fed up, I think, with politicians who run around and tell one group one thing, tell another group another thing.”

Walker’s enemies in the Democratic Party let loose too. DNC spokesman Jason Pitt told the Wisconsin State Journal, “If Scott Walker thinks pandering on ethanol is going to convince people he’s anything but backwards on energy and the environment he can think again.”

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