American Farm Bureau Federation

American Farm Bureau Federation: The Unseen Hand in American Agriculture

The American Farm Bureau Federation, or AFBF as it’s more commonly known, is a behemoth in the American agricultural landscape. Think of it as the shadowy architect behind many of the policies that shape how we farm, what we eat, and how much it costs. It’s a lobbying group, yes, but that label feels almost too simplistic, like calling a hurricane a strong breeze. This organization, established on November 12, 1919, by John Barron, isn’t just a voice for agriculture; it often is the voice, amplified and directed from its headquarters in Washington D.C. . It’s a 501(c)(5) tax-exempt entity, which, while sounding bureaucratic, essentially means it operates under specific tax rules, allowing it to function as a powerful advocate.

Its reach is vast, extending to all 50 states and Puerto Rico , with each state and county boasting its own affiliated Farm Bureau. The parent organization, often simply referred to as the Farm Bureau, orchestrates this sprawling network. It claims to represent two million farms across the United States, making it one of the most significant lobbying forces in the agricultural sector. Some observers even suggest its federal lobbying efforts, which gained momentum in the 1930s, played a pivotal role in the subsequent three decades of consolidation, leading to larger and fewer farms. It’s a subtle, yet profound, influence.

In 2022 alone, the AFBF poured $2,120,000 into lobbying efforts. This isn’t just about general agricultural policy; it’s often about policies that directly benefit the for-profit ventures of its state affiliates, such as federal subsidies for the crop insurance peddled by these very same companies. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle, one that has been in motion for decades. And then there’s the climate change aspect. Until as recently as 2019, the organization actively lobbied against climate policy in the United States and, quite frankly, denied the reality of climate change altogether. It’s a stance that, in hindsight, seems increasingly out of step with both scientific consensus and the growing urgency of environmental concerns.

Now, here’s where it gets interesting: the AFBF itself doesn’t directly sell insurance. However, nearly all of its non-profit state affiliates have established affiliated for-profit insurance companies. Much of the AFBF’s considerable revenue—$28.4 million in member dues in 2019 alone, accounting for over three-quarters of its total revenue—comes from its nearly 5.9 million members. And here’s the kicker: most of these members aren’t farmers. They are, in fact, insurance customers who pay dues as a condition of their policies. It’s a clever mechanism, turning a service into a membership base, and a membership base into a powerful lobbying engine.

Each year, the organization convenes an annual convention, a gathering of farmer and rancher delegates from across the nation. Here, policies are adopted, strategies are refined, and the direction of the Farm Bureau is charted for the coming year. It’s a democratic process, in theory, but one that’s deeply embedded within a complex organizational structure.

History: From County Agents to National Influence

The roots of the Farm Bureau movement stretch back to 1911. John Barron, a graduate of Cornell University and an extension agent in Broome County, New York , initiated the effort. His goal was to bridge the gap between farmers and the agricultural knowledge being generated by institutions like the U.S. Department of Agriculture . This early work, financed by the government and the Lackawanna Railroad , laid the groundwork for what would become the Farm Bureau. The Broome County Farm Bureau, initially an arm of the Chamber of Commerce in Binghamton, New York , soon branched out independently. This decentralized model of county-level organizations spread like wildfire across the U.S., with new bureaus forming year after year.

A significant milestone arrived in 1914 with the passage of the Smith–Lever Act of 1914 . This federal legislation established a cost-sharing program between the federal government and the states to fund “county agents.” These agents were tasked with disseminating practical information to farmers on improved methods of animal husbandry and crop production, drawing from the research of agricultural colleges and experiment stations. This initiative is the direct ancestor of today’s Cooperative Extension Service .

By 1915, the movement had expanded beyond individual counties. Farmers in Saline County, Missouri , convened to form the first statewide Farm Bureau, signaling a growing desire for broader organizational power.

1919–1929: The Birth of a National Voice

The year 1919 marked a pivotal moment. Farmers from 30 states converged in Chicago, driven by a collective ambition: to establish the American Farm Bureau Federation. Their stated goal was to “speak for themselves through their own national organization.” However, beneath this unifying sentiment lay a more complex agenda. As Harvey J. Sconce, president of the Illinois Agricultural Association, articulated at the founding meeting, there was also a desire to “forestall populist organization of small farmers.” He emphasized the need for a “thoroughly American” and “constructive organization,” subtly positioning the Farm Bureau as a counterpoint to more radical movements emerging in the post-armistice era. Brian Campbell, a professor at Berry College , has noted that the Farm Bureau’s inception was, in part, a strategic “counter-move to various farm organizations that represented small farmers.”

The foundational purpose, as articulated by Farm Bureau members in 1920, was straightforward: “The purpose of Farm Bureau is to make the business of farming more profitable, and the community a better place to live. Farm Bureau should provide an organization in which members may secure the benefits of unified efforts in a way that could never be accomplished through individual effort.”

In these early decades, local and state farm bureaus served a dual role. They were centers for social and educational activities, reinforcing the extension service’s efforts. Simultaneously, they acted as powerful negotiating bodies, pooling farmers’ purchasing power for essential supplies like seed and equipment, akin to farm co-operatives but with a broader scope. They also ventured into the realm of insurance, offering fire insurance and vehicle insurance by leveraging group purchasing power or even establishing their own insurance companies. This made them comparable to mutual insurance companies. In essence, these bureaus formed a network of agricultural associations, with the AFBF as their national parent. This structure bore some resemblance to a federation of trade unions , like the AFL–CIO , though the analogy to trade associations is perhaps more fitting given that individual family farms were largely self-employed entities. The National Farmers Union represented another, distinct agricultural advocacy effort.

1930–1939: Shifting Tides and Federal Influence

The 1930s witnessed a significant evolution in the Farm Bureau’s strategy. The organization established a robust lobbying presence in Washington, D.C. . Here, it actively championed changes to New Deal programs, advocating for policies that favored larger, more labor-intensive farms over smaller family operations. This period also saw the decline of political forces like the Minnesota Farmer–Labor Party (FLP), which had represented small farmers and championed more radical programs. The New Deal policies, coupled with the FLP’s diminished influence, contributed to its eventual absorption into the Democratic and Republican parties by the 1940s.

In conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture , the Farm Bureau, alongside other proponents of a “mechanized, highly commercialized agriculture,” played a critical role in ushering in a rapid two-decade transformation toward machine-based farming and wage labor. By the onset of World War II, the organization had solidified its position as “the most influential representative of large farmers.”

A study conducted during this era by Christiana McFayden Cambell cast a critical eye on the Farm Bureau’s internal dynamics. Campbell concluded that the organization was “largely controlled from the top. Its leadership is self-perpetuating, and its policy, although nursed through an elaborate procedural labyrinth, is rarely permitted to wander very far afield.” The cherished belief that policy originated at the “grass roots” and was adopted democratically, Campbell argued, was “partly illusion.” This assessment, made decades ago, still resonates with some observers today, as noted by Samuel R. Berger in his 1978 work, Dollar Harvest.

Since 2000: Entanglement with Agribusiness and Shifting Priorities

As the 21st century unfolded, the AFBF, through its state and local affiliates, became increasingly intertwined financially with major agribusiness corporations. Investigations in the early 2010s revealed that its insurance affiliates had acquired stock in prominent companies such as Cargill , ConAgra , Dow Chemical , DuPont , Tyson , and Archer Daniels Midland – all significant players in the global food industry. The Southern Farm Bureau Annuity Insurance Co., jointly owned by ten state Farm Bureaus, even held a substantial number of shares in Premium Standard Farms at one point.

Bob Stallman, a Texan, held the position of AFBF president from 2001 to 2016, reportedly earning a substantial salary. Vincent “Zippy” Duvall took the helm in January 2017. His compensation in his first year was also considerable.

A notable event in 2020 involved around 500 dairy farmers and haulers who received letters demanding repayment for milk shipped to Dean Foods just before the company declared bankruptcy. The AFBF publicly decried these demands as a “predatory shakedown” and was among several groups that provided legal support to the affected farmers and haulers.

More recently, in 2023, the AFBF announced a series of memorandums of understanding with major equipment manufacturers, including John Deere and CNH Industrial (which owns Case IH and New Holland Agriculture ). These agreements aim to provide farmers with access to manufacturers’ tools, software, and manuals for repairs. In exchange for these agreements, the AFBF has committed not to lobby for right to repair legislation and to actively discourage state-level Farm Bureaus from pursuing such initiatives. This move, while framed as beneficial for farmers, also signifies a strategic alignment with manufacturers on the issue of repair rights.

Lobbying: The Persistent Pursuit of Influence

The American Farm Bureau Federation has long been a formidable force in political lobbying. A 2012 investigation by The Nation detailed the organization’s extensive federal and state political operations, alleging a pattern of recruiting political candidates, primarily Republicans, to influence legislative elections and appointments.

As of 2012, the organization employed 22 registered lobbyists. Between 2002 and 2012, the Farm Bureau reportedly spent $16 million on lobbying, representing a significant portion—45%—of the total lobbying expenditures by the top 10 agribusiness interests in the U.S.

The Farm Bureau has historically supported legislation aimed at incentivizing food donations. For instance, it backed the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act of 2014 (H.R. 4719), which sought to expand tax deductions for businesses donating food to charitable organizations. The organization argued that without such tax write-offs , it was often more economically sensible for businesses to discard surplus food rather than donate it.

A consistent theme in the Farm Bureau’s lobbying agenda has been the advocacy for increased federal subsidies for crop insurance . This is a particularly significant area, as crop insurance forms a substantial part of the portfolio for the Farm Bureau’s affiliated insurance companies. In 2011 alone, these companies collected over $300 million in crop insurance premiums.

Climate Change: A History of Denial and Shifting Stance

The Farm Bureau’s engagement with climate change has been marked by decades of opposition to regulations and taxation on greenhouse gases . This stance has been frequently justified by denying the scientific consensus on climate change . Inside Climate News noted in 2018 that “For decades, the Farm Bureau has derailed climate action, deploying its political apparatus and 6 million members in a forceful alliance with conservative groups and the fossil fuel industry.”

In the 1990s, the organization was part of the Global Climate Coalition , an entity that actively lobbied against the Kyoto Protocol . By 2003, Farm Bureau economists, in collaboration with think tanks like the Heartland and Hudson Institutes , published papers arguing that government regulation of greenhouse gases was “unnecessary, enormously expensive, and particularly injurious to the agricultural community.”

The organization’s official position in 2010 was that “there is no generally agreed upon scientific assessment of the exact impact or extent of carbon emissions from human activities, their impact on past decades of warming or how they will affect future climate changes.” The climate change session at the Farm Bureau’s national meeting that year was provocatively titled “Global Warming : A Red Hot Lie?” It featured Christopher C. Horner , a prominent climate change denier and advocate for the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute , a group heavily supported by industry and known for its strong opposition to greenhouse gas limits. During this meeting, delegates unanimously passed a resolution “strongly support[ing] any legislative action that would suspend EPA ’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act .” Despite a letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists highlighting the scientific consensus, the Farm Bureau maintained its position. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack attempted to engage, suggesting that farmers could benefit from cap-and-trade policies.

By 2019, the Farm Bureau had shifted its public stance, ceasing overt denial of climate change. However, it continued to oppose non-market-based solutions, including taxes on carbon uses or emissions . Politico characterized it as a “longtime, powerful foe of federal action on climate.”

Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance: A New Approach?

In 2020, the Farm Bureau became a co-founder of the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance (FACA). This coalition advocates for voluntary, incentive-based, and market-oriented programs within the food and agriculture sector to address climate change. FACA’s stated mission is to bring together a diverse group of over 80 member organizations—representing farmers, ranchers, agribusinesses, manufacturers, state governments, and environmental advocates—to “develop and promote shared climate policy priorities across the entire agriculture, food and forestry value chains.” While some reporting suggests the organization seeks guarantees for farmers being paid for soil sequestration without fundamental changes to agricultural practices, FACA has publicly called for a “comprehensive effort involving financial and technical assistance, research investments, proactive response to innovation, public-private partnerships, and a commitment to equitable opportunities for all producers” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2022, both FACA and the AFBF lent their support to the Senate’s passage of the Growing Climate Solutions Act. By February 2023, FACA had released policy recommendations for the upcoming farm bill, emphasizing voluntary, bipartisan climate solutions. These recommendations included incentives for farmers to adopt practices like planting cover crops and using precision agriculture equipment, a USDA grant program focused on improving soil health, a study to identify barriers within the crop insurance program for climate-smart practices, and adjustments to income limits to ensure broader farmer participation in conservation and climate initiatives.

2012 Farm Bill: A Significant Stake

The AFBF was deeply involved in the legislative process surrounding the 2012 farm bill, a piece of legislation that ultimately allocated approximately $9 billion in federal subsidies for crop insurance.

Animal Welfare: Challenging California’s Standards

In 2022, the Farm Bureau, alongside the National Pork Producers Council , petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn California’s Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act . This case, known as National Pork Producers Council v. Ross , centered on the state’s regulations regarding the treatment of farm animals.

WOTUS: Legal Challenges to Water Regulations

In 2023, the AFBF was among a group of organizations that initiated legal action challenging the new Waters of the United States rule. This rule, which defines which waterways are protected under the Clean Water Act , has been a subject of ongoing legal and political debate.

Insurance: A Multibillion-Dollar Empire

Beyond its high-profile lobbying activities, the Farm Bureau operates as a substantial insurance provider. In 2012, The Nation described it as a “multi-billion dollar network of for-profit insurance companies,” ranking it as the third-largest insurance group in the United States. While the AFBF itself doesn’t directly underwrite policies, a vast majority of its non-profit state affiliates have established affiliated for-profit insurance companies. These entities, often retaining “Farm Bureau” in their corporate names and sometimes utilizing the AFBF logo, were frequently founded by the state Farm Bureaus themselves. In many states, such as Missouri, the leadership of the Farm Bureau board and its affiliated insurance company board is identical, sharing office spaces and administrative resources.

The ownership structure is often complex, with non-profit state Farm Bureaus holding ownership in their for-profit insurance arms. FBL Financial Group , for instance, originated in 1939 as the Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, established by the Iowa chapter. Through growth and mergers, it evolved into a significant provider operating in multiple states under the Farm Bureau Financial Services brand. In 2022, FBL reported substantial profits and revenues, while its parent, the Iowa Farm Bureau, disclosed significant revenue and a vast investment portfolio, with executive compensation reaching into the high six figures.

This pattern is not unique. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company began as an insurer for Ohio Farm Bureau Federation members and now serves Farm Bureaus in several states. Farm Family Insurance , founded in 1955 by northeastern Farm Bureaus, also represents a significant insurance presence. [Country Financial], established by the Illinois Farm Bureau in 1925, serves clients across numerous states.

The financial reach of these affiliated companies is substantial. In 2000, 60 Minutes reported on the Iowa chapter’s ownership of a $3.5 billion insurance and financial services company, FBL Financial Group , which was publicly traded. At the time, company directors, including presidents of 14 state Farm Bureaus, received significant stock options.

American Agricultural Insurance Company: A Reinsurer with Deep Ties

The American Agricultural Insurance Company (AAIC), established in 1948, plays a crucial role as a reinsurer, primarily assuming business from Farm Bureau insurance companies. Owned by the insurance company affiliates of various state Farm Bureaus and the AFBF itself, AAIC has undergone several reincorporations and name changes throughout its history. It began selling crop insurance in 1997 and expanded its operations through acquisitions.

The company’s bylaws mandate that its board of directors include the president of the AFBF and designated shareholders affiliated with member state Farm Bureau organizations. Notably, the current AFBF president, Zippy Duvall, also serves as president and chairman of the board of AAIC. Its common stock is held by the AFBF and various state Farm Bureau insurance companies, while the ownership of its preferred stock remains less clear. AAIC reported significant assets, premiums, and cash reserves in recent years.

These intricate financial and organizational ties can create potential conflicts of interest. As Investigate Midwest has pointed out, executives of non-profit organizations are expected to act in the best interest of the non-profit, not their own financial gain. When executive income is tied to the performance of affiliated for-profit entities, questions about priorities can arise.

The entanglement extends to membership itself. Many individuals listed as AFBF “members” are, in reality, insurance customers. In numerous states, purchasing Farm Bureau insurance automatically confers membership, explaining the AFBF’s claimed membership of 6 million, a figure far exceeding the actual number of farmers in the U.S. In some instances, annual membership dues are a prerequisite for obtaining insurance, while in others, insurance companies pay state or county Farm Bureaus for marketing access to their member lists.

List of State Farm Bureaus: A Network of Influence

The American Farm Bureau Federation is supported by a robust network of state-level organizations. The table below provides a snapshot of some of these state Farm Bureaus, including their headquarters, founding year, insurance affiliations, and reported revenues for 2020. This illustrates the widespread presence and varied financial operations of these entities across the country.

See Also

• National Farmers Union (United States)
• National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry
• National Farmers Organization

Further Reading

• Barnes, John K. “J. R. Howard, Leader Of American Farmers.” The World’s Work: A History of Our Time XLIV (August 1922): 509–518.
• Berger, Samuel R. Dollar Harvest: An Exposé of the Farm Bureau. AAM Publications, 1978.
• Berlage, Nancy K. “Organizing the farm bureau: Family, community, and professionals, 1914-1928.” Agricultural history 75.4 (2001): 406–437.
• Campbell, SueEllen. “Farm Bureau shows little concern about climate change ag effects.” Yale Climate Connections, April 16, 2019.
• Campbell, B.C. “Developing Dependence, Encountering Resistance: The Historical Ethnoecology of Farming in the Missouri Ozarks.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, 2005.
• 60 Minutes. “The Farm Bureau’s Big Business.” April 6, 2000.
• Defenders of Wildlife. “Amber Waves of Gain.” April 2000.
• Food and Water Watch. “The Farm Bureau’s Billions: The Voice of Farmers or Agribusiness?” July 2010.
• Hansen, John Mark. Gaining access: Congress and the farm lobby, 1919-1981. University of Chicago Press, 1991.
• McConnell, Grant. The Decline of Agrarian Democracy. University of California Press, 1953.
• Porter, Kimberly K. “Embracing the pluralist perspective: the Iowa farm Bureau federation and the McNary-haugen movement.” Agricultural history 74.2 (2000): 381–392.

External Links

• Official website of the American Farm Bureau Federation
• Links to the AFBF’s IRS Form 990 tax filings: 2005-2020
• Guide to the North Carolina Farm Bureau Records 1936-2012