Cola Wars Redux

They want your tax dollars

Imagine that our government chose to subsidize a private industry, such as soft drink companies, with direct taxpayer subsidies, no strings attached, no questions asked. You would call that absurd, of course. But would it make it more acceptable if the government used low-income families as the middlemen for that money?

Earlier this year, Rep. Jordan Redman introduced House Bill 109, which would exclude soda and candy from the list of foods available for purchase under the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Redman noted that this is in line with the new direction of the federal government under the leadership of Health & Human Services secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. to make America healthy again. However, the bill drew opposition from a surprising group of strange bedfellows, including the Idaho Soft Drink Association (ISDA), the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI), and the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF).

Stephen Thomas, partner at Hawley-Troxell and lobbyist for ISDA, laid out his client’s opposition to the bill in a letter to lawmakers last February:

Left unsaid was how much money the soft drink association makes from SNAP. According to Statistica, the soft drink industry makes just over $114 billion per year in the United States from sales at grocery and convenience stores. According to a report from the University of Missouri a few years ago, the federal government distributes around $100 billion each year for the SNAP program, give or take a few bucks. Thomas’ own numbers show that around 5% of SNAP benefits are spent on soda, which means that the soda industry directly benefits from SNAP to the tune of $5-6 billion in taxpayer dollars each year, which accounts for a significant portion of its revenues. I’ve seen other estimates claiming as much as 20% of soft drink revenue comes from SNAP.

On the other hand, IFF rated H109 -1, calling it an expansion of government regulation. Parrish Miller, who analyzed the bill, expanded on his position on Twitter over the weekend:

All people should be free to make their own choices about what foods and beverages are appropriate for their lives. It is NEVER the proper role of government to make these decisions or to create policies that elevate or promote some consumption choices over others.

Strange bedfellows, indeed. Thomas, the ISDA lobbyist, even remarked during testimony before the Senate Health & Welfare Committee that both IACI and IFF oppose H109.

The bill should receive a vote on the Senate floor this week, possibly as early as today. The ISDA has been building support for a moment such as this, spending $25,000 on candidate donations in the 2024 election cycle as well as $3,543 on an event in February lobbying lawmakers to oppose this bill. However, this spending might not have had as much of an effect as the lobbyists hoped: of the 23 current members of the House that received money from the ISDA PAC, 11 voted in favor of H109 while 12 were opposed.

ISDA is supported by various players in the soft drink industry. Swire Coca Cola is a bottling group that distributes Coke products throughout the Mountain West, and is surprisingly owned by a 200-year-old import/export company from Great Britain. Admiral Beverage Northwest, based in Wyoming, distributes Pepsi products. Both would surely see an impact should SNAP recipients no longer be allowed to use their benefits on these products.

As of last December, ISDA was listed as a state affiliate of American Beverage, a national trade organization and lobby group. However, the page appears to have been taken down earlier this year. American Beverage has been pushing back on attempts to remove soda from SNAP, claiming that soda does not contribute to obesity and highlighting polls showing public support for maintaining the status quo.

This story took a national turn over the weekend when several large MAGA-aligned Twitter accounts simultaneously posted warnings about a “war on soda”. Here are a few examples:

• Not Jerome Powell: “Government Overreach strikes again. This time it’s soda’s turn. They want to restrict soda purchases through SNAP this time. This is an unwarranted attempt by the government to dictate what Americans can or cannot consume.”

• Eric Daugherty: “We can not allow ‘Make America Healthy Again’ messaging to be used to force needy Americans into not buying certain things.”

• Ian Miles Cheong: “A new war on soda has begun, targeting purchases made through SNAP. I don’t believe it’s the government’s role to decide what people should or shouldn’t eat.”

• Jenna Ellis: “Efforts to restrict SNAP purchases takes away the autonomy of the consumer to make their own decisions. This is another example of government overreach.”

• Clown World: “This is ridiculous government overreach. Let people decide for themselves.”

• Chad Prather: “How much over-regulating governmental overreach can you handle? I think I’ve had enough.”

Another big account, Nick Sortor, accused these accounts of being paid to promote this message on behalf of the soft drink industry, without disclosing any compensation. According to Sortor, each of these accounts was coordinating with a marketing company called Influencable, which bills itself as “an influencer management platform and agency used by brands, organizations, and campaigns in the anti-woke economy.”

Sortor shared this image of the talking points allegedly handed out to MAGA influencers:

Riley Gaines revealed that she had been approached to participate but said “heck no”. Clown World, Chad Prather, and Eric Daugherty each apparently deleted their posts within 24 hours, either due to a change of heart or in response to public pressure.

I mentioned in a previous article that a big MAGA-aligned account sent me a direct message offering to retweet me if I denounced the debanking bill that was going through the Legislature at the time. I was told that the Trump Administration was opposed to this bill. I asked too many questions and he eventually ghosted me, but in hindsight this seems to be a common practice. I’m not nearly big enough to be worth thousands of dollars to push a narrative, but in this case the offer was exposure.

Idaho is just one battleground in this multifaceted cola war. The soft drink industry is clearly willing to pay big bucks to keep the carbonated gravy train rolling, while some conservatives and libertarians are ever fearful of government overreach. Keep in mind, however, that the government is already involved here. This is a double subsidy, in fact, as taxpayers pay for the unhealthy habits of SNAP recipients and then pay again to treat diabetes and other metabolic diseases.

The long-term solution is obviously to migrate people away from welfare programs like SNAP and Medicaid. But that will not happen overnight. Millions of families throughout the country unfortunately depend on government for groceries and medical care. In theory they have autonomy regarding what they eat, but in practice we are surrounded by foods that have been scientifically engineered to be addictive and unhealthy. Even low or no sugar sodas cannot be classified as “nutritious” — the N in SNAP — under any definition of the word.

If we’re going to have a welfare program, then I believe it is reasonable to have certain restrictions. It’s odd to see such controversy over restricting SNAP benefits, considering the Women, Infants, and Children’s program (WIC) is extremely restrictive about what recipients can purchase. Or, as Matt Edwards of Citizens Alliance of Idaho put it, “If you use daddy’s money, daddy gets to decide how you spend it.” Even now, SNAP benefits cannot be used for alcohol or tobacco; why is it a bridge too far to add soda and candy to that list? Sen. Brian Lenney seemed to agree in a post last week:

Imagine voting AGAINST a bill that takes soda and junk food out of food stamps…

Even Cong. Thomas Massie, the libertarian champion in Washington DC, came out against using SNAP to buy soda:

People should not be allowed to use food stamps (EBT) to purchase sugary drinks like Coke and Pepsi.

Libertarian arguments about choice do not apply here. The money being used for EBT was extracted from taxpayers who have no choice in whether to give up their money.

The Senate will likely vote on H109 this week, and if it passes it will head to the governor’s desk. Reach out to your senators and share your opinion of this legislation. No matter which way you believe, it’s important that they hear from you and not just industry lobbyists and influencers on the take. This is about your country, your state, your representatives, and your tax dollars, so it’s time to speak your mind!

Please take a moment to thank our sponsors: Lynn Bradescu’s Keller Williams Realty, Money Metals Exchange and the Syringa Speaker Series.