All My Net Biz

Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, is an avid hunter who voted to repeal a ban on assault weapons in the 1990s. A devoted outdoorsman, he led a fight in 2004 to overturn a ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. Each time, he aroused the ire of some in his own party.

He even plays guitar in a rock band full of Republicans.

Today, Peterson will join forces with rural state lawmakers from both parties as he pushes a controversial $286 billion farm bill. Once again, it’s a fight along philosophical and regional lines that has little to do with party affiliation.

The bill, which provides spending for farm subsidies and other programs over five years, has been blasted by the Bush administration and Democrats such as Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin as a boondoggle that funnels money to millionaires while hurting small farmers, the environment and taxpayers.

To the critics, such as Ken Cook of the non-partisan Environmental Working Group, Peterson is the affable face of the status quo, a longtime friend of agribusiness who never met a farm subsidy he didn’t like. He turned aside proposals by President Bush to cap subsidies and shift the money into areas such as renewable fuels. Instead, he crafted a bill that largely preserves the crop supports already in place: a system that hands out the bulk of the benefits to the richest farms.

Peterson, an eighth-term former accountant who flies his own plane around his vast northern Minnesota district, says he achieved what changes were politically possible, including barring payments to farmers who earn more than $1 million a year.

“We have done something that people thought could never be done,” he said, sitting in his office in front of a placard that reads “No Farms, No Food.” When pressed, though, he acknowledges that he never supported payment caps.

“Some people want to make everything about the rich and the poor,” he said. “They do it on taxes, whatever Ц it’s kind of a phony argument, but a lot of people have bought into it, and it’s what I have to deal with. That’s politics. Some of my constituents will lose their benefits.”

The Agriculture Department says 7,000 people nationwide will be effected by the $1 million income cap. In Peterson’s district, which includes sugar beets, wheat and poultry, 58% of the $2.8 billion paid out in crop subsidies from 1995 to 2005 went to 10% of recipients, according to the Environmental Working Group, which tracks farm spending. The chairman says he has no problem with that. “Ten percent of the farmers produce 90% of the food,” he says.

Peterson, who has not had a serious re-election race since 1996, has taken in hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from agriculture interests in recent years. Of $938,128 that he raised in 2005 and 2006, $388,186 came from agribusiness, the vast majority from outside his district, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which counts campaign contributions. He has raised $359,962 through June, and 43% Д $153,667 Д came from farmers or agribusiness interests, records show.

“People give you money based on what committees you are on I guess,” Peterson said. “But I haven’t made a single [fundraising] call.” He says he supports full public financing of campaigns.

As he fends off brickbats, Peterson holds an ace: He won early support for his bill from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who in 2002, supported far-reaching cutbacks to farm subsidies. The two bonded when Pelosi visited his sprawling district last summer, he said.

“She, I think, trusts me that I know what I’m doing,” he said. “She’s a practical politician like I am.”

Contributing: William Risser