THE TOP BANANA. Carl H. Lindner Jr. of Cincinnati has a personal fortune estimated to be about $900 million, and he has been on the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans since 1982. He operates a corporate agglomeration that includes American Financial Group, Incorporated, an insurance business with an annual revenue of $4 billion); Chiquita Brands International, the fruit-and- vegetable giant worth $2.7 billion; and an array of other businesses, including Provident Financial Group, Incorporated, a bank holding company with assets of $8 billion; and American Heritage Homes, one of Florida's largest builders.

At American Heritage, Lindner has been a business partner since 1996 with Democratic fund raiser Terence McAuliffe who raised tens of millions of dollars for the DNC as well as for Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, his legal-defense fund, his president's library and for Hillary Clinton's New York Senate run. Since 1990 political contributions of $1,000 or more by Lindner, members of his family, his companies, and their executives added up to well over $5 million. Most of the money went to the Republican Party and its candidates.

Lindner has dominated the global trade in bananas for a century. He began investing in bananas in the 1970s, and by 1984 he had acquired a controlling interest in Chiquita. Before Lindner bought in, Chiquita was the old United Fruit Company which became notorious for throwing money behind the CIA effort to overthrow Jacobo Arbenz, the democratically elected president of Guatemala in 1953.

When Lindner acquired Chiquita, he immediately found himself in a quandary with the European countries. After World War II, Europe's banana market was divided. Britain, France, and Spain limited imports and gave preferential treatment to bananas grown in their former colonies. Thus, Britain encouraged banana output in Jamaica, Dominica, St. Lucia. France extended special treatment to bananas grown in the Ivory Coast and the Cameroons. At the other extreme, Germany offered a free market with no import restrictions or tariffs. Britain and France took the position that banana production was essential for both the economy and the social well-being of their former colonies. By the late 1980s, about one-third of the work forces on the small island nations were employed in banana production.

Most of the bananas were grown on small family farms with little or no mechanization or irrigation. Yields were far below those in places like Honduras, Guatemala, and Ecuador. The cost of growing bananas in the Caribbean was twice that for bananas produced on Latin American plantations. The banana farms on these small islands might have disappeared had it not been for the European market.

Chiquita nevertheless cracked the British market through its ownership of a British subsidiary, Fyffes Limited, which grew bananas in the former British colonies. British consumers paid a relatively high price for those bananas. But the European Union began to gain more influence beginning in 1988. Consequently, Chiquita hoped the restrictions would be lifted and its low-cost bananas could take over the market. So Chiquita sold its Fyffes subsidiary.

In tariff-free Germany, Chiquita seized 45 percent of the market, and the banana giant was poised to move into other European countries. Chiquita and its chief competitor, Dole Food, decided in the early 1990s to pour more money into production and flood the European market with bananas. But they had more bananas than buyers, and so the price of bananas plummeted. Chiquita received a second blow when the European Union announced that instead of an open market, which Chiquita had hoped for, it would raise tariffs on bananas brought in from Latin America and preferential treatment for bananas grown in the former colonies. The new rules went into effect on July 1, 1993.

Chiquita took a beating. The company racked up $407 million in losses from 1992 to 1994. Its stock price plunged from $40 to $11 a share. Chiquita laid the blame squarely on the European Union's trade restrictions. Lindner then contributed a quarter of a million dollars to the Democrats. Gore called and asked for more money. Lindner gave more. Lindner also attended a coffee klatch in the White House and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom. He also met with then United States Trade Representative Mickey Kantor and his staff who had the authority to seek trade sanctions intended to punish the Europeans and force them to give Lindner and Chinquita what he wanted. Lindner also received support from Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican majority leader in the Senate; John Glenn, Democratic Senator from Ohio; Republican Congressman Jim Bunning of Kentucky; Charles Stenholm, Democratic Representative from Texas; Richard Lugar, Republican Senator from Indiana; Mike DeWine, Republican Senator from Ohio; and Mitch McConnell, Republican Senator from Kentucky.

Lindner lobbied influential congressmen in 1994. From January to August, lawmakers of both parties bombarded Clinton and United States Trade Representative Mickey Kantor with letters demanding action. Lindner also pressed Bob Dole for support. According to Time (February 7, 2000), in January, Dole, Lugar, and Glenn wrote Clinton, asking for "sustained interventions" with European Union officials to make clear that export quotas and licensing "are not an acceptable solution." By August, Dole and Glenn demanded that Kantor initiate an investigation. On September 13 Dole met with Kantor and Lindner. A day later, Kantor and his staff had another meeting with Lindner to discuss "possible strategies" to overturn the European quotas. On October 17 Lindner attended a dinner in the White House with the president. The next week, Vice-president Al Gore called Lindner, asking for another major donation. Lindner donated $50,000 to the DNC. His Great American Holding Corporation donated $25,000, and his American Money Management kicked in $25,000, bringing the one day total to $100,000. Dole and Glenn kept pressuring Kantor to retaliate against the Europeans. In November Lindner met again with Kantor. On December 30 James Evans, a Lindner executive, contributed $150,000 to the DNC, bringing to $250,000 the sum that in one year Lindner, his companies, and their executives poured into Democratic coffers.

Kantor responded on January 3, 1995. Only four days after the latest Lindner-related contribution, Kantor announced a list of retaliatory actions that he was considering against the European Union. He considered hiking duties on European Union states which provided "air, maritime, and space transportation services." The next week, Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's moneyman and Lindner's building partner, sent a memo to Nancy Hernreich, one of the President's administrative assistants, summarizing a conversation he had had with the president on fund-raising activities. McAuliffe asked that overnight stays at the White House be arranged for major contributors. McAuliffe also sent a memo to Harold Ickes, the president's deputy chief of staff, asking for "overnights for top top supporters." Linder's name was second on the list. Five weeks later, on February 9, Lindner was invited to a White House at a state dinner honoring German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. And Lindner stayed overnight in the White House.

Still nothing was done to pressure the Europeans to drop the duty rate on bananas. So on July 19, Lindner wrote to Kantor again, expressing dissatisfaction that nothing had been accomplished. Hawaii had an indirect stake in the banana war, so its delegation of four congressman wrote Kantor on August 3. They said that they were prepared to talk about a course of action against the European Union. The following day, Lindner's American Financial Corporation donated an additional $100,000 to the DNC. Lindner and Kantor met once again, but the banana war stay remained unresolved.

Lindner continued to pump money into DNC coffers in 1996. In February a Lindner executive gave $10,000 to the DNC and American Financial Corporation contributed $15,000. In March, Lindner funneled $10,000 each to the Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Iowa Democratic parties; $15,000 to the Michigan Democratic Party; and $5,000 to the Connecticut Democratic Party. In April he steered $10,000 to the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.

With at least an additional $95,000 of Lindner money in the Democratic Party's bank accounts, Kantor on May 8 finally took its banana case to the WTO. But Kantor insisted that contributions by Lindner played no part in his decision.

In 1997 and 1998, Lindner continued to contribute to the DNC. In June 1997 he sent two checks of $10,000 each to the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation. In November he gave $75,000 to the DNC, and in February 1998 another $75,000. That was followed by contributions of $10,000, $10,000, $25,000, $50,000, $25,000 and $5,000.

Finally, on November 10, 1998, the Clinton administration proposed a 100 percent tariff on several dozen European imports. Kantor said the increased duty would be imposed on March 3, 1999 if Europe did not relax its restrictions on Latin American bananas. The Clinton administration tried to be careful so as not to offend large corporations, so the duties were slapped on smaller companies. The United States proposed raised duties from 5 percent to 100 percent on less significant items such as batteries and bath products which only affected small businesses.

Kantor proposed the 100 percent duty on 42 items which included pecorino cheese, certain wines, apple juice, bath preparations, candles, furs, coniferous wood, paper boxes, lithographs, cashmere sweaters, women's suits, dresses, skirts, bed linens, scissors, sewing machines, vacuum cleaners, food grinders, windshield wipers, dolls, photographic equipment, chandeliers, glass Christmas ornaments, sweet biscuits, wafers, felt paper, plastic handbags, coffee or tea makers, electric toy trains, greeting cards, stoves and ballpoint pens. Kantor made no mention of bananas.

But lobbyists representing the companies that were hit bombarded Kantor's office attempted to get off the list. At a December 9 United States Trade Representative meeting, lobbyists contended that these duties would cripple or possibly destroy their businesses. A representative for the Gillette warned that the 100 percent duty on ballpoint pens would have a devastating effect on Gillette's writing-instruments business in the United States. A Mattel official said, "Subjecting these dolls to a 100 percent duty could well result in the collapse of the entire line of American Girl products." A representative of the Fur Information Council of America declared, "The imposition of a 100 percent duty rate on articles of fur clothing and garments will seriously impact our members, making their garments outrageously expensive, even for a luxury product." On April 19 most of the goods on the proposed list were stricken, and just nine types of products ultimately were covered. A Chiquita spokesman acknowledged the stand-off, "There is no end in sight."

A settlement was proposed in January 2000 allowing the United States to impose punitive tariffs on $520 million in European goods.

Lindner's poured millions of dollars into the coffers of both parties in the 1990s. And he still was waiting for something in return. He gave $4.2 million tot he Republican Party and $1.4 million to the Democratic Party, and shelled out $1.5 million to lobbyists.

AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES. Agribusiness subsidies amount to over $18 billion per year. One percent of the nation's sugar farmers receive a federal subsidy of $1.4 billion annually. 40 percent of this annual subsidy benefitted the largest 1 percent of sugar farms. The 33 largest sugar cane plantations each receive more than $1 million. The Agriculture Department spent $110 million in 1998 in overseas advertising. This was almost 30 percent higher than in 1995. Agribusiness price supports cost the taxpayer $1.4 billion a year in higher sugar prices, $2.5 billion in higher dairy prices, and $500 million in higher peanut prices.

In 1994, the 16 percent of the farms which had sales of over $100,000 received 65 percent of all agricultural subsidies. In 1990, 90 percent of all direct government payments went to the nation's largest 18 percent of farms which are primarily conglomerates. On the other hand, 64 percent of all farms in the United States received no federal subsidies.

There are several types of agribusiness subsidies. First, there are price supports where the government buys up excess production of a crop in order to keep its value inflated. Second, there are production quotas which limit who can farm a particular crop. Third, there are market quotas which control how much of a crop can be sold. The rest is either destroyed or placed in warehouses. Fourth, there are import restrictions which limit how much of a crop can be imported into the United States. Fifth, there are deficiency payments which keep the value of certain crops artificially high.

Between 1985 and 1994, deficiency payments cost the national treasury an average of $8.3 billion a year. Although supporters of the 1996 farm bill claimed that deficiency payments would be eliminated by 2002, the bill actually phased them down to a level of $4 billion which was what they were in 1994. Only farmers, who received deficiency payments before 1996, are still eligible for them today. There is no work requirement and there is no means test. In fact, farmers do not have to be active today in order to be eligible. The top 2 percent of deficiency payments recipients are getting 22 percent of the total subsidy. Nearly 400 farmers are eligible to get $1 million each.

Subsidized irrigation water is another means for corporate farmers to receive subsidies and tax breaks. According to law, no farm over 960 acres is eligible to receive subsidized water. However, to circumvent the law, large farms set up networks of corporations and trusts in order to disguise their massive land holdings. When this is accomplished, corporate farmers may set up irrigation projects by borrowing from the government which charges no interest. Additionally, farmers do not have to repay the government for 10 years, at which time only 2.5 percent of the loan must be repaid annually. Corporate farmers benefit from subsidized irrigation. Just in California alone, Chevron, Southern Pacific, Getty Oil, Shell Oil, and Prudential Insurance use more than two-thirds of agricultural water in California alone.

THE CITRUS INDUSTRY. "Specialty crop" groups contributed over $4.6 million to congressional campaigns and paid $163,550 in speaking fees to members of Congress for 10 years beginning in the mid-1980s. After Reagan took office in 1981, he launched a crusade against government regulations, and marketing orders were first to be eliminated. A California marketing order on oranges and lemons was the worst on the list. The giant citrus conglomerate Sunkist was very influential among members on the Office of Management and Budget which decided the amount of oranges which could be exported out of the state. As a result Sunkist was able to keep their supply of oranges down, and as a result their prices stayed up. In fact, Sunkist allowed tons of ripe oranges to rot.

THE DAIRY INDUSTRY. In 1980, the FTC investigated Sunkist for alleged anti-trust violations. However, this quickly ended when Republican Congressmen Mark Andrews of North Dakota and Charles Pashayan of California prevented the FTC from investigating agriculture marketing orders. In 1996, Congress enacted the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act which began the process of dismantling the complex system of farm-support programs. One provision of the bill gave the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to approve the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. Thus, the Department of Agriculture could set milk prices in six northeastern states. The retail prices for milk in Massachusetts remained steady from 1996 to 1997, even though the prices paid to farmers declined by 32 cents in that time period.

THE SUGAR LOBBY. One percent of American sugar growers reap almost 50 percent of the price-support benefits. The Fanjul family fled Cuba in 1959 and settled in Florida. Today they own 400,000 acres and bring in a net of $65 million a year from their businesses in Puerto Rico and Florida.

There are over 100 sugar lobbyists on Capitol Hill. Between 1979 and 1994 the sugar industry paid members of Congress $11.9 million for their campaigns. Additionally, they paid out $157,932 on trips for the lawmakers and their aides from 1986 to 1990. The Fanjul family alone contributed $2.6 million to congressional candidates and national committees since 1979. One brother, Jose Fanjul, was finance vice-chairman for Senator Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign, while another brother, Alfonso Fanjul, worked on President Clinton’s finance committee. From 1991 to 1996, six congressional members held stock in the Fanjul conglomerate.

In 1995, a farm bill proposed to eliminate the sugar subsidy which the growers had been raking in. Florida Congressman Dan Miller, whose district did not include a single sugar grower, vowed to eliminate the subsidy. However, lobbyists representing ice cream manufactureers, candy bar companies, and soda firms pressured members of Congress to keep the subsidy. On the other side, environmentalists rallied against the sugar companies which had flooded lands, destroyed wetlands, and killed off plants and wildlife. In 1996 the Senate voted 61-35 to defeat the bill which would have eliminated sugar subsidies. The Senators who voted with the sugar growers had received an average of $13,473 from sugar PACs over the previous six years.

Shortly afterwards, the Senate voted on a bill to appropriate $200 million -- which would be generated from taxing sugar growers one-half cent a pound -- to clean up the Everglades, a portion of which had been destroyed by sugar growers. A week later the U.S. Sugar Corporation, the nation’s second largest sugar corporation, flew 19 congressional aides to their corporate offices overlooking 120,000 of sugarcane fields in Clewiston, Florida. Sugar growers spent over $22 million to push Congress members to vote against the legislation. Subsequently, Congressman Miller’s legislation failed to pass by a 217-208 vote. Afterwards, sugar PACs rewarded four members of Congress with donations. In addition 16 of the 17 lawmakers, whose aides went to Clewiston, voted to keep the sugar subsidy.

ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND (ADM). Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) is the largest food processor in the world. ADM has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent American history. ADM was the recipient of $10 million of taxpayers' dollars to produce ethanol from grain. However, less than 1 percent of ethanol is used in the United States. Archer Daniels Midland had contributed $150,000 to Senator Bob Dole over the years. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have contributed heavily to both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30. Since 1978 gasoline blended with ethanol receives a 4.4 cent-per-gallon reduction in the federal gasoline tax. This subsidy has cost taxpayers $7 billion.

A federal price-support program has also allowed the price of sugar to remain inflated. A five pound bag of sugar costs 50 cents more than if the federal government did not help sugar farmers. A 1993 General Accounting Office estimate placed the programs total cost to consumers at $1.4 billion a year. Price-supports have also inflated the price of corn syrup. ADM profits are approximately $200 million each year just on their corn syrup business.

Between 1992 and 1995, ADM conspired to fix prices in the sale of lysine and citric acid on the worldwide market. ADM pleaded guilty to charges of price-fixing and paid a $100 million criminal fine. It is estimated that the citric acid price-fixing scheme cost ADM's clients over $400 million, and the lysine price-fixing cost $100 million. Under federal law the $500 million total loss could have been doubled, putting ADM's potential criminal exposure at $1 billion. However, the Department of Justice defended the mere $100 million fine. Gary Spratling, a DOJ official stated, "We made all our decisions based on the evidence we had developed -- we don't think anybody is getting off the hook."

From 1991 to 1997, ADM contributed $498,000 in soft money to the Democratic Party and $1,492,268 to the GOP. In this same time frame Dwayne Andreas, ADM's CEO, donated $366,000 to the Democrats and $325,000 to the Republicans. Finally, various ADM subsidiaries have given $190,000 to the Democratic Party and $100,000 to the Republican Party. ADM's net contributions to both parties from 1991 to 1997 amounted to $2,971,268. Six members of Congress own stock in ADM.