It turns out that DNC chair and congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in the pocket of more than just the payday loan lobby.
As pointed out by congressional opponent and progressive Democrat Tim Canova in an op-ed for Medium, Wasserman Schultz has made it a habit of hers to get in cozy with Big Sugar, a surprisingly corrupted lobby whose practices have been called “modern-day slavery.”
In the past eight years, Wasserman Schultz has taken increasingly larger campaign contributions from Big Sugar, amounting to a large total sum of $133,000. That’s quite a lot for a lowly congresswoman, especially since she has barely faced any sort of legitimate political opposition before 2016 – what did she need all of that money for?
Wasserman Schultz played a major hand in the overturning of a rule imposed by President Obama which had previously banned corporate donations to the DNC. Now that she has opened that rule up wide, Big Sugar can begin pouring their sticky sweet contributions into the party at record speed.
Wasserman Schultz’s cozy relationship with Big Sugar isn’t always so sneaky though, as she has repeatedly lobbied to protect corporate handouts to the industry in the form of subsidies provided by the federal government. Rather than using the massive sum for literally anything else, Wasserman Schultz repeatedly fights to force American taxpayers to hand over more than $100 million a year to the two largest sugar companies for no reason at all.
The congresswoman has also fought for Big Sugar against environmental issues, lobbying to give the industry a longer deadline in their required role in cleaning up the everglades. She literally places the wishes of corporate executives over environmental needs of the entire planet.
It is clear that the huge campaign contributions were the result of a direct agreement between Wasserman Schultz and Big Sugar in order to continue protecting their interests at the expense of taxpayers all over the U.S.. Hopefully her uphill battle against Tim Canova will ensure that the massive contributions by corporate interest will actually be used, for once, on her campaign rather than lining her pockets and setting her agenda.
