Your editorial, “The ethanol industry’s big payback” (July 2), claims the recent Clinton administration mandate favoring ethanol is a political payback to Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. chairman Dwayne Andreas, referred to as a “major political contributor.” The Tribune is well aware that Andreas has contributed far more to the Republican Party and Republican candidates over the years, so the insinuation is dubious at best.
The editorial goes on to state that the decision was a down payment on the 1996 election, to entice Midwest corn farmers. From a political standpoint, it would be the height of wishful thinking for the Clinton administration to presume that this overwhelmingly Republican constituency would shift its allegiance based on this decision.
Certainly political considerations may have played a role-Illinois will obviously be a battleground state again in 1996. However, the grounds used to attack this particular policy do not add up. Has “Clinton-bashing” reached the point where the facts are totally ignored?
