2024 Rural Outreach Strategy Guide for Democrats
Whether you like it or not, Rural America is important. Stopping rural voters’ seemingly never-ending march toward the American right wing is Important for the Democratic Party’s continued success. Roughly 100k voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan are why Trump won in 2016. Every single vote matters in every single race. In states like Kansas, Rural voters helped Democrat Laura Kelly win the governorship. You can’t always count on high suburban and urban turnout as a Democrat. Keeping a balanced, all-encompassing voter outreach strategy is a good thing. Democrats like Senators Tester, Baldwin, and Brown know this, and it’s why they are still in the Senate. They are up for reelection again, and all three are keeping their Rural voters in mind. The big problem many other democrats running have is that you need to have the policies to back it up and highlight successes when they happen. As we fully delve into campaign season, here are some policies I believe Democrats could/should run on and some accomplishments made under the Biden Administration.
An important note before we start: Rural and Agricultural policies are joined at the hip. According to a recent study by Feeding the Economy, agriculture and ag-related industries account for 48.6 million jobs and $9.6 Trillion in economic output. While Urban Agriculture is a growing industry, it is still overwhelmingly located in small rural counties all across America, contributing trillions in wages and taxes for these rural communities. You may find it boring, but it is essential to know these policy issues when creating a rural outreach strategy. (Feeding the Economy is an annual food and agriculture sector economic impact study sponsored by every leading agricultural interest group and state government agricultural agencies).
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The Biden Administration and Democrats have made remarkable strides in championing the needs of rural Americans. Despite the GOP-led dysfunction and obstruction in the House over the past four years, our efforts have yielded tangible victories that directly impact the lives of millions across rural communities.
One crucial success lies in the American Rescue Plan, where the maximum Earned Income Tax Credit for workers without dependent children was increased to $1,500. This measure alone has provided essential support to approximately 2.7 million rural workers, offering them much-needed relief in challenging times.
Furthermore, under President Biden’s leadership, rural poverty has seen a remarkable 70% decline, as reported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. This significant achievement underscores our administration’s commitment to addressing economic disparities and uplifting those most in need, following in the footsteps of rural champions like FDR and LBJ.
In addition to addressing poverty, the Biden Administration has taken proactive steps to safeguard rural homeownership. By allowing rural homeowners to refinance through the USDA, we have prevented thousands of families from facing the heartbreaking prospect of losing their homes, ensuring stability and security for communities across rural America.
Moreover, the administration has prioritized revitalizing coal and power plant communities through the Interagency Working Group, allocating $2.8 billion in federal investment to foster sustainable, climate-smart economic growth. This targeted support is crucial in safeguarding the livelihoods of those in high-risk communities and paving the way for a prosperous future.
The benefits of our policies extend beyond economic revitalization to encompass education and small business support. Through initiatives like the Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and the Community Navigator Pilot Program, we have connected rural students and workers with valuable career opportunities while providing essential resources to small businesses in underserved communities.
Furthermore, our commitment to fostering economic development is exemplified by the support provided to organizations like the Latino Economic Development Center. With USDA grants funded by the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act, we have empowered rural Latino families and farmers to access crucial resources, strengthening their resilience and ensuring equitable opportunities for all. This is very important to highlight in areas like the Rio Grande Valley, which swung to the right in 2020, and in states like Nevada and Arizona, which also have large rural Latino populations.
While there are hundreds more accomplishments for Rural America on the federal, state, and local levels, listing them all is tedious and highly unpractical. So, we will have to move on to policy suggestions.
POLICY
In recent years, large agricultural corporations have monopolized both the market and benefits, leaving most family farmers struggling to compete and survive. Addressing this issue is imperative to ensure fair free market competition, support the livelihoods of family farmers, and promote a sustainable agricultural system. This means restructuring subsidy programs like Agriculture risk coverage (ARC) and Price loss coverage (PLC) to prioritize support for small and medium-sized family farmers over large corporations. This could be accomplished via means-testing mechanisms to ensure that subsidies are allocated based on needs like low productivity, limited market access, and unsustainable practices rather than farm size or market dominance.
Creating new antitrust safeguards to break up agricultural monopolies up and down the agricultural supply chain will lower costs for customers and farmers alike and reestablish free market competition. As Senator Klobachar (D-MN) proposed, this can be done by strengthening existing antitrust laws and creating new regulations around things like AI-controlled price fixing. Further, existing regulatory bodies should be empowered to monitor and enforce compliance with anti-monopoly regulations, ensuring fair treatment for all farmers regardless of size. More funding for the Department of Justice (DOJ) Anti-Trust division could lead to more inspectors being hired and more lawyers to prosecute these cases. Strengthening oversight on income support commodity programs is essential to prevent benefit monopolization again.
Outreach and engagement efforts in rural communities have shown for years that these are a top priority for farmers and those in the agricultural industry. Building trust and credibility by working with local leaders, agricultural organizations, and grassroots movements in rural areas to build support for these proposals would do wonders in helping dems win races like Ohio Senate, CO-03, IA-01, IA-02, IA-03, NY-19, NY-22, CA-13, CA-22, and more. Democrats have recently succeeded in most of these areas; leveraging existing networks and relationships to amplify this messaging, mobilize support, and drive grassroots advocacy efforts will translate to votes. Highlighting that these policy changes will boost the economy after decades of family farms being forced to sell land to conglomerates, loss of jobs, and economic instability will resonate with rural voters’ kitchen table economic concerns and social values of hard work, fairness, and independence.
Investing in local food systems is vital for farmers. Investing in farmers’ markets, community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs and farm-to-school partnerships can strengthen connections between farmers and consumers and reduce reliance on large-scale corporate agriculture. Encouraging existing public procurement policies to prioritize locally sourced, sustainably produced food for government institutions and programs can further help. Greater regulatory flexibility and Tribal self-governance programs can ensure farmers have access to their local markets, further supplying consumers with local, regional, and culturally traditional foods.
Recognizing the cultural significance of farming and food production in rural areas, Democrats should highlight how these proposals support traditional farming practices and promote locally sourced, culturally traditional foods. Democrats can position themselves as champions of local economies and community resilience, contrasting with the image of large-scale corporate agriculture supported by decades of failed GOP policy. By demonstrating real results and improvements in local food systems, such as job creation and support for small-scale farmers, rural voters who may feel marginalized or neglected by traditional agricultural policies can find a voice in the Democratic Party. Furthermore, Democrats can appeal to environmentalist concerns by emphasizing how investing in local food systems promotes sustainable agriculture practices, reduces carbon emissions from food transportation, and protects natural resources.
Right to Repair has been championed by Democrats for the last Decade. Legislation like Jon Testers (D-MT) Agricultural Right to Repair Act is vital to highlight and run on. We have seen serious momentum in states like Colorado and Oregon for the right to repair, which has led to great success. Pressuring Republicans who voted against this legislation or have ties with those who did (aka almost every Republican) to explain themselves highlights their lack of commitment to rural communities and will benefit Democrats greatly.
Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges facing our planet, and we must consider its impacts in all regulatory decisions, including those related to biofuels. While biofuels offer environmental benefits compared to traditional fossil fuels, it is essential to assess their overall impact on the environment comprehensively. They offer a promising alternative to conventional fossil fuels, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting energy security. However, we simply don’t know enough, and the current regulatory framework governing biofuels requires significant reforms to ensure their continued growth while addressing environmental concerns and maintaining accessibility and production levels. A commission dedicated to rigorous research and analysis to assess the sustainability of biofuel manufacturing processes, including their effects on land use, water resources, and biodiversity, is necessary. By better understanding the environmental implications of biofuel production, we can identify areas for improvement and promote more sustainable practices within the industry. We can further advance this effort by instructing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to include the climate impacts of biofuel production and use in its congressionally mandated reports.
Assuming biofuels are part of our environmental strategy, we know that there will be several reforms to address certain issues going forward. The Small Refinery Exemption (SRE) waiver has been a controversial aspect of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), allowing certain small refineries to be exempt from meeting their biofuel blending obligations. This waiver undermines the integrity of the RFS by reducing demand for biofuels and creating market uncertainty. In 2023 the Supreme Court struck down the Biden EPA policy of withholding these waivers. Therefore, the only move should be to abolish the SRE waiver to ensure that all refineries contribute to meeting our renewable energy goals. By eliminating this loophole, we can maintain adequate accessibility and production of alternative fuels, fostering a more competitive and sustainable energy market.
To further promote the development and utilization of biofuels, we must enhance the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). This includes increasing the annual volumes for biodiesel and advanced biofuels to incentivize investment in producing these cleaner alternatives. By setting ambitious targets for biofuel production, we can stimulate innovation and expansion in the biofuel industry, creating new economic opportunities while reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
Democrat’s commitment to addressing climate change often hurts them in rural communities, acknowledging the importance of fighting climate change and the role industries like biofuels which employ tens of thousands, play in achieving sustainability goals is something that is doable. While it would be dishonest to downplay the need for thorough research and regulation to ensure that biofuel production is genuinely beneficial for the environment, we can still find an in by stressing the potential for rural areas to lead in sustainable energy solutions. Positioning an SRE repeal as a move to level the playing field for all players in the renewable energy market that’ll create growth opportunities for rural economies reliant on agriculture and biofuel production is a great way to win votes. It also contrasts well with GOP support for the policy. Highlighting the economic benefits of expanding the RFS, such as providing a pathway for rural communities to thrive, creating jobs, and fostering innovation while reducing dependence on fossil fuels, will further provide pause to rural voters who prioritize their wallets over strict ideological allegiances.
The management of federal lands in the United States has long been a topic of debate for rural voters, particularly concerning the balance between conservation and economic development. Currently, the federal government has exclusive authority over taxing and regulating private businesses engaging in resource extraction activities, such as logging, oil drilling, mining, and others, on federal land. However, this centralized approach has led to significant revenue disparities for municipalities in states with substantial federal land holdings, especially in states like Alaska, Nevada, Montana, and Arizona. To address this issue, Democrats should advocate for allowing state and local governments to tax and regulate private businesses operating on federal land within their jurisdictions.
State legislatures writing calls to action or federal dems writing amendments to existing legislation to grant state and local governments the legal authority to impose taxes and regulations on private businesses operating on federal land within their jurisdictions would cause shockwaves across rural America. While this is likely to be struck down in court, it would show our commitment to rural areas. A more realistic option would be implementing a revenue-sharing mechanism whereby a portion of the taxes collected from businesses operating on federal land is allocated to the respective state and local governments. Facilitating increased collaboration and coordination between federal, state, and local authorities through intergovernmental agreements and cooperative management arrangements further helps this goal and allows Dems to highlight any politicians who oppose it next cycle.
Joint task forces or advisory councils comprising representatives from all levels of government, industry stakeholders, and community groups would not only help oversee regulatory implementation and enforcement but further highlight politicians for dems to target in rural areas, further gaining us votes. Further transparency around the extent of federal land within a jurisdiction, the volume of resource extraction activities, and the socioeconomic needs of local communities would only help the Dems’ case. Federal tax incentives, grants, or preferential treatment for businesses that adopt environmentally sustainable practices, invest in local communities and contribute to economic diversification efforts further benefit local communities. Mandating regular reporting and evaluation of tax revenues, regulatory compliance, and environmental outcomes, as well as advertising the associated community benefits, would ensure accountability and inform the people and feds of any needed policy adjustments.
While outreach and communication are always important, in this particular area it’s the most important part of both policy implementation and campaigning. Identifying and then forming coalitions with state legislators, county commissioners, other local officials, community groups, industry stakeholders, and other key decision-makers who support the idea will be the hardest and most important step. Education around the proposed policy and how it addresses their concerns regarding revenue disparities and local control while emphasizing our support of transparency and accountability in federal land management will also be hard but it is possible — coming up with mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the implementation, including regular reporting on tax revenues, regulatory compliance, and environmental outcomes is needed information to track progress, identify areas for improvement, and make adjustments as needed when the time comes.
Other policy areas also exist, and while thier effectiveness is highly debatable, thier popularity among rural voters is not.
Recognizing the importance of local knowledge and autonomy, Democrats in areas like Rural New England, New York, or California can likely find success by pushing counties and other local governments to pass and enforce ordinances regulating the size, placement, and scope of megafarms within their jurisdictions. These ordinances can be sold as protecting the value of rural family farmers’ land and the surrounding environment. They could be tailored to address each locality’s needs and concerns, considering factors such as soil quality, water resources, wildlife habitats, and community well-being. The regulations could also prioritize historically underserved farmers and ranchers, including African American and indigenous farmers, by providing mechanisms to protect their land ownership and rights. This may include provisions for land preservation, access to resources and support services, and opportunities for economic development and empowerment.
Every rural community is different, and by highlighting our belief in the importance of local autonomy and knowledge in crafting ordinances that suit the specific needs and concerns of each rural community, we can build trust in rural areas. By framing these ordinances as safeguards for the traditional way of life in rural areas, we meet these voters at their level and talk about their values. Stressing the importance of preserving the rural landscape, maintaining the value of family-owned land, and safeguarding the environment for future generations only further leans into rural cultural values. It also shows rural voters a long-term vision for their communities that values their traditions without sacrificing economic growth for these often underserved communities. In states like Georgia, Mississippi, and Arkansas, where black farmers have been targeted for well over 100 years by rich white landowners, this can work especially well.
In recent years, we have seen momentum in support of implementing a strict cap on foreign ownership of farms, farmland, and agribusinesses to safeguard domestic farmland and ensure equitable access for American farmers. This cap would be set at a level that prevents undue concentration of ownership and control by foreign entities while allowing for reasonable investment and collaboration. Considering the cumulative impact on the agricultural landscape, it would have to apply to individual entities and aggregate holdings. Enforcement mechanisms, including monitoring and reporting requirements, would be established to ensure compliance with the cap and prevent circumvention through indirect ownership or other means. Penalties for violations would be sufficiently deterrent to discourage non-compliance.
The reason this policy is so popular across the board is that it checks off so many boxes. It is easy to frame a cap as a way to protect the heritage and values of rural communities, ensuring that family farmers have a fair chance to compete in the marketplace and maintain their livelihoods. You can position the cap as a tool to level the playing field and promote economic equity. You can discuss the national security implications of foreign ownership of critical agricultural assets. You can mention the importance of preserving farmland for future generations and preventing overexploitation or degradation of natural resources by foreigners who only seek to exploit rural areas for their economic benefit. You can stress the need for transparency in ownership structures and transactions to prevent circumvention through indirect ownership or other means. It’s easy to get rural voters to engage, build coalitions, and build momentum toward genuinely impactful political action on an issue like this. While there are fair criticisms to be made, you cannot deny its effectiveness.
A similar policy would be to provide consumers with accurate and transparent information about the origin of their food by implementing strong country-of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements for all agricultural products sold in the United States. These requirements would mandate clear and conspicuous labeling indicating the country or countries of origin for key product components, including, but not limited to, primary ingredients, processing, and packaging. Labeling standards would be established through a transparent and participatory process involving stakeholders across the food supply chain, including farmers, processors, distributors, retailers, and consumer advocates. These standards prioritize accuracy, consistency, and comprehensibility, ensuring consumers can make informed choices about the food they purchase and consume.
This similarly checks off a lot of boxes. Arguments can be made about it helping American farmers gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Others can be convinced by framing this policy as a way to create transparency and accountability in the food supply chain. With the fear of diseases like bird flu and mad cow, you could connect COOL requirements to broader public health goals, emphasizing the importance of knowing the origin of food products for food safety and traceability purposes. It would also have the benefit of positioning Democrats as leaders in shaping policies that promote food security, economic equity, and public health for all Americans.
Rural voters in America wield significant electoral influence, often shaping the outcomes of elections. Despite their smaller population density, their voices resonate loudly due to the Electoral College system and the distribution of Senate seats. Ignoring the rural vote can prove costly for candidates. Thus, understanding and addressing the needs of rural communities should remain paramount for any political strategy aiming for almost any office in the United States. By prioritizing policies like those mentioned above, which support family farmers, promote sustainable agriculture, and empower rural communities, Democrats can demonstrate to rural voters their commitment to addressing the needs and concerns of rural America while advancing broader goals of economic prosperity and environmental stewardship.
