Florida is no stranger to companies getting involved in elections. Congressional, legislative, and statewide races are littered with money from giants like Disney, casinos, trial lawyers, and the farming industry. But one major player Florida has that only a few other states have is the sugar industry. Florida produces 17 million tons of sugarcane a year, 10% of worldwide production. The only state with similar capacity is Louisiana, which produced 13 million tons last year. The third largest is Texas, all the way back at 2 million. As a result, Florida’s sugar industry is a staple in Florida and is very powerful.
State and federal politicians constantly clash over sugar subsidies and environmental regulation; but this is not the story of those fight. This is the story of when a local elected official in a small rural county stood up to the giant that is the sugar industry.
Sugar in Florida
Florida’s population is heavily clustered along the coast in many parts of the state. Agriculture happens across Florida, but the biggest concentrations occur south of Orlando.
In the period between WWI and WWII, the fields around Lake Okeechobee became fertile soil as the Everglades continued to be drained; a push that began in the early 1900s. The climate of southern Florida was ideal for the growing of sugarcane, and sugar growers from Louisiana and Cuba came into the region to set up plants. A thorough history of this timeline can be found here. Cultivation kicked off in earnest in the 1930s, after a decade of drainage and the passage of subsidies by Congress to aid in sugar harvesting. These subsides helped sugar companies research and produce the chemical fertilizers they needed to grow sugarcane on a mass scale.
The Everglades region south of Lake Okeechobee has been divided up into multiple plots. Much of sugar and other crops are grown in the Everglades Agricultural Area and in non-Everglades land.
US Sugar Corp, the largest grower in the state, grows sugarcane and citrus across the land south of Lake Okeechobee. They began planting in 1938 and were founded by an executive from General Motors. The company built the Clewiston Inn, a mansion for its members that today serves as a hotel.
Agriculture is the dominant employer in the region. The rural counties have over 20% of their workforce in agriculture. On top of that, towns exist to service the workers and farms; making the entire regional economy tied to the fields.
The dependency means that when these industries take positions on issues or politicians, they hold immense sway in how voters will cast ballots. The threat of the industry declining or leaving is too great to risk.
US Sugar and Politics
Google US Sugar in any Florida newspaper or political publication and you will find countless articles about the US Sugar Corp, Florida Crystals, or one of many sugar growing entities being involved in the Florida political realm. The industry has lobbied congress, the legislature, and regulators; and donates millions. The industry largely aligns with Republicans, but does donate to many Democrats as well. Tens of millions have flowed to political committees, political parties, and candidates.
Documenting every instance of sugar interests getting involved in politics would require a book. Instead I want to highlight one key example from 1996. That year, environmental groups funded signature gathering and advertising for three proposed amendments to Florida’s constitution. These were aimed at Everglades restoration, which became a bipartisan issue in the 1990s as the effects of weak farming regulation took their toll on the ecosystem. Early polls showed all measures had broad support, but the sugar industry did not want these measures to pass, and the most expensive ballot fight (to that point) in Florida’s history began. The industry spent $24 million to defeat the measures. Two passed, one didn’t.
Amendment 5 received the broadest support. It established that polluters were primarily responsible for cleanup costs when it came to products grown in the Everglades. The measure got 68% and only failed in the conservative panhandle counties and farm counties.
Amendment 6 established an Everglades Trust Fund; which would be funded to aid in Everglades cleanup. The notion of additional funding for a government entity did not poll well in the northern panhandle and the farm counties. It did, however, pass.
The biggest fight was Amendment 4, which would have set a penny-per-pound tax on sugar grown in the Everglades Agriculture Area. The industry fought back on this measure the hardest, and claimed it would result in raised prices for different food products. The flow of money scared off voters on the issue, and it lost by 9%.
The Sugar industry never shied from a political fight in state or federal issues.
However, an issue in Hendry County, the home of the US Sugar Corporation, would lead to an unprecedented foray into local politics by the sugar industry.
Hendry County Politics
Hendry County is often forgotten in Florida residents. With a population of just 40,000 people and dominated by farmland, Hendry is one of the many “drive through” counties of the state. Its political importance comes from its role as one of several counties with large sugarcane production. However, even the most obsessed Florida politicos give little though to Hendry’s internal politics.
The map below gives an general layout of Hendry County’s geography. The two cities: LaBelle and Clewiston, are separated by a state road that marks the northern border of the county. It is roughly a 30 mile drive from one city to the other. Other census-designated communities are also highlighted. Most of the county is farmland and the Native American Reservation in the south. Migrant farm worker camps dot the landscape.
Agriculture makes up 25% of jobs in the county; but the entire economy exists because of the farms. Clewiston is more tired to agriculture than LaBelle; with Clewiston being the site of US Sugar’s headquarters and featuring a larger share of its population working directly in the industry.
LaBelle is also the county seat of Hendry and is only a 30 minute drive to Fort Meyers, the same as a drive to Clewiston. LaBelle, culturally still a town in rural American, does have more ties to coastal/urban Florida than Clewiston. The two towns are linked, but also separate. They each have their own papers and coverage can be very different in both (remember this).
In the US Census, Hendry County stands out as one of Florida’s second most Hispanic County (52%) – right behind Miami-Dade. However, Hendry is so heavily Hispanic due to the large number of migrant farm workers. The county is home to over 80 worker camps. Many workers stay all year while others come in seasonally. Most come on work visas. These workers are counted in the census and the camps are regulated by the state. The migrant camps vary by size and living arrangements, but one common theme is the large number considered below state standards. Hendry County ranked highest in camps getting an “unsatisfactory rating.” The large migrant population, which is a major economic engine in the region, also means US Sugar, the largest employer in the county, has a strong role in county politics. I cover the camps more in my 2018 article on Hendry County.
The migrant population results in a Hispanic population of 52%. Below is a precinct map broken down by race.
However, a precinct map showing voter registration paints a very different picture; with the county over 50% white.
Only one precinct is majority Hispanic, the Montura community.
The 18,000 or so registered voters are heavily concentrated around the two cities and in different census communities. Most of the land is empty space.
These small towns also show the same racial segregation that many large cities due. Clewiston features distinct communities; with white northern neighborhoods, more mixed communities just south of the main state road, and the historic Harlem community, which was founded by African-American and Caribbean laborers in the 1920s and 30s.
Politically, Hendry has operated like many rural counties in Florida; Democratic down-ballot and Republican at the top. Hendry’s Hispanic population has made it less Republican than many other rural counties and it has swung back and forth, but general maintains a GOP edge in statewide races.
Hendry used to be over 70% registered Democrat, but like many FL rural counties, its democratic share has dropped, and now the county is nearly split. Democrats long controlled local offices, but like its neighbors, that has begun to change as well.
2008 Hendry Elections
Heading into the 2008 elections, four of the six constitutional officers for Hendry County were democrats: Clerk of Court, Supervisor of Elections, Tax Collector, and Superintendent of Schools. The Sheriff and Property Appraiser were Republicans. Kristine Kulpa had been the Property Appraiser of Hendry since 1992, and hadn’t even faced a challenge for over a decade.
(Quick explainer: The Florida property appraisers assign value to property, which is then used to determine taxes. The PA sets the value, the county commission assigns the % the tax will be, the Tax Collector collects the payment).
However, as 2008 continued to be viewed as a big Democratic year, and as Kulpa faced multiple clashes over property evaluations, three democrats filed to challenge her.
All three candidates had varied local experience and familiarity with the office.
- Mary Harn had worked in the office as an appraiser till 2002 and was based out of Clewiston
- Lewell Hughes was a former Clewiston City Commissioner and worked in the real estate department for US Sugar
- Phillip Pelletier had worked at the Property Appraisers office and was the current head of the LaBelle Recreation Department
The big benefit to Pelletier was that he was the lone candidate from LaBelle, while both his opponents came from Clewiston. When the primary results came in, Pelletier pulled off a narrow win; largely thanks to dominant margins in the west end of the county.
Pelletier fell to third place in most of the precincts in and around Clewiston, but his margins in LaBelle were so high that it gave him a 4% county-wide win.
The general election against Kulpa took place in the shadows of the Presidential contest and a heated Sheriff race as well. Kulpa was believed to be a favorite due to her tenure, but when all the votes came in, she was down by a 5 raw votes.
Recounts followed, but the 5 vote margin held and Pelletier was declared the winner. His wins were in LaBelle and in the African-American precincts of Clewiston.
Obama managed a 7 point loss in Hendry, an improvement from Kerry’s 2004 loss.
Pelletier’s biggest improvements over Obama were in the LaBelle area. He under-performed in the more Hispanic and black portions of Clewiston (demographics where Obama had racked up record margins) but did improve in the more white portions of the area.
Pelletier’s win was side-by-side with Steve Whiddon winning the Sheriff election, giving democrats full control of all 6 constitutional officers.
Kulpa did not accept the loss, however, and on November 24th, she sued to force a new election. Kulpa claimed that felons who did not have their rights restored had voted in the election and handicapped people had been manipulated to vote for her opponent by an election worker. Her suit was against the Supervisor of Elections office, and against Pelletier himself. Pelletier was forced to pay for his own attorney fees since he was still a private citizen when he was sued. A summary of Kulpa’s claims can be found here. Kulpa’s suit got especially nasty, as she accused Pelletier’s son and daughter-in-law of illegally voting. She argued they had a house in Kentucky (records showed they considered Hendry their permanent residence). She also claimed that deputy SOE Brenda Hoots’ son had illegally voted since he was a student at USF (even though he maintained a Hendry registration).
Kulpa’s suit was rejected by a judge in September of 2009. Pelletier had already been serving as Property Appraiser for months. All of Kulpa’s accusations were rejected. It was found the people with felony convictions had their rights restored when Charlie Crist streamlined the process, and that the election workers had helped disabled people cast ballots, but not influenced who they voted for. The case cost Pelletier an unclear sum of money, and cost the county at least $145,000.
Pelletier and Sugar Clash
Philip Pelletier’s first term as property appraiser went well by most accounts. Office transitions happened well and none of the chaos that can sometimes happen when a new department head enters took place. However, one issue did arise that would define Pelletier’s re-election; The Southern Gardens Juice Plant.
The Southern Gardens Juice plant was owned and operated by the US Sugar Corporation. The property was the subject of a value dispute back when Kulpa was in charge. Like many large businesses, the company wanted a lower evaluation; which would then translate into lower property taxes. After lawsuits and hearings, Kulpa lowered the value from $75 million to $60 million.
It should be noted that compromises and deals are not uncommon. A local office has only so many resources to fight and companies like US Sugar can spend millions. The issue here, however, was that the agreement struck with US Sugar would apply each year (baring major changes to the facility) and wold extend even if she was out of office. Pelletier saw things differently, and did not want to be bound to a deal his predecessor had set.
This led to lawsuits, as Pelletier desired to renegotiate the deal and US Sugar desired to keep the deal in place. These court fights were still going on by 2012, when Pelletier came up for re-election.
2012 Property Appraiser Election
In the summer of 2012, Kulpa announced she would run again and try to reclaim her office. This wasn’t especially shocking considering how close the last race was and how heated the trial got. However, a major wrinkle in the race was the involvement of the US Sugar Corporation itself. Starting in August and September, US Sugar started pumping money into a political committee called “The Hendry Coalition for Fair Taxes.” This committee then began spending tens of thousands of dollars on yard signs that read “Pelletier = Higher Taxes” and paid for door-to-door canvassing where voters handed out anti-Pelletier and pro-Kulpa literature.
US Sugar ran an add on September 27th, where its CEO made it clear they opposed Pelletier because of his tax stances.
Sugar’s letter portrayed themselves as a victim and gave a subtle warning that Pelletier’s desire to raise their taxes would cost the county jobs.
Pelletier did not take the attack lying down, he published his own letter in the October 4th paper. He referred to the deal Kulpa had struck as a “sweet deal” and referred to the company as ‘Big Sugar.’
Pelletier framed himself as the candidate for residents, and that the company wanted bigger discounts than the average voter would get. Pelletier very much played up a populist angle. Many of these “open letters” and subsequent ads ran in both the LaBelle and Clewiston papers.
Letters to the editor over the following weeks showed many residents siding with Pelletier and admonishing US Sugar’s involvement in a local race. Other letter did come in to defend US Sugar and say Pelletier was bullying the company. One thing that did strike my eye. The Letters to the Editor that ran in the LaBelle paper were anti-Sugar and pro- Pelletier. The Letters to the Editor that ran in the Clewiston paper were much more pro-Sugar and anti-Pelletier. With this observance, its worth remembering that Clewiston is much closer, economically, to US Sugar than LaBelle is.
US Sugar’s strategy to be so open about their involvement may stun some readers. It is not uncommon for companies to try and hide their involvement in local races; aiming to avoid political backlash and angering customers. Its speculated Disney World was a funder to dark-money PACs that tried to oust the Orange County Property Appraiser in 2016. However, the funneling of money makes the evidence hard to confirm.
US Sugar, however, clearly believed the public would side with them. As the largest employer in the county, the company clearly believed they would be seen as a benevolent longtime benefactor. This sentiment was echoed in this Letter to the Editor from the Clewiston paper.
This strategy, and perhaps true self-view, was echoed in US Sugar’s response to Pelletier. The company was angry at being referred to as “Big Sugar” and again doubled down on the notion that if they had to pay more in taxes, they’d have to cut jobs.
US Sugar didn’t just focus on attacking Pelletier, they also pushed Kulpa.
Pelleteir would not let attacks go unanswered. He addressed claims he’d risen taxes and continued to push that he was the candidate for fairer taxes and that he was “sugar free.”
Pelletier even adopted the yard sign style US Sugar was using, but changed “higher” to “fair.”
Kulpa ran her own ads well, and she was negative on Pelletier while also touting herself.
Pelletier worked the papers hard, which are a major news source in a rural county. He even ran Spanish ads as well.
The newspaper war is easy to document, but its only the tip of iceburg. As I mentioned, US Sugar’s committee was spending massive sums of money on radio, direct mail, signs, and canvassers – all aiming to oust Pelletier.
The division of elections shows that the Hendry Coalition for Fair Taxes raised a staggering $315,000 dollars.
The vast majority of the moey for this committee came from US Sugar and Southern Gardens. Funds also came in from Taxpayers for Integrity, a committee with ties to Sugar.
The expenditures show money flowing out to consultants, radio, canvassers, and mail houses. Over $100,000 looks to have gone towards paying for canvassing and phone banking. I cannot confirm if all of this was just for the Property Appraiser race, but local reports point to money from this committee going toward Kulpa and against Pelletier.
Here is one of the fancy glossy mailers the committee sent to voters in Hendry.
In the end, the race would be a referendum on Pelletier. Would his message that US Sugar pay more hold up? Would voters believe him when he insisted it was Sugar he wanted to pay more, not everyone? And did US Sugar’s excessive spending convince voters, or turn them off?
2012 Results
When the results began to come in on election night, the results were clear from the start; Pelletier had easily won re-election.
Pelletier secured just over 60% of the vote, a huge increase from his 2008 win. Total votes cast: 9,955. Pelletier got 6,035 to Kulpa’s 3,920.
Obama had a 6% loss in the county, an improvement from his 7% loss in 2008.
Pelletier outperformed Obama across the county, but just like 2008, the most in LaBelle. The only communities Pelletier did worse in was the African-American heavy precinct 1, Montura (precinct 10), and the Cypress Reservation, (precinct 4). These are all non-white precincts where Obama got large margins over Romney.
Pelletier’s win was the closest for a Democratic officer who won re-election. The democratic Superintendent, however, lost his re-election to the Mayor of LaBelle.
Kulpa’s contentious lawsuit likely hurt her in the re-match; as its not something voters often look kindly upon. Its also worth noting that the Supervisor of Elections office was won that night by the same deputy who Kulpa had sued in 2008; claiming her college student son shouldn’t have been able to vote in the race.
The democratic margins for each constitutional candidate and President by precinct is below. I categorized precincts by the city/community they are best associated with (* means less so).
The second tabled shows how Pelletier’s margin compared to the other democrats running. A positive score means he did better.
This precinct data shows Pelletier consistently did better in the LaBelle precincts; which of course makes sense as he’s from that area. However, his under-performance in Clewiston and around Montura and Reservation does make me wonder if the US Sugar influence had a strong impact in the east end of the county. We may never no for sure what each voter based their decisions on, but it was clear US Sugar had lost its fight.
The next week, the LaBelle paper published an ad from Phillip Pelletier thanking the voters for his re-election.
Pelletier was in a strong position after his re-election. Of course, his office could not sue forever against US Sugar’s team of lawyers. Eventually a new agreement on valuation was worked out.
Aftermath
After the election and the settling on a new valuation agreement, US Sugar continued to smart at their rejection in 2012. Regardless of any lingering bad feelings, the company did not try to oppose Pelletier’s re-election in 2016. He faced no opponent and was re-elected without opposition.
Then, in February of 2018, Pelletier announced he was opting for an early retirement. Pelletier put his weight behind Dena Pittman, his deputy.
Pittman became the Property Appraiser in July of 2018, securing an appointment by Governor Scott. While Pelletier was a Democrat, Pittman was a Republican. She said she would carry on Pelletier’s legacy, and easily won a special election in November of 2018.
Pelletier’s win in 2012 was an example of of a company being overtly confident that their word would carry the day. In the end, its likely voters were turned off by the flood of advertising. Pelleteir’s win showed that a local official can stand up to a major powerhouse and win if they have the right message. Of course, it also showed that large entities like US Sugar have no qualms about throwing their weight around; and they have the money to do so.