Talk:American Farm Bureau Federation

article

This article is actually bullshit. The American Farm Bureau has blessed little to do with farmers and a lot more to do with selling insurance. It was formed originally with the express intent of running the small farmer out of business. Elodoth 17:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracy #1: The American Farm Bureau has blessed little to do with farmers and a lot more to do with selling insurance.

Fact: There are more than 30 farmers who have been elected and serve on the American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors. In January 2007, several hundred farmer and rancher delegates met and agreed to focus on eight policy areas for the year, all of them directly related to farming: animal agriculture, energy and transportation, environment and land use, farm policy, immigration and farm labor, international trade, rural development, and taxes.(http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=newsroom.newsfocus&year=2007&file=nr0109.html

Fact: The American Farm Bureau does not actually sell insurance policies. There are many state Farm Bureaus insurance companies, with customers who are farmers, as well as urban and suburban residents. Insurance is one of many member service benefits state Farm Bureaus offer.(http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=about.home)

Inaccuracy #2: It was formed originally with the express intent of running the small farmer out of business.

Fact: James Howard, the first president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, outlined three remedies for the nation’s farm problems in 1920: longer term credit to carry crops through orderly marketing, tariffs to protect against competing imported farm crops and the general cooperative marketing plan outlined by Farm Bureau. (http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=about.history) Does that sound like a plan for “running the small farmer out of business?”

Fact: It’s important to know that Farm Bureau grew out of the Extension movement. (http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=about.history) The earliest organizations of farmers began to develop in the U.S. in the late 1800s. Those groups organized under a variety of names and philosophies, including The Grange, The Farmer's Alliance, The Agricultural Wheel, The Ancient Order of Gleaners and the Equity.

The origin of the Farm Bureau followed a different path and didn’t occur until shortly after the turn of the century. Farm Bureau grew out of the Extension education movement occurring at land grant colleges across the nation.

The land grant colleges were established under the Morrill Act of 1862. The Hatch Act of 1887 established agricultural experiment stations. Each had provisions for “farmer's institutes” and other forms of off campus education for farmers.

The Extension concept, however, did not take root until the early 1900s, when the agricultural colleges developed Extension departments and staff. The devastating boll weevil gave an unexpected boost to the concept of traveling professors and field demonstration projects.

With a financial assist from the Department of Agriculture, Dr. Seaman Knapp took to the road to “teach by doing rather than telling.” The field trials were developed to deal with the boll weevil. It had the effect for the first time of taking the classroom to the farm. Texas has the distinction of assigning the first “county agent.”

In 1911, John Barron, a farm boy who graduated from Cornell University, went to work in Broome County, New York. He was the first county agent to serve as a “farm bureau” representative. The Farm Bureau venture was financed jointly by USDA, the Binghamton Chamber of Commerce and the Lackawanna Railroad.

The new function operated as a “bureau” within the chamber of commerce, hence the name for the early organization. The Broome County Farm Bureau eventually separated from the chamber and began functioning as an independent entity in 1914.

Similar farm organized educational efforts quickly sprang up in Missouri, North Dakota, Vermont, Minnesota, Iowa, West Virginia and Illinois. The passage of the Smith Lever Act in 1914, providing added funds for education efforts, greatly boosted the effort.

The local Farm Bureaus served as the organizational network needed to further the Extension education efforts of the county agent. It was during a 1916 meeting of state county agent leaders that the designation “county farm bureau” was formally adopted.

The county Farm Bureau, or occasionally smaller units called parishes, initially served a social and educational function. But as the farmers met, they realized the broader potential of the new organization.

County Farm Bureaus throughout the nation started forming their own independent organizations similar to Broome County. The counties then quickly affiliated into statewide organizations. In March 1915, Missouri became the first to form a statewide organization. AgHistoryBuff 14:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)AgHistoryBuff

Policy?

Just out of curiosity, is it standard Wikipedia policy to have the entirety of an article consist of text from the organization's official site? Hashmir 22:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Farm-bureau.png

Image:Farm-bureau.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

American Farm Bureau has only one office

The American Farm Bureau closed its Park Ridge headquarters office a few years ago and consolidated all of its operations in Washington, D.C. Thus the D.C. office is the headquarters.

207.91.45.188 (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Cheryl Stubbendieck, Nebraska Farm Bureau

Domain name sale

Is it worth noting somewhere on this article about the sale of the domain name fb.com by the American Farm Bureau Federation to Facebook for 8.5 million dollars? It's an event of note, but I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to put it in this article, so I'm raising the idea here first. Anjwalker ^Talk 04:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Farm Bureau Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822111203/http://www.fb.org:80/index.php?fuseaction=about.home to http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=about.home
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822111203/http://www.fb.org:80/index.php?fuseaction=about.home to http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=about.home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Holy baloney, is this page propaganda?

Half of this page appears to be declarative statements asserting that the Bureau does only a world of good, and none of it sells a third-person perspective. ...It's practically an ad. Also, there is nothing on the page indicating the bureau's stance on climate change, which is more than a little relevant to agriculture.

I'm only even here because I'm researching the relationship between farmers and climate change, and wanted to check for evidence that the Bureau is the major farm-related body when it comes to denying it. ...I guess I found my evidence. Follow the money, indeed.

2603:9001:6B8A:8B00:21BE:9454:5E12:DD1 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this doesn't cover some basic information

Most of this does read like brochure. Without basic stats on money (revenue sources from members vs political donors? what do they spend their money on?), org size, effectiveness, relevance today. And there are some controversies like its stance denying climate change (fairly partisan) and being coopted by big agriculture at the expense of small and indie farmers. Phil Wolff (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Cyndie Sirekis

The distinctly biased tone of this article— which, like others have commented, seems to be a propaganda piece for a conservative, corporatist lobbying organization— piqued my interest, and I decided to do a little digging to find out who exactly wrote it. Interestingly enough, someone with the username CyndieSirekis has made three edits to the main page, and two to the talk page. In three edits occurring over two days in May 2006, the user replaced the entire previous content of the page with text described by others on the talk page as, "text from the organization's official site," "propaganda," and "actually bullshit." Additionally, it appears in March of 2007, this user erased the entire talk page, which consisted of a pretty thorough refutation of nearly every claim on the page.

After one google search of the string "CyndieSirekis," I found a link to a linkedin page for "Cyndie Sirekis - Director, Internal Communications - American Farm [Bureau]." (note: it appears that this linkedin page has been deleted, and that the google search is showing artifacted information from the page.) Clearly these goons can't even be bothered to make up an obfuscated username for their propaganda.

Does anyone know how to get the main sections of this page reverted to its pre-2006 state, which was unbiased, albeit smaller? Surely this, when combined with the blatantly biased tone of the piece, is enough evidence to show that this is not factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.24.60 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

May 2018 content restored

It appears that the article was mostly overwritten with an edit in May 2018, with content copied directly from the Farm Bureau's website. The pre-overwrite version has been restored, and a revdel has been requested for the copied material. Please help by contributing to this now restored article. Thank you Orville1974^talk 01:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Pattern of Censorship, likely by Farm Bureau employees

Take care of edits of this page; I've reviewed the edit section and I've discovered a disturbing pattern of edits removing information critical of the American Farm Bureau from this page. Previously, employees of the PR arm of the AFB were directly involved in making the edits. Be skeptical about future edits that censor critical information, especially anything from this 2012 article by Ian Shearn published by The Nation; this appears to be specifically targeted. Also targeted is information about the organization's lobbying, especially lobbying linked to the profit they derive from crop insurance.

Perhaps, given this pattern of events, it would be reasonable to get this page locked by admins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.24.60 (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The erased content and other issues happened long enough ago, that there's no reason to protect the page now (we want anyone to be able to contribute to the maximum extent possible). If content starts disappearing again, or unsourced material is repetitively added, then addressing the editor making those changes near when they occur keeps the page open to well-meaning editors while minimizing the impact of disruptive editors. Page protection (usually temporary) mostly occurs when multiple disruptive editors are making frequent changes to a page in a short time span. Orville1974^talk 03:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Bureau Disambiguation link

The lede of this article has a link to the Bureau disambiguation page, but none of the entries there fit the AFBF. Another entry is needed there, but what should it be? I am unsure, so I leave it for someone else to do, and to fix the link in the lede.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Text needs clarification

This text was added: "The New Deal made the Farm Bureau the main organization for farmers. The Farm Bureau was hostile to the Minnesota Farmer–Labor Party (FLP), which represented small operators and favored radical programs. That left the FLP without power regarding farm economics." But several things about this addition need clarification. What does it mean to be "the main organization for farmers"? Existing text had already drawn a distinction between larger farmers and agricultural corporations, which the FB lobbied for, and smaller ones. As well, when did the events described in this text take place? The text talks about the New Deal, but was placed chronologically after WWII. Finally, just what is supposed to have happened? Was the FLP powerful? Did the FB replace it? How? Etc. PRRfan (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

PRRfan (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The New Deal in 1930s made the Farm Bureau the dominant voice--all historians agree on that --and largely ignored the voice of the Farmer Labor parties (esp Minnesota and nearby states), as explained at length by Valelly book. The Famer Labor parties all collapsed or were taken over by Democrats (esp in Minnesota). Rjensen (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Description of AFBF

The description of AFBF is not accurate as it is not an insurance company. There is a separate insurance company called Farm Bureau Insurance, but they are separate. It is also not known simply as Farm Bureau as there are 50 state Farm Bureaus. It is called AFBF or American Farm Bureau Federation. How do you add a cite to show that the description is not correct? Thanks. Birds2023 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Birds2023. You're right that "insurance company" may not be the best way to describe the AFBF, which isn't an "insurance company" in the sense of a direct purveyor of insurance (e.g., State Farm). But it does sit atop "a multi-billion dollar network of for-profit insurance companies" that (as of 2012) was "the third-largest insurance group in the United States" with premiums of more than $11 billion in 2011. (source). I'd be fine with using that quote in place of "insurance company". I do also think that the article's Insurance section could be improved to better describe the relationships between the AFBF and its many insurance-purveying subsidiaries and interests.

As for "Farm Bureau", you are again right that the formal name of the AFBF is AFBF, and that there are state Farm Bureaus as well. But the national organization is commonly referred to as "the Farm Bureau" when talking about its national lobbying efforts—in much the same way that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is generally called "the Chamber of Commerce", all the local Chambers notwithstanding. Moreover, the article's third sentence makes this clear, so I think no further clarification is necessary. PRRfan (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi PRRfan.  I am just looking for accuracy here and it does not look like you have accurate information.    I agree with you that “insurance company” is not the best way to describe AFBF as it is not an insurance company, does not sell insurance and has no ownership in any of the independent insurance companies that do sell insurance.   Also, it does not “sit atop” a “multi-billion dollar network of for-profit insurance companies.”   It plays no role in insurance sales, other than having part of a name in common.

Farm Bureau members can buy insurance through one of several companies, depending on the state. In many states, a statewide Farm Bureau insurance company writes and sells its own policies. Two regional Farm Bureau insurance companies serve 10 additional states.  In states without a Farm Bureau insurance company, members typically can get discounted insurance rates at partner companies including Country Financial, American National and Nationwide Insurance. However, the Farm Bureau’s for Hawaii and Washington don’t offer auto or home insurance options for members.  Because each Farm Bureau insurance company is operated separately, the products they offer vary. In most states, you can get auto, homeowners and business insurance. (source is Nerdwallet, but I am blocked from using)

AFBF’s members are the state Farm Bureaus, but AFBF has no involvement in the operations of state Farm Bureaus.   For example, financial reports from various states – NC, MS and VA – show that AFBF has no relationship to these insurance companies.  (source https://files.nc.gov/doi/documents/financial-examination/reports/farm-bureau-insurance-group-2017-final-roe.pdf, https://www.mid.ms.gov/companies/pdf/examination-reports-2020/MFBCIC-20.pdf, https://www.scc.virginia.gov/getattachment/3ebed800-f930-4678-a453-cad638f63a03/26034.pdf)

Have you looked at the AFBF’s Form 990s?   Almost all of their revenue is from member dues and to suggest that they have revenue of $11 Billion – or any amount - is just not accurate.  Based on their 990, AFBF’s members are the State Farm Bureaus.   They appear to have a related tax-exempt entity and a related taxable entity with a small amount of revenue, but they certainly don’t “sit atop” the insurance companies.

So, they are not just not a typical insurance company -- they are not connected to any insurance companies.  Maybe there should be a page for Farm Bureau Insurance – other than FBL Financial Group which exists – but it would have no connection to AFBF.   It appears that the state Farm Bureaus may have a relationship with their state Farm Bureau Insurance companies, but this is not AFBF.   Whether or not the information you cited is accurate I don’t know, but that is not relevant as it is related to state Farm Bureaus and not AFBF. Based on what I have found, I do know that AFBF has no “insurance-purveying subsidiaries and interests.”

As for the name, you say other people refer to it as just “the Farm Bureau.”   Who are “other people”?  When talking about its national lobbying efforts, in what I have seen they and third parties use the terms AFBF or American Farm Bureau Federation. See, for example: https://www.morningagclips.com/ag-organizations-react-to-passage-of-ocean-shipping-reform-act/, https://www.npr.org/2022/07/19/1112219531/new-law-takes-aim-at-those-who-refuse-to-open-up-cargo-space-in-u-s-ports, https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20132020-302492.pdf, https://mfbf.org/Article/AFBF-Comments-Climate-Change-and-the-US-Agriculture-and-Forestry-Sectors.

Overall, the first paragraph is inaccurate and misleading and I am trying to fix it.  Thanks. Birds2023 (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Birds2023, and thanks for your efforts. Let me leave aside the "insurance company" discussion for the moment while I attempt to demonstrate that "Farm Bureau" is widely used to refer to the AFBF:

• National papers of record:
  • New York Times:
    • Farm Bureau Fires Back Against Climate Bill's 'Power Grab'
    • "According to the Farm Bureau, the cost of a 4th of July BBQ is down from last year."
    • "...anything that causes a ripple in that can have not just little effects but significant effects,” said Dale Moore, the executive director for public policy at the Farm Bureau."
    • "Farm bankruptcies were already increasing..., according to the Farm Bureau."
  • Washington Post:
    • "Farm Bureau takes aim at EPA limits on pollutant runoff into Chesapeake Bay"
    • "...according to estimates from the Farm Bureau, an industry organization."
    • "Moore, who made it clear that the Farm Bureau doesn’t support any means-tested limits on payments..."
    • "...the Farm Bureau says China needs to accelerate its buying to meet the trade pact’s timetable."
• Trade publications: Farm Progress: "Duvall lays out Farm Bureau’s priorities"
• And, heck, even the AFBF itself:
  • "Farm Bureau Partners with Feeding America on #StillFarming Campaign"
  • ""Terri Moore, vice president of communications for AFBF, said...'I think most people who work in agriculture are generally familiar with the Farm Bureau...'"

A lot of sources also refer to the AFBF as "the American Farm Bureau" or AFB. As a first change to the intro, how about dropping the corporate names and starting the lead sentence like this: "The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), also known as the American Farm Bureau (AFB) or simply the Farm Bureau..."? PRRfan (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and make this change; holler if you want to discuss further. Next up: "insurance company..." ~~~ PRRfan (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

So, I've improved the Insurance section to better describe (and cite) the relationships between the AFBF and its many insurance-purveying affiliates. I propose to change the first line to "...is a United States-based trade association, lobbying group, and insurance network." PRRfan (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You are not accuracy stating what AFBF is, does and what they do and do not own. You are also not accurately stating the relationships between "the AFBF and its many insurance-purveying subsidiaries and interests" as there is no relationship. You were shown three state insurance audits that made this very clear, yet you don't seem to care what the facts are. Birds2023 (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd invite you to read the Insurance section, which lays out the connections between AFBF, its state affiliates, and their for-profit insurance companies. Read as well the cited sources.

You will discover that the state Farm Bureaus remain closely tied to the insurance companies they founded: some are owned outright by the state FBs, while others are run by the same people. You will also discover that the AFBF's membership is made up largely of customers of these insurance customers (indeed, they make up more of the AFBF's membership than farmers do). And so on.

After you've read the section and sources, perhaps you'd like to offer suggested edits to specific sentences? PRRfan (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A week's gone by, so I'm going to make the change I suggested to the intro: "...is a United States-based trade association, lobbying group, and insurance network." PRRfan (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You have made so many changes to this page that are irrelevant or inaccurate that I don’t know where to start.  You have really made a mess of this.  You even deleted the actual purpose of the organization  – to represent the American agricultural industry.   Fundamentally, you don’t seem to care that this is an AFBF page as you insist on adding information about other entities over which AFBF has no control, no ownership or anything else.   And you appear to be coming at this with a bias against AFBF – for whatever reason.    I am going to hazard a guess that unlike me, you are not a 5th generation farmer and you don’t understand what AFBF is or what is does to benefit farmers.   At the base, you don’t appear to understand what farmers need to put food on your table – do you even know that crop insurance benefits farmers -  me and my neighbors?  That is why AFBF advocates for crop insurance - because it protects farmers.  I am a small farmer and my friends are small farmers.  AFBF represents us, not large farms as you keep repeating.  Do you even know how AFBF works to set policy?  It is set by people like me, small farmers.   It is a grassroots organization and you need to be a farmer to vote.  

You clearly have a bias as you have spent the past weeks trying to smear AFBF.  You well know that AFBF has no financial relationship with any state insurance companies, yet you use misinformation to falsely state that AFBF is intertwined financially with large agribusiness corporations.  This is so false that you are making intentional misstatements.  As you know by citing a Form 990, AFBF has no financial relationship with the state insurance companies, but you continually and repeatedly make false statements that it has an intertwined financial relationship, that they are affiliates, that they are related entities, etc.  All false.

You don’t understand that access to state Farm Bureau insurance is a benefit of being a state Farm Bureau member.  You can purchase insurance anywhere you want, but apparently close to 4 million people have decided that state Farm Bureau insurance is so good that they want to become a state Farm Bureau member.  The insurance product attracts members.  The policyholders pay a membership fee to the state Farm Bureau and a separate insurance premium to the state Farm Bureau insurance company.   The state Farm Bureau then remits $5 from each member to AFBF.  AFBF receives no funds from any insurance companies, no insurance premiums and has no ownership interest in any state Farm Bureau insurance company. Do you have a state Farm Bureau insurance policy?  You must not as you don’t know how it works.

I see you have a lot to learn, but don’t worry.   I will get you there when I have time in between producing food for your table.   If you are looking to be factual, try the following for starters: https://casetext.com/case/american-farm-bureau-fed-v-ala-farmers-fed:

"American is a nationwide organization representing the economic, social, and educational interests of farmers and ranchers in the United States. From its headquarters in Park Ridge, Illinois, and its legislative advocacy office in Washington, D.C., American represents over 4.5 million member families in all fifty states and Puerto Rico. American promotes the development of agriculture and serves the farm community through public policy advocacy, service to member programs, and numerous other activities. American provides these services to individual members through state member organizations which, in turn, are comprised of county member organizations. In return, each state member organization pays to American an annual membership fee calculated on a per member basis. Historically, this fee has been an annual $3.50 per member.

"American is the undisputed owner of the FARM BUREAU, FARM BUREAU INSURANCE, and AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION marks. From its inception in 1919, American has continuously and extensively used the designations FARM BUREAU and AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION as American's distinctive marks to identify the organization, its activities, and its services. American registered these marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and these registrations are valid, subsisting, and incontestable  under Sections 15 and 33(b) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1065 and 1115(b). American, its state members and their affiliated companies give notice to the public of American's ownership of the mark by using the registration symbol (®) and by other means.

"American owns United States Collective Mark Registration No. 594,500 for the mark FARM BUREAU; United States Service Mark Registration No. 1,002,111 for the mark AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION and Design; United States Service Mark Registration No. 1,465,000 for the mark AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; United States Service Mark Registration No. 1,603,029 for the mark AMERICAN FARM BUREAU and FB Design; United States Collective Membership Mark Registration No. 1,612,451 for the mark FARM BUREAU; and United States Service Mark Registration No. 1,622,828 for the mark FARM BUREAU INSURANCE.

"American licenses its state member organizations to use the FARM BUREAU mark. Like American, the state member organizations and their affiliated companies have used and heavily promoted the FARM BUREAU mark since the early 1920's. Virtually all of them incorporate the FARM BUREAU mark in their names, calling themselves the 'Georgia Farm Bureau Federation,' the 'Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation,' and so forth." Birds2023 (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the opinion; I read it with interest. But I'm not sure you're reading the WP article or the sources cited in it.

You say, for example, "You even deleted the actual purpose of the organization  – to represent the American agricultural industry." Well, no. Here is the fourth sentence: "For decades, it has been among the agriculture industry's largest lobby groups."

You say "AFBF has no financial relationship with any state insurance companies." But you also say that AFBF licenses its trademarks to the for-profit insurance companies and in return collects $5 from each person who takes out an insurance policy. Based on your figures, $5 annually x "close to 4 million" insurance customers = close to $20 million annually. In 2019, AFBF had total revenues of $37.6 million, which means that most of AFBF's revenues come directly from insurance sales.

You say, "Do you even know how AFBF works to set policy? It is set by people like me, small farmers." But is it? Observers have long documented how AFBF policy decisions are transmitted to county and state Farm Bureau members for ratification. "This organization is largely controlled from the top. Its leadership is self-perpetuating, and its policy, although nursed through an elaborate procedural labyrinth, is rarely permitted to wander very far afield. 'The Farm Bureau's cherished belief that its policy was made at the grass roots and adopted by democratic process turned out to be partly illusion,' concluded Christiana McFayden Cambell in her study of the organization's New Deal period. There appears to be no reason to change that assessment today." That's from Dollar Harvest, a 1971/1978 book to which I would commend your attention. More recent studies have found much the same.

Again, I would ask that you carefully read the article, and when you find something questionable, to read the cited source. If you have evidence that something's wrong or poorly or incompletely expressed, suggest a better way and cite reliable sources.

Oh, and by the way: I read the opinion you linked to. I'm not quite sure why you included it as part of your argument, for it makes the case that the AFBF and its state affiliates are intertwined. It says explicitly that the state Farm Bureaus and their for-profit insurance companies have for decades paid the AFBF to trade on its good name, and it gives specific examples in the case of the Alabama Farmers Federation and the ALFA insurance companies, which so valued the name "Farm Bureau" that they continued to use it even in violation of their agreements with AFBF. PRRfan (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Birds2023: You may also be interested in this paragraph I just added to the Insurance section: "AFBF president Zippy Duval simultaneously serves as president and chairman of the board of American Agricultural Insurance Company, whose directors are the presidents of 16 of the state Farm Bureaus. (AAIC's bylaws require its board to consist of the AFBF president and representatives of state Farm Bureaus that own sufficient stock in the company.) Founded by the AFBF in 1948 as a reinsurance company, AAIC began selling crop insurance in 1997. Its stock is held by AFBF (443 shares of common stock in 2018) and various state Farm Bureau insurance companies (a total of 265,830 shares of common stock). In 2021, AAIC reported total assets of $1.8 billion (up from $1.35 billion in 2018), premiums of $464 million (up from $328 million in 2018), and cash on hand of $120 million." As with the rest of the article, I would invite you to read the cited sources and, if you see anything incorrect, please point it out. PRRfan (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC) PRRfan (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

References

AFBF and Insurance

@PRRfan, happy to chat about this page, so I wanted to open a discussion thread - one that hopefully has a better discussion about AFBF and its purpose than the one above, which appears to have a number of incorrect points of view on both sides of the matter.

To your point about AFBF and its intermingling with state affiliates, I've read the 2012 Nation piece, and will review the 1978 piece you mentioned above (I am just seeing this discussion for the first time and need to give it a deeper review). However, I think your reversion was incorrect; while I disagree with some of the broad points being made by @Birds2023above, I think the marriage of AFBF and the state bureau insurance companies is being vaguely applied. AFBF is a lobbying group, yes, but the SFBI, by its own legal forms, is owned by multiple state bureaus, and the financial operations seem to be completely independent (through both levels of SFBI and/or the state bureaus), which would suggest its prominence in the history section is unduly weighted.

SFBA is clearly not set up like AAIC is, at least explicitly - AFBF has no financial or ownership interest as a national org, nor board seats or corporate control, unless I've misread something. Again, I disagree with @Birds2023 and how the AFBF presents itself as an agricultural warrior for the 'small guy' but "insurance network" feels inaccurate, given each state bureau and insurance company is paying a license fee to AFBF, rather than being explicitly organized as some unified structure (as with a Northwestern Mutual or Liberty Mutual, etc.). There is overlap obviously given their lobbying work - which should be noted in detail on this page, something I've been trying to improve - but I think Wikipedia is interpreting it too loosely (one thing Birds seems to be correct about - AFBF doesn't collect insurance premiums, which kind of means they aren't an insurance company, right?)

Specific to my recent reverted edit, I think I was correct in my application of notability in regards to the subject of the page (AFBF) and whether it was relevant here - and I think even the footnote citation supports it, given AFBF isn't mentioned in it at all. Thank you - I appreciate the collaborative approach to resolution! Burritomundo (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Burritomundo, and thanks for all of this, and in general for your thoughtful attention to this important and apparently sui generis organization. You (and @Birds2023) are certainly right that AFBF is not an "insurance network" like Northwestern Mutual. But what, then, do we call a federation whose revenues mostly derive from per-client fees on insurance sold by affiliates who market their policies in large part by trading on AFBF's name? That ushered its state affiliates into existence, pioneered their for-profit setups, and continue (as you note) to lead them in lobbying efforts that very much support insurance sales? I think one thing we should do is work toward a concise description that helps readers understand this complex organization. If "insurance network" has a generally understood meaning that doesn't apply to AFBF, then fine; let's find some other phrase.

As for what belongs in the History section: I think that anything done by the state affiliates—each and every one willed into being and supported by the AFBF, even if only loosely controlled by the national organization—is fair game. Of course, the sprawling nature of the federation makes it impossible even to think about comprehensiveness. But I think we ought to be able to work toward some limning, supported by specifics here and there, of what the AFBF does and has fostered—including the multibillion-dollar enterprises of its affiliates.

Finally, we're somewhat hampered by incomplete reporting by reliable sources on the AFBF. The vast majority of reporting on the Farm Bureau covers merely the lobbying stances of the moment; bigger-picture looks arrive only once a decade, if that. To some extent, no doubt, this reflects the difficulty of reporting on the secretive and loose ties that connect the AFBF and its affiliates. But I think we need not shy away from the characterizations of the AFBF offered by the few deep journalistic dives on it.

I've said all that and—forgive me—not yet directly engaged with your arguments about the specific edit I reverted. But I wonder whether you might give me your thoughts so we can work toward a cooperative philosophy. PRRfan (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course! I agree - figuring this out on a larger scale makes sense rather than squabble over individual edits until time unknown.

First, I don’t think AFBF is that complex an org; AFBF is a lobbying group deriving most of its revenue from a per-customer fee from state-based insurance companies that license the Farm Bureau moniker. Neither the 1978 piece or the 2012 article say anything about AFBF’s revenue being affected by the policies being sold; that is, the member fee is fixed, rather than something dependent on selling certain versions of products or something like that. Yes, the more insurance policies, the more money AFBF brings in, but that isn't tied to the actual insurance, but the use of the license (it's not an apples to apples comparison of player licensing on a baseball card, but that's what comes to mind as something similar).

This would suggest, at least to me, that AFBF is objectively not in the insurance business; they are in the lobbying and licensing business. We’re talking about an organization that appears to be a handful of lobbyists and lawyers; nothing near the most lovable group on the planet, but not insurance hawks like this page makes them out to be.

I also think calling the state bureaus “affiliates” is a stretch, as that suggests their operations are directed by AFBF, which does not appear to be the case, even in the 2012 piece.

Secondly, I think your assessment of Wikipedia’s policies, like WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE, is not being objectively applied. With Farm Family, SBLI, etc., we are talking about affiliates of affiliates of AFBF - Wikipedia pages are supposed to be about the specific subjects, which much of the information on this page is not about. Revenues of Farm Family Insurance? Nationwide Mutual? These might be relevant to the state Bureaus or pages about the insurance companies, but have nothing to do with AFBF - there’s nothing in the citations provided suggesting AFBF had anything to do with the profits and asset management of FFI, for example, so those figures are just not relevant.

FBL Financial is another good example; they have their own page and entanglements with state bureaus - which again, have nothing to do with AFBF, save for the license agreement (and the insinuating implications throughout the Talk page history, which I also see occurred in the discussion with Birds in February).

I think there are relevant parts to keep, of course - the total amount of member dues is relevant, as is the fact the insurance companies pay the local farm bureau to access contact info for marketing purposes (which supports the theory the insurance company and local bureaus are more intertwined with each other, rather than with AFBF). But AFBF is a lobbying company at heart - and there’s so much to cover there, it makes no sense a large portion of this page is focused on selling insurance - hence why I’ve tried to add things like the 2012 bill (which involved lobbying for insurance! That is relevant!) and FACA.

Appreciate you taking the time to discuss; I spent some time this week reading through the Talk page, there’s clearly been a lot of strange, conflicted editing (especially in 2019) - a lot from AFBF and state bureaus it seems, but also from editors exercising their own bias. Burritomundo (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Burritomundo! I've been delinquent in starting a discussion and not finishing it in a timely manner. I hear your argument that AFBF is "a lobbying company at heart", and I concur. But I think this article should at least limn what its progeny have become. There's no need to detail "the profits and asset management of FFI", but I believe it is important to note that AFBF urged, supported, and continues to benefit from the formation of these state bureaus that now command multibillion-dollar enterprises. PRRfan (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

That's ok - as you can see, I am always not the most prompt responder myself. While I don't quite agree with the assertion AFBF 'urged' some of the State Bureaus to form, and I think there is some insinuation on the connection between companies like FBL and AFBF specifically, there's clearly a balance to be struck to note the explicit financial and executive entanglements. Also, glad we agree some of the financial information is a little extensive, as I think that's where the page is really unbalanced.

(Also, thank you for reverting the recent IP edit. I would contend that sentence isn't entirely reflective of AFBF, but we've established we just have different stances on some of the org's functionality - and whoever made that edit wasn't trying to be neutral). Burritomundo (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Great; thanks. Before we start moving info off this page, shall we talk briefly about where it might go? I could envision, for example, a page called "State affiliates of the American Farm Bureau Federation". Or perhaps each one should have its own page; e.g., "Alabama Farmers Federation", which could be the place for detailing Alfa Insurance. I think we might start with the former and add the latter as time and interest permit. PRRfan (talk) PRRfan (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

As for "urged", have a look at Dollar Harvest, starting on p. 45. PRRfan (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea I hadn't considered; I think having a "State affiliates of the AFBF" page you proposed makes a lot of sense, because it is really the state farm bureaus who intersect directly with the insurance industry, and is kind of its own creature AFBF's insurance lobbying (like with crop insurance, for example) still belongs here of course, but all these insurance companies are explicitly tied to state bureaus, so it seems logical to have its own page.

Also, I will read the Dollar Harvest link you sent over, now that I am back in my normal digs. Burritomundo (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Large vs. small

@Burritomundo: "More concise; it's established state bureaus have the insurance corps, and the large vs. small statement is not really accurate." The "large vs. small" assertion is backed up by both cites, and it's an important aspect of AFBF's influence on policy and, indeed, how agriculture has evolved in the United States. Is your concern that "large" and "small" are too simple and we should be saying something like "industrial" and "family"? PRRfan (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, PRR. I think "industrial" vs. "family" would be just as inaccurate as "large" vs. "small", as all are rather amorphous, and are not supported by a larger examination of their work, especially in recent years. There are plenty of examples that counter this supposed bias on farmer size - given there are 2 million or so farms in the US, I would always expect a few stories of disgruntled farmers not seeing eye to eye with a large lobbying group on all of their policies.

A few policies I think counter this presumption:

- right to repair legislation [1]

- the 2022 farm bill (or 2023 or 2024 depending on where you read, since it still hasn't passed), which is supported by the AFBF, the NSAC (which is primarily composed of smaller farmers), and the farmer's union[2]. I think given this bill is aiming to address one of the larger criticisms of AFB in general (crop insurance), it is a marked departure from the points of view described in the 2012 article previously cited as their positions.

- various grant programs [3], [4]

- support of endangered species bills [5]

- Personally, I think their shift on climate change is very farmer-friendly, and not biased towards size (in fact, I think we can agree climate-friendly policies are to the detriment of larger farms). This 2020 NPR article talks about the shift.

Again, I don't feel comfortable being in a position to cheerleader all of AFB's positions, as I think some of them are a bit too farmer-friendly (for any size farm), but I think the sentiment they always advocate for "large" farms over "smaller" ones is an antiquated one. Burritomundo (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, you're right; I was thinking about older policies, ones in the first decades of the AFBF, as described by the cited sources. What if we note that, as the sources say, the AFBF long advocated policies that generally favored larger/corporate farms over smaller/family ones (and indeed that spurred national shifts toward the former), but that this has become less so, particularly in the past decade? PRRfan (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

How about this language - "Founded in 1919, the AFBF is among the agriculture industry's largest lobbying groups, representing the two million farms in the United States; in the past, some contended its previous policy positions favored larger farming operations."

Burritomundo (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

How about: "Founded in 1919, the AFBF is among the U.S. agriculture industry's largest lobbying groups. Some observers contend that its federal lobbying efforts, which began in the 1930s, helped drive the subsequent three-decade shift to larger farms." PRRfan (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I added elements of both - your language, as well as noting the 2 million farms in the United States, as I think that is a relevant number to convey the scope of their operations.

(I also updated the lobbying amounts to the 2022 amounts.) Burritomundo (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)