Lobbying and the law: where the money goes, and why the rules haven't changed

This page sets out, from public filings and news reports, who spends money on glyphosate and pesticide-label policy, what they say they want, and what has happened to the bills. Every figure is dated and linked. Lobbying totals cover every issue a filer reported, not only glyphosate. Campaign contributions are listed as aggregate public records; a contribution does not show that any vote or decision was exchanged for it. Quotes are the speakers' own words, attributed to them. ByeGly's own position is on the Ban glyphosate page. For court cases, settlements and the "Monsanto Papers," see How the money and the rules work.

1. Where the money goes

Bayer's federal lobbying

Bayer files a consolidated federal lobbying report each quarter under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The yearly totals below add up the expenses Bayer reported on those filings.¹

OpenSecrets' totals for Bayer, shown on How the money and the rules work, are higher in some years because OpenSecrets also counts other Bayer entities' filings. OpenSecrets reports $5,570,000 for January to June 2026.²

Separately, outside lobbying firms reported $3,190,000 in 2025 income from Bayer entities, summed across their quarterly filings.¹ Part of that may also be counted in Bayer's own consolidated total, so the two figures should not be added together.

What Bayer's filings name. The filings describe the issues lobbied in the filer's own words. Examples:

• Bayer's own consolidated reports for the first and fourth quarters of 2025 list "Monitor and engage on legislative and administrative action related to the uniformity of pesticide labeling," alongside the FY2025 and FY2026 Interior-Environment appropriations bills, and, under agriculture, "Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide (FIFRA) Regulations."³⁴
• An outside firm, The Russell Group, Inc., reported lobbying for Bayer in each quarter of 2025 on "issues related to agricultural labeling uniformity," crop protection and the farm bill.⁵
• An outside firm, The Peterson Group Inc, reported lobbying for Bayer in 2024 on H.R. 4288, a bill "to clarify the application of a certain provision of the FIFRA with respect to the uniformity of pesticide labeling."⁶
• A consulting firm working for Bayer through Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld listed one issue for the fourth quarter of 2025: "Glyphosate liability protection in legislation."⁷

A trade group: CropLife America

CropLife America describes itself in its filings as a "trade association representing the crop protection industry." It reported $2,619,019 in federal lobbying expenses for 2025: $329,765, $507,113, $728,238 and $1,053,903 by quarter.⁸ (It posted its fourth-quarter report twice on January 29, 2026, with the same figure, first and second; we counted it once.) Its 2025 filings list "Legislation that impacts the use of pesticides," the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the farm bill, and the FY25 and FY26 Interior-Environment appropriations bills. They do not name glyphosate or pesticide labeling uniformity.⁸

Campaign contributions to Agriculture Committee members

These are direct contributions from two political action committees to the campaign committees of current members of the House and Senate Agriculture committees, for the 2025-2026 election cycle, as reported to the Federal Election Commission.⁹¹⁰¹¹ The figures run from January 2025 to each PAC's latest reported contribution (September 8, 2026 for BayerPAC; August 20, 2026 for the CropLife America PAC).

Each PAC name links to its FEC list of contributions; the committee splits are our sums of those records, matched to current committee membership.¹¹ These totals leave out contributions to leadership PACs, party committees and joint fundraising committees ($135,000 from BayerPAC and $44,400 from the CropLife America PAC in the same period).⁹¹⁰

Spending in the states

State lobbying disclosure varies by state. Where a state record or a news outlet has reported spending tied to the pesticide-label bills:

• Iowa. Iowa Capital Dispatch reported, from client reports published by the state, that Bayer paid lobbyists $123,250 in 2025 and $86,099 in 2024, and "between $20,000 and $30,000" a year from 2021 to 2023, before the bill was introduced. It reported that the Modern Ag Alliance spent $10,000 lobbying in 2025, and that the Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Soybean Association and Iowa Farm Bureau Federation also registered in support of the bills.¹²
• Idaho. Idaho Capital Sun reported, from Idaho Secretary of State data, that the Modern Ag Alliance was Idaho's top lobbying spender in 2025, spending "over $620,000 lobbying on one bill, House Bill 303." The bill "never advanced out of the committee."¹³
• Missouri. The Missouri Independent reported in March 2025 that the Modern Ag Alliance "has spent almost $100,000 on its ad campaign since mid-November, Federal Communications Commission records show." A Bayer spokeswoman said the ads "are designed to educate the public."¹⁴

The Modern Ag Alliance supports "label is the law" bills. Agweek reports that it "was founded by Bayer" and has more than 110 member organizations, according to its executive director.¹⁵

Not covered yet: 2026 LDA totals; federal filings by the American Farm Bureau Federation, corn and soybean groups and the Modern Ag Alliance; and CropLife America before 2025. We have not estimated them.

2. Why, in their own words

Bayer

• On the Supreme Court case, after oral argument: preemption "is necessary to avoid a patchwork of 50 different warning labels. Companies should not be punished under state law for complying with federal label requirements."¹⁶
• In its 2026 annual meeting materials for shareholders, Bayer lists its litigation "workstreams," including "Engaging with policymakers for regulatory clarity outside the courts" and "Encouraging legal uniformity over patchwork labeling state-by-state." It says that "a preemption ruling could set a uniform national standard for pesticide labeling," and describes a "Multi-pronged approach to protect our liquidity, resolve claims at scale, and contain our exposure."¹⁷
• On the House vote that removed the labeling sections from the farm bill: "The removal of this language could result in a patchwork of regulations creating ambiguity — at a time where clarity is needed most."¹⁸
• On the state bills, a Bayer spokeswoman told the Missouri Independent in 2025: "The purpose of the legislation is to really protect access to critical crop protection tools that farmers need."¹⁴

Supporters in agriculture

• The Modern Ag Alliance's executive director told Agweek that without the farm bill language, "it really creates inconsistencies, not just for those manufacturers or folks that are looking at bringing products to market, but everyone throughout the ag supply chain."¹⁵
• After the House vote, the Modern Ag Alliance said the provision "would not have weakened enforcement; federal and state regulators would retain full authority to hold bad actors accountable."¹⁹
• The National Association of Wheat Growers' vice president of policy told Capital Press: "We got basically everything, but" the language on federal pesticide preemption, which was removed.²⁰
• The House Agriculture Committee chairman argued the provision would prevent "frivolous lawsuits" and that "bad actors" could still be sued, CNBC reported.¹⁸

Opponents

• Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), on the House floor, as reported by CNBC: "It preempts states' rights to regulate pesticide usage or labeling [and] provides a liability shield for pesticide manufacturers."¹⁸
• CNBC reported "a bipartisan groundswell of opposition from lawmakers and MAHA advocates who said the provisions amounted to a 'liability shield' to protect Bayer."¹⁸

3. Why the laws haven't changed: the record

In Congress

• Federal bills. The bills that would restrict glyphosate or protect lawsuits over pesticide labels have been introduced and referred to committee, with no further action recorded. See the bill table on Ban glyphosate.
• The farm bill. The House Agriculture Committee passed H.R. 7567 on March 5, 2026, with language on uniform pesticide labeling.¹⁵ On April 30, 2026, the House voted 280-142 to strike the sections on "uniformity of pesticide labeling," "authority of States" and "lawful use of authorized pesticides," then passed the bill 224-200.²¹²² The House Agriculture Committee chairman said afterward that "The Senate has got to do his magic, and we got a conference committee."¹⁹
• In the Senate. The American Farm Bureau Federation reports that the Senate Agriculture Committee's farm bill "failed to advance out of committee" at its August 6, 2026 markup, "due to partisan gridlock over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) state cost share."²³ We found no Senate passage of a farm bill as of November 10, 2026.
• Appropriations riders. Rep. Pingree says a labeling rider, Section 453, was removed from the final FY2026 Interior-Environment appropriations bill.²⁴ Bayer's own 2025 lobbying reports list pesticide labeling uniformity under appropriations and budget.³⁴ We found no pesticide-labeling provision in the House Appropriations Committee's FY2027 Interior-Environment bill text (full committee mark, June 3, 2026).²⁵

In the states

In the courts

• On June 25, 2026, in Monsanto v. Durnell, the Supreme Court held 7-2 that federal pesticide law preempts a state failure-to-warn claim that would require a warning on Roundup's label beyond the EPA-approved label.³⁰ Before the ruling, Bayer told shareholders that a favorable decision "would address cases not covered by the settlement and disincentivize and cover potential opt-outs."¹⁷

Sources