The situation: Farmers who buy farm equipment with IT capabilities, or maybe even when the brakes need fixing, must pay the dealer to fix the problems, big or small.
The timing of these agreements is interesting. The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) has jumped in to sign Case IH and New Holland in a deal that, in theory, offers farmers and ranchers the right-to-repair the equipment they buy. We understand there is a similar agreement between AFBF and John Deere.
The Hagstrom Report notes the new agreement includes a provision that calls for participants “not to lobby in favor of right-to-repair bills being considered at the federal and state levels.”
Do we need to wonder why?
AFBF agreements happened at a time when lots of good actions related to ag producers’ “right-to-repair” are moving forward.
- Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) has introduced the Agricultural Right to Repair Act that guarantees farmers the right to repair their equipment and ends current restrictions on the repair market.
- Successful Farming reports: “The executive order signed by President Biden called on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to limit anticompetitive practices to promote economic growth in the United States. Included in this order was a recommendation to the FTC to make it easier and cheaper for consumers to repair items they own by limiting manufacturers’ ability to bar self-repairs or third-party repairs of their products, according to a fact sheet from the White House.”
- And State Legislatures are acting on the issue, too.
But, funny thing, the new AFBF agreement was rolled out on March 9, precisely when the Colorado State Legislature was considering a right-to-repair bill for Colorado producers. Colorado Politics has reported that the State Senate has passed the bill and is returning the bill to the House for approval of the Senate’s changes. Assuming the House agrees, the bill goes next to Governor Jared Polis for his signature.
The AFBF has jumped in twice with what seems to be right-to-repair agreements intended to favor farmers and ranchers, but … BIG “BUT!” here … the agreements require participants to stop lobbying both state legislatures and Congress on right-to-repair bills.
One way to think about this “stop lobbying” requirement is to believe AFBF is solving the problem, so there is no need to lobby. But haven’t we learned that “agreements” aren’t nearly as strong of protection as codifying rights into law provides?
What happens when these agreements expire?
- Will the companies reinstate their right-to-repair restrictions? If I were a betting writer, I would bet, “Yes!”
- What happens if a company breaks the agreement not to lobby? Are there penalties? If so, what’s the cost of the penalties? A signing company may even have the right to cancel the agreements at will.
- Is it possible that the American Farm Bureau Federation has a back-door agenda? It is common knowledge that AFBF has long stood with most of Big Ag’s demands, and this time, BIG AG, aka the equipment companies, prefer restrictions on farmers repairing their equipment. These restrictions are profit-makers for the manufacturers that, at least in part right-to-repair stops corporate profiteering by allowing farmers to do their own work.
Again, if I were a betting writer, I would bet AFBF has a back-door, secret agenda. The signs are all on the wall — AFBF jumped in after the support for right-to-repair grew more potent; see also the coincidental? timing of when this latest agreement was announced.
Or, if “frosting on the cake” is necessary when bets are placed, The Hagstrom Report quotes AFBF President Zippy Duvall claiming victory as he said, “Our members urged us to find a private sector-solution that gives them access to repair their equipment, and I’m pleased months of discussions have again paid off.”
Since when does Big Ag need farmers and ranchers to protect them? Are farmers and ranchers supposed to be grateful for soft agreements (with Big Ag companies) that do not offer long-term protections for farmers and ranchers? Does AFBF fail to understand that codifying protections for farmers’ and ranchers’ right-to-repair into law is a long-term protection bringing fewer worries about whether Big Ag manufacturers might decide to back out of their deals?