You would be forgiven to assume The American Heart Association would top the list of organizations supporting restricting government subsidies for cookies, potato chips, and sugary drinks.
You would be wrong. The AHA flew its top lobbyist to Texas to testify against a very simple bill that would restrict SNAP recipients from using their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits from purchasing these products. After all, the largest percentage of the assistance goes to buying sodas, one of the biggest sources of non-nutritious calories in a child's diet.
Texas Senate Bill SB 379 is very short and to the point. It doesn't cut benefits, doesn't even restrict most processed foods; it just bans purchases of sugary drinks, candy, cookies, and potato chips using SNAP benefits. And since SNAP is supplemental--intended to increase the amount available to purchase food for lower-income folks, it doesn't even prevent such people from purchasing these products with their own food budget.
That is what SUPPLEMENTAL means- not the primary source of food resources, but in addition. Supplemental. Get it?
I am disgusted.
— Grace Price🧬 (@travelingenes) March 12, 2025
The American Heart Association just sent an employee to TEXAS to fight a bill that would stop food stamps from covering candy & soda—a bill to reduce heart disease.
Why? Because the AHA takes money from Kellogg’s & Pepsi, whose profits would tank if it passed.… pic.twitter.com/RPymDbQz9H
I am disgusted.The American Heart Association just sent an employee to TEXAS to fight a bill that would stop food stamps from covering candy & soda—a bill to reduce heart disease.Why? Because the AHA takes money from Kellogg’s & Pepsi, whose profits would tank if it passed.Thank you, , for standing up for Texas kids against this corrupt "heart health" org.
Didn't see that coming, did you?
Frankly, you shouldn't be surprised. The AHA is part of the "blob," and the blob is all apart ensuring that the current establishment remains fat and happy. It's stated purpose is to promote heart health; its real purpose is to perpetuate a system in which its donors and partners make as much money as possible.
When I saw that tweet I thought it might have been taken out of context, but I was unsurprised to find out that it covered almost all the testimony, shortened a bit for brevity. I watched the entire thing at the Texas Legislature site--it is very brief, since they limit testimony to two minutes--and the only substantive thing said other than the basic point that sugary foods and drinks are somehow necessary for the nutrition of low income people is a plea to increase overall funding for SNAP.
After all, the more money, the more crap people can buy.
You can watch the testimony here, and the AHA testimony begins 2 hours and 51 minutes into the committee hearing.
I looked up who funds the AHA Nutrition Forum, and as you would guess, it is filled with big food industry corporations including Cargill, PepsiCo, and seed oil companies. And even more troubling is that the VAST majority of Heart Association funding comes from Big Pharma.
Conflict of interest, much?
You may be disturbed by the fact that a well-respected organization that promotes itself as looking out for heart patients and the rest of us is in hock to big corporations that profit off making us sick, but by now you shouldn't be.
Nonprofits raise money to solve a problem, right? But if the problem diminishes or goes away, the impulse to pour resources into solving it diminishes. Solving problems is deadly for fundraising, which is why every fundraising letter is about what disaster looms if you don't give. Even when smaller donors are a modest part of the funding, those dollars all add up over time. Especially when groups like the Heart Association encourage you to include them in your will.
Every single institution of any size in America is likely corrupted because the best way to grow and get ahead is cozying up to big money. No doubt the Heart Association started with good intentions--it may even think it still is driven by good intentions--but once a certain size and influence is reached the need to feed the beast grows so much that "compromises must be made."
Perhaps we should impose a limit to the lifetime of nonprofits. Because they are donor driven, the larger they become, the more funding is necessary to keep the doors open. And with the most immense appetite for money, the more easily compromised by those who have it.
"You scratch my back" and all that.
This would seem easy to do, given that the whole point of tax breaks for nonprofits is that they serve the public interest. The older they get, the less they do so. They become the establishment and work to preserve and grow that establishment. Look at what the Red Cross has become.
Think of big nonprofits as NGOs. The USAID scandal exposes the corruption of NGOs.
Not every nonprofit is corrupt, but caveat emptor when you decide to donate. Chances are good that the bigger they are, the more compromised it is.
