They've managed to get the government to subsidize them heavily, price their competitor, cane sugar, out of the market, and support corn-based ethanol production. Of course, HFCS is worse for you and doesn't taste as good, corn in general isn't a particularly healthy staple food, and it makes no technical sense to make ethanol fuel out of corn in the first place.
The point is, policy isn't corrupted by billionaires, it's corrupted by large, politically powerful blocs, which may or may not have individual rich people in charge. It helps if the blocs are geographically concentrated, because the political system works state-by-state.
Well the corn farmers have helped the economy by getting ethanol into all of the gas. Doing that has lowered mileage (so we spend more) and destroyed engines (so we pay for more service). This doesn't count the extra stuff I now have to buy to keep the ethanol from destroying my engines.
At least many gas stations are starting to offer completely ethanol free gas now, although at a premium.
Corn farmers who grow corn for human consumption, feed and ethanol are all the same? Small family farmers are the same as giant agri-business farms? Corn farmers in Iowa are the same as corn farmers in New York?
Their interests are aligned. I'm just making an empirical argument: corn farmers have managed to get themselves a damn good deal from Uncle Sam at the expense of practically everyone else in the world, while George Soros hasn't.
