Average Crop Revenue Election Program (ACRE) in 4th District of Michigan (Rep. John Moolenaar), 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 61 to 80 of 171
Recipients of Average Crop Revenue Election Program (ACRE) from farms in 4th District of Michigan (Rep. John Moolenaar) totaled $2,525,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Average Crop Revenue Election Program (ACRE) 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
61 | Richard J Allen | Ithaca, MI 48847 | $7,889 |
62 | Maynard J Smith | Clare, MI 48617 | $7,748 |
63 | Shady Grove Farm LLC | Port Townsend, WA 98368 | $7,676 |
64 | Albert Bowerman | Mount Pleasant, MI 48858 | $7,286 |
65 | Darren P Brown | Wheeler, MI 48662 | $7,282 |
66 | Anthony Schafer | Mount Pleasant, MI 48858 | $7,200 |
67 | Garnet Hoard | Saint Louis, MI 48880 | $7,095 |
68 | Chad Main | Blanchard, MI 49310 | $6,752 |
69 | Bradley Dean Gross | Breckenridge, MI 48615 | $6,643 |
70 | Robert Mallory | Elwell, MI 48832 | $6,607 |
71 | Daniel Gerard Epple | Mount Pleasant, MI 48858 | $6,399 |
72 | Joyce J Van Sickle | Perrinton, MI 48871 | $5,083 |
73 | Shawn R Welniak | Mount Pleasant, MI 48858 | $4,957 |
74 | Gerald E Clark | Alma, MI 48801 | $4,619 |
75 | Daniel G Epple Farm | Mount Pleasant, MI 48858 | $4,151 |
76 | Tyler C Wilson | Carson City, MI 48811 | $4,081 |
77 | James K Walters | Clare, MI 48617 | $4,024 |
78 | Jeff W Litwiller | Ithaca, MI 48847 | $3,988 |
79 | Mable Dayringer | Ithaca, MI 48847 | $3,962 |
80 | Kim A Klumpp | Shepherd, MI 48883 | $3,912 |
* USDA data are not "transparent" for many payments made to recipients through most cooperatives. Recipients of payments made through most cooperatives, and the amounts, have not been made public. To see ownership information, click on the name, then click on the link that is titled Ownership Information.
** EWG has identified this recipient as a bank or lending institution that received the payment because the payment applicant had a loan requiring any subsidy payments go to the lender first. In 2019, the information provided to EWG by USDA began to include the entity that received the payment, rather than the person or entity that applied for it, which was previously provided. This move to shield subsidy recipients from disclosure enables USDA to further evade taxpayer accountability. Six percent of subsidy dollars went to banks, lending institutions, or the Farm Service Agency.”