[wpietri]

In this case, it's because Archer Daniels Midland can afford to buy enough federal representation to get the subsidies.

Sugar producers care more about the issue (because they get all the subsidies) than voters (for whom the subsidies are a small percentage of their tax bill). Plus, the subsidies represent a positive return on lobbying dollars, because there are a relatively small number of people to bribe. Sorry, I mean support.

This, however, was put on the ballot by local supervisors, and will be voted on by SF's population at large. That's a much harder dynamic to influence with money. Not that they aren't trying.