Money talks. That’s why corporate welfare giants contribute millions to congressional candidates to protect their special-interest subsidies.

In an era of budget cutting, it appears that the sugar, grazing and military industries are protecting their federal subsidies through Political Action Committees. Unfortunately for federal taxpayers, their donations seem to be paying off.

PACs for corporate cowboys contributed over $3 million to Congressional candidates between 1991 and 1996, according to a new report by U.S.PIRG. Of the $2 million given to current Congressional members, the largest recipients were opposed to efforts to reform the government’s money-losing grazing policies. In a recent vote, Senators who voted to continue grazing subsidies received an average of $14,587, compared to $4,109 received by those who voted to cut the subsidies. Current grazing policy hands out millions to corporate ranchers including Anheuser Busch and Hewlett-Packard by maintaining artificially low grazing fees on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands.

The sugar daddies of the Flo-Sun corporation have also worked to protect their sweet deal from the federal sugar program, which benefits Flo-Sun to the tune of $65 million a year while keeping the price of sugar for consumers artificially high. Since 1979, the owners Alfonso and Jose Fanjul, their families and employees have contributed more than $3 million to candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Military contractors, including the top 25 U.S. arms exporters, gave candidates $6.5 million in contributions and “soft money” during the 1995-1996 election cycle, according to a new report by the World Policy Institute. Top giver was Lockheed Martin, which contributed $1.6 million. One major area of business for these companies is the $15 billion arms export trade, $7.6 billion of which is paid for by American taxpayers.

The donations turned out to be a smart investment for the arms manufacturers. In July, when the Senate considered legislation that would have sharply cut arms sales to dictatorships, the 65 Senators who defeated the measure also received eight times more money from the PACS than Senators who voted for the reform measure.