By MARK R. JOSLYN
Insight Kansas
On April 4th, Governor Kelly vetoed a bill that asked the federal government to ban the use of SNAP, commonly called food stamps, for purchases of candy and pop. The bill instructed the Kansas Department of Children and Families (DCF) to request a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to eliminate the items.
Curiously, Kelly’s veto message echoed the concerns of the beverage and candy industries. “This bill is wrong,” Kelly wrote. “Not only would it make it more difficult for Kansans to access the food they need to feed their families, it would also harm Kansas businesses.” Stranger, Kelly had already requested the waiver asking the federal government to exclude candy and pop – two days prior to her veto.
The request highlighted Kansas’s 12th – place ranking in obesity prevalence with roughly a third of Kansas adults considered obese, and cited studies that suggest “prohibiting the purchase of sugar-sweetened soda beverages and candy with SNAP benefits would reduce the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes.” It seems the request was submitted by mistake, though the reasons remain unclear.
If you think this is confusing, read on.
The Senate then overturned Kelly’s veto, but the House did not act. So, Kelly’s veto prevailed.
However, Republicans, not willing to concede, devised a workaround, attaching the SNAP language to a budget proviso that required DCF to request the waiver. If DCF failed to act, funding for SUN Bucks, the program that provides school meals for low-income children, would be withheld. DCF promptly submitted the request and SUN Bucks funds were released.
In a rational world, Kelly backs the bill. Kansas’s troubling health outcomes should not be ignored. The science linking sugary drinks to adverse health effects is well-documented.
Democrats are in fact leaders on nutrition policy. It was New York city’s left-leaning board of health that enacted the nation’s strictest ban on trans-fat in 2006. Democrat Mayor Bloomberg then proposed a soda ban and Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign targeted childhood obesity. And now, California Democrats are nearing passage of a bill that would be the first in the nation to ban ultra-processed food in school lunches.
Democrats have also been willing to cut SNAP. In 1996, Bill Clinton signed the 1996 Welfare Reform Act that limited eligibility for food stamps, imposed significant time restrictions, and slashed overall benefits.
Improving SNAP recipient’s nutrition offered Kelly a chance for bipartisan agreement, allowing both sides to champion public health without sacrificing core values.
It was a layup.
Instead, Kelly inexplicably submits the waiver request only to veto it, siding with Kansas’s sizeable junk food industry. She then appeared unprepared for the Republican maneuver that rendered her veto useless.
This head-scratching sequence illustrates reactive partisanship – the tendency to oppose anything the other side supports.
Republicans are on the front foot, reshaping government programs and driving policy changes. Donald Trump is pushing through his “big, beautiful bill” while Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy calls for decisive action to “Make American Healthy Again.”
Democrats, playing defense, resist reforms they would otherwise support.
Tribal politics does that.
Ultimately, Republicans got what they wanted, and Democrats got nothing. Kelly – fair or not – comes across as champion for Coca-Cola and Mars bars.
Dr. Mark R. Joslyn is a professor of political science at the University of Kansas.