Merrill Matthews has an op-ed lamenting the Republican weakness for ethanol subsidies. I agree with him on the issue. But I wonder about his opening observation, which I have seen many times over the years: “If the presidential election process didn’t begin in Iowa, ethanol would likely be a memory.” Is this really true? Aren’t there a bunch of other states that would exert influence on behalf of the subsidies if the first contest were held in them?

In 2011, ethanol subsidies suffered a rare lost vote in the Senate. Even then, 27 senators voted for the subsidies — including all the senators from Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and of course Iowa.

That list of states overlaps a lot with the map of the top ten ethanol-producing states in this brochure. Other states might not be quite as into ethanol subsidies as Iowa, but those subsidies seem to have political backing that does not depend on the state’s caucuses — most of those senators have no real presidential ambitions — and extends beyond its borders. Unfortunately.