Time to end sugar subsidies, sweet payoffs.

The NRA gets most of the attention these days. But few industries have more power over politicians from both parties than Big Sugar.

For years, sugar interests have plied Florida politicians with money, favors — even secretive trips to a private hunting lodge in Texas. And it has paid off nicely. In return for the largesse at both the Congressional and state level, the politicians give sugar what it wants … with your money.

We’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies and price supports, which not only cost you tax dollars but also grocery dollars, since they drive up the price of everything from soup and soda to spaghetti sauce and cereal.

All for an industry that has treated the lower half of our state like a toilet bowl … which you pay once again to clean up.

Finally there is a movement to end this not-so-sweet tradition.

A bipartisan coalition of more than 70 members of Congress has united to support the “Sugar Policy Modernization Act,” which, among other things, calls for “The elimination of all direct and indirect subsidies benefiting the production or export of sugar by any government.”

U.S. representatives from 23 different states have signed on — but none from Florida. From either party.

After all, why spite your sugar daddy?

Florida politicians, you see, are often leading beneficiaries. Republican Marco Rubio received the most sugar money of anyone in the U.S. Senate in 2016, according to the Center for Responsible Politics. Democrat Bill Nelson is the leading recipient so far this year.

See, the issue isn’t red or blue. It’s green.

Sugar execs have snuggled with both the Clintons and the Bushes.

Nelson’s newly declared Senate opponent, Gov. Rick Scott, has taken more than than $600,000 from sugar interests through the years, including money raised during a fundraiser personally hosted by Florida Crystals exec Pepe Fanjul.

Citizens know it stinks. The last time I wrote about this topic, readers responded en masse, calling for an end to the sugar-subsidy scheme. A grand total of one reader wrote in to defend the status quo … a former board member of the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative.

To say that the general public is split on this issue is like saying the characters in “101 Dalmations” are

split on puppy-killing. Now, Big Sugar argues that these subsidies aren’t actually subsidies.

And it’s true that it’s complicated. Rather than simply giving tax dollars directly to sugar companies, the federal government provides loans, price guarantees, import restrictions and promises to buy surplus product.

You can actually make an argument for doing all this — if you’re opposed to free markets. It’s a way of supporting an industry that says it can’t independently compete in a global marketplace. Theoretically,