You've outlined the case here previously (and to some extent here again) about MTBE being a politically-motivated RFG formulation. I think it's persuasive. Refiners benefitted from that mandatory formulation.
They will lose that benefit under the ethanol requirement, and if there are ties between the refiners and ADM, it's not obvious to me. The refiners have been at loggerheads with them for a couple of decades.
That's not to say that ADM didn't lobby intensively for the change in formulation. I'm sure they did. It would be interesting to see how much they have contributed to California politicians.
The use of tax-exempt foundations to launder money really complicates things.