The Checkoff its whats for dinner

The United States Supreme Court sustained the USDA mandatory checkoff that forces cattlemen to contribute $1 for every head of cattle they sell to the "Beef its whats for dinner" campaign. Although the Supreme Court has in the past refused to allow mandatory government funding of government speech and government compelled messages, this time the court allows the checkoff to proceed against the protests of mostly smaller cattlemen. Mainstream cattle producer organizations support the ruling. Blogs have analysed the decision as one getting away from a point of view that the speech was just a part of a larger government regulatory scheme as in the "fruit and nut trees" case Glickman v. Wileman Bros. &Elliott, Inc., 521 U.S. 457 (1997) to one where the Court will allow government to speak and political accountability takes care of any problems with targeted funding. This overrules the 8th Circuit decision that analyzed the case as one forcing market partcipants to fund objectionable speech (Livestock Marketing Association v. USDA Nos. 02-2769/2832 Jul 8 2003) which found the Beef checkoff closer to the impermissible checkoff system the USDA required from mushroom producers United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405, 413 (2001). The case originated from the South Dakota Federal Court, Livestock Marketing Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 207 F. Supp. 2d 992 (D.S.D. 2002) (LMA II) and Livestock Marketing Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 132 F. Supp. 2d 817 (D.S.D. 2001) (LMA I) where you would expect the Court to show less sympathy for the Plaintiffs who urged that their grain fed animals were better than grass fed and imported cattle. Interestingly, the United States is now a net importer of cattle (4-1-05 blog entry) so the check off obviously benefits some free riders. The Beef ruling probably came down the way it did more on results and process than the law. The public knows the subsidized message best as "Beef its whats for dinner." This generic lowest common denominator message couldnt offend any meat consumer or producer could it? Mushrooms seem a quite a bit more esoteric to me and so the diffuculty in coming up with a consensus message lead the Court in United Foods to conclude there was no such message it could allow the USDA to impose on behalf of all producers. Promoting beef is as American as apple and the interests of those who dispute that the product is pretty much all the same are not as important as getting out the broader message. In this light the "Beef for Dinner" campaign is just like Radio Free America promoting democracy in the Middle East, the interests of the speaker, the government are more important that the interest of dissenters. The Beef case majority was nearly shouting that if it struck down the Beef checkoff, next would be lawsuits against funding any government speech. On the other hand the Court willingly struck down mandatory funding of Bar Association lobbying (Keller v State Bar of California 496 US 1 , 1990)and restrictions on the kinds of cases federally subsidized legal services clinics could take (Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez, ___ US ___ 2001) because in the view of the Court at least, the work of attorneys and the legal system is so diverse and complex that the Government cannot practicably impose its views on the system without doing damage to the legal process. The interest of dissenters in not supporting contrary messages outweighs the governments interests in its policy. The public will lose confidence in a legal system whose advocates the government unduly hamstrings by shutting off controversial cases from them and by making them pay for lobbying on policies they oppose. The Supreme Court employs case specific balancing tests in other matters. I dont see why such an approach would not work in these cases of subsidized and de-subsidized speech.