- The Washington Times - Monday, May 23, 2005

ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the government was within its rights to force beef producers to pay for the multimillion-dollar “Beef: It’s what’s for dinner” marketing program, even when individual cattle producers disagreed with the campaign.

The 6-3 decision is a defeat for farmers in several agricultural sectors who oppose paying mandatory fees for advertising they might later oppose. There are dozens of similar federal and state ad campaigns for products including milk, pork and cotton, many of which are being challenged on free speech grounds.

The beef campaign is a form of “government speech” that is immune to First Amendment challenge, the court said.

“The message set out in the beef promotions is from beginning to end the message established by the federal government,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist as well as Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the result.

At issue was a 1985 law requiring producers to pay a $1-per-head fee on cattle sold in the United States. That fee, which generates more than $80 million per year, goes to an industry group appointed by the Agriculture Department to support advertising and research programs.

Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy, said the campaign was not government speech. In a dissent, Justice Souter said if the government seeks “to compel specific groups to fund speech with targeted taxes, it must make itself politically accountable for indicating that the content actually is a government message.”

The government was sued by ranchers who sell cattle in South Dakota and Montana. They won an appeals court ruling that found that the 20-year-old program violated the First Amendment.

The federal government and Nebraska cattlemen appealed to the high court, which already has dealt with challenges to the government’s authority to force farmers into joint programs.

In 1997, the court upheld advertising programs for California fruit. But in 2001, justices struck down a mandatory campaign for the mushroom industry.

The court had never decided, however, whether such programs are government speech.

Many groups and 34 states supported the government. In California alone, 48 mandatory programs are used to promote produce such as grapes and lettuce, and lower courts already have struck down the “Got Milk?” dairy promotion and advertisements calling pork “the other white meat.”

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide