Judge kills controversial beef program

http://nandotimes.com ^ | June 22, 2002 | The Associated Press

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Judge kills controversial beef program

Copyright © 2002 AP Online

The Associated Press ABERDEEN, S.D. (June 22, 2002 3:30 p.m. EDT) - A federal judge ruled Friday that the national beef checkoff program violates the constitutional rights of cattle producers by infringing on the First Amendment.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles Kornmann ordered a halt to collections for the checkoff program, which requires cattle ranchers to pay a $1 per-head fee on cattle sold in the United States for beef promotion and research.

The decision is expected to be appealed.

In his ruling, Kornmann said cattlemen should not be required to pay for commercials - a form of speech - that they oppose. He also said they are being made to pay for ads that benefit others that sell beef such as restaurants and retail outlets.

The checkoff program, which went into effect in 1985, raises more than $80 million a year. Half the money goes to the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board and half to qualified state beef councils. The groups came up with the popular "Beef: It's what's for dinner" slogan.

Those opposed to the checkoff are upset the advertisements promote beef in general and not American beef.

"When we initiated checkoff dollars everybody thought we were going to get better prices. But it never helped the U.S. producer," said Bob Thullner, one of the plaintiffs and a cattle producer in Campbell County.

The ruling was not welcome news to everyone.

"This is a very disappointing decision for Montana's cattle producers," said Steve Pilcher, executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association. "We are looking forward to a speedy and successful appeal of this decision, but in the meantime are concerned that the judge clearly didn't understand how critical the beef checkoff is to the future of our beef businesses."

In 1999, cattlemen opposing the checkoff submitted thousands of signatures to the U.S. Department of Agriculture requesting a referendum on whether the fee should die. No vote was ever scheduled. The federal court case ensued and was held in South Dakota because it had the highest percentage of livestock producers who supported a referendum.

[John Jorsett]

This is good news. I think the feds overstep their bounds when the engage in these marketing efforts and effectively tax certain groups who supposedly 'benefit' to pay for them. There are lots of these out there, and if this is upheld by the Supreme Court, they're all going to be in jeopardy, I'll bet. I wonder how many thousands of people the Dept. of Agriculture would have to lay off if all of the marketing orders went away?

[Willie Green]

I think the feds overstep their bounds when the engage in these marketing efforts and effectively tax certain groups who supposedly 'benefit' to pay for them.

Yep.

Such industry marketing efforts should be funded exclusively by the organization's private members.

I wonder how this ruling might affect the "Got Milk?" and "Incredible, Edible Egg" organizations.
Hopefully, it'll swat their grubby hands away from the cookie jar as well.

[blackdog]

Being a livestock producer, I am involved in check-off programs. They typically come about from producer groups, not the government. The one I am currently obliged to is one which puts a small fee into a fund from the processor. This is still an amount "taken" from the farmer, as it comes right off the bottom line of the price he gets. So there, whoever ponies up the "tax", the farmer is still paying it, only in a less direct way. Check-off programs provide a service to all producers since the huge mega-firms provide a higher stream of revenue than the small family farm but both benefit. Unlike a true tax, the program can be stopped at any time by a vote of the associations members. If a producer/processor does not want to pay it they can operate outside the program if they want. They just have to use non-member chanels to slaughter, ship, and sell their product.

Remember.....It is the huge mega-farm that loathes these programs and the small farmer who appreciates them. Consider that when deciding on it's merits.

[be131]

Unlike a true tax, the program can be stopped at any time by a vote of the associations members.

Just like a "true tax" can be stopped by a vote of Congress? All the arguments for this scheme are also arguments for Communism.

[Brian Allen]

All the arguments for this scheme are also arguments for Communism.

And all are regularly employed by "'American' steel," by the Ford Motor Company, by General Motors, by Archer Daniel Midland -- et al -- and by the "America 'farmer.'"

The New Welfare Rich.