quote: Their beef is that all cattle producers have to pay a special tax to support the ads, but that some disagree with their content. They said the generic pro-beef message does not distinguish between grain-fed domestic and grass-fed imported beef, and it seems to lump together all cattle producers, large and small, despite their differing political and economic interests.
"The assessments mandated by the Beef Act cannot survive the demanding First Amendment scrutiny this court has applied to laws compelling private persons to finance speech," the opponents say in their brief for the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday the justices will hear oral arguments in the case, widely considered the juiciest First Amendment controversy of the term so far.
It may clarify the category of expression known as "government speech" and could have implications for federal promotional campaigns for products such as cotton ("The Fabric of Our Lives"), potatoes, eggs, honey, watermelon and even popcorn -- as well as comparable state programs. The "Pork: The Other White Meat" and "Got Milk?" advertising campaigns are already in trouble, having been declared unconstitutional by federal appeals courts in rulings the government has appealed to the Supreme Court.
Congress was only trying to help the beef industry when it passed the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985, which created the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board, or Beef Board, to spread the good word about red meat. The law authorized the secretary of agriculture to fund the campaign through a dollar-per-head tax on every beef cow sold in the United States. In 2003, cattle producers paid $82.7 million to support the Beef Board's ads and those of its state counterparts.
But opponents of the ads say the operation is an exercise in unconstitutional "compelled speech" -- no different from a similar mushroom promotion program that the court struck down in 2001.
posted
Guys, do we have to turn *every* thread into a punfest? Can't we steer clear of the puns just this once?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where's the beef? I think the cattle ranchers have a pretty big steak in the outcome of this case.
Posts: 4569 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985, is, of course, a perfect example of Congressional pork.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm afraid that any attempt to curtail the puns in this thread is doomed to be outflanked. Maybe those of us who are above such nonsense should hide in another thread and discuss how to cure the fourm of such silliness.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. In this medium, it's rare for us to pass up an opportunity to indulge our inner punsters. Sooner or later, we'll be well done and mooove along.
posted
Yes, gather the pun-haters in a single thread. It'll be like leading lambs...er, cows to the slaughter.
The irony here is that I didn't really post it for the puns. This could have far-reaching effects, although I think the decision will be pretty limited.
posted
First, I should apologize for not having a pun to add.
Second, Dag, is this kind of like unions? Down here in FL, we don't have many of them. Most of what I know about them is from history class.
I know my mom didn't want to join the teacher's aide union because they charge money and it goes to politics she didn't like. She ended up doing it because she gets in on the automatic raises, all of which so far have gone to a matching raise in insurance. So basically, she joined a group who uses her money for stuff she doesn't like for a reason that is essentially meaningless.
If the government can't make the beef farmers pay for the ads, does that mean my mom's union can't make her pay for their political donations?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The underlying principles are the same, but I think the legal issues are very different.
In this case, the government is funding speech that a taxpayer disagrees with. Normally, there is no standing for a taxpayer to sue on those grounds (religious speech excepted), because the aggregation of taxes means the person's actual contribution to the speech is quite small. The tax the beef raisers are paying, however, is dedicated solely to this speech. I'm assuming that's where the difference lies. If it's decided, it will be decided on First Amendment grounds.
In general, private speech is unregulated. The union membership is technically voluntary, so your Mom is agreeing to have the money used for that speech. The bundling with an essentially unrelated service is problematic from an ethical point of view (at least in my opinion), but does not raise First Amendment issues because there is no government entity involved. I think the court would effectively decide that your mom's not being "forced" to contribute.
The situation is more problematic where union membership is mandatory. I think there's a case where a government employer had a closed shop, and the courts rejected that (because the government was forcing people to join the union in order to be allowed employment). I think some states don't allow closed shops at all, others require the political fund be separate from the mandatory dues, and others don't regulate. This is all from memory, though, so take it with a grain of salt.
I still can't figure out why anyone would need to advertise beef. If someone's gone veggie, they're not going to buy a burger because they saw one on tv.
Any of our farm types know if the grain or grass fed is supposed to make for the better tasting beef? Personally, I get the organic stuff. All those chemicals and hormones creep me out.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The purpose isn't to get people to switch back from vegetarian, the purpose is to get people back from partial substitutes. Some partial substitutes I imagine the beef industry faced up against: starch products, such as pasta and potatoes; chicken (this one in particular), pork, and then other meats (much less so).
Its a matter of making someone think "beef" instead of "chicken" when they think "good meat meal" (for instance). Its about mindshare. However, I think any recent apparent efficacy of the ads may in large part be due to the low carb craze.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
