CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
14,662
edits
Commodity checkoff program: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "Los Angeles Times" to "Los Angeles Times"
m (1 revision imported) |
m (Text replacement - "Los Angeles Times" to "Los Angeles Times") |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Congress has permitted producer groups to make [[checkoff]]s mandatory, and this aspect has generated legal challenges by some producers, who contend they must pay taxes for activities they would not underwrite voluntarily. The U.S. Supreme Court [in United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405, 412 (2001)] ruled that the mushroom check-off violated the Constitutional free speech provisions (First Amendment), creating uncertainty about the future of other check-offs. Since then, separate lower federal courts have ruled that various check-offs also are unconstitutional. However, on May 23, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the beef check-off does not violate the First Amendment. In its decision, [[Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association]] and Nebraska Cattlemen v. Livestock Marketing Association (Nos. 03-1164 and 03-1165), a majority of the Court agreed with check-off defenders that the programs are in fact "[[government speech]]" (an issue that was not considered in the mushroom decision).<blockquote>"Compelled funding of government speech does not alone raise First Amendment concerns,"..."Citizens may challenge compelled support of private speech, but have no First Amendment right not to fund government speech."<ref name="Government Speech">{{cite news|last=Greenhouse|first=Linda|title=Justices Say All Ranchers Must Help Pay for Federal Ads|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/politics/24scotus.html|access-date=September 2, 2011|newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=May 24, 2005|quote="Compelled funding of government speech does not alone raise First Amendment concerns," Justice Scalia said, adding, "Citizens may challenge compelled support of private speech, but have no First Amendment right not to fund government speech."}}</ref> </blockquote> A Montana federal court ruled in June 2017 that the operation of the beef checkoff there was unconstitutional.<ref name="New Food Economy">{{Cite web|url=https://thecounter.org/montana-beef-checkoff-suit/|title=Does "Beef: It's What's For Dinner" violate the First Amendment?|date=June 27, 2017|first=Joe|last=Fassler|website=The Counter|access-date=August 21, 2017}}</ref> | Congress has permitted producer groups to make [[checkoff]]s mandatory, and this aspect has generated legal challenges by some producers, who contend they must pay taxes for activities they would not underwrite voluntarily. The U.S. Supreme Court [in United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405, 412 (2001)] ruled that the mushroom check-off violated the Constitutional free speech provisions (First Amendment), creating uncertainty about the future of other check-offs. Since then, separate lower federal courts have ruled that various check-offs also are unconstitutional. However, on May 23, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the beef check-off does not violate the First Amendment. In its decision, [[Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association]] and Nebraska Cattlemen v. Livestock Marketing Association (Nos. 03-1164 and 03-1165), a majority of the Court agreed with check-off defenders that the programs are in fact "[[government speech]]" (an issue that was not considered in the mushroom decision).<blockquote>"Compelled funding of government speech does not alone raise First Amendment concerns,"..."Citizens may challenge compelled support of private speech, but have no First Amendment right not to fund government speech."<ref name="Government Speech">{{cite news|last=Greenhouse|first=Linda|title=Justices Say All Ranchers Must Help Pay for Federal Ads|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/politics/24scotus.html|access-date=September 2, 2011|newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=May 24, 2005|quote="Compelled funding of government speech does not alone raise First Amendment concerns," Justice Scalia said, adding, "Citizens may challenge compelled support of private speech, but have no First Amendment right not to fund government speech."}}</ref> </blockquote> A Montana federal court ruled in June 2017 that the operation of the beef checkoff there was unconstitutional.<ref name="New Food Economy">{{Cite web|url=https://thecounter.org/montana-beef-checkoff-suit/|title=Does "Beef: It's What's For Dinner" violate the First Amendment?|date=June 27, 2017|first=Joe|last=Fassler|website=The Counter|access-date=August 21, 2017}}</ref> | ||
In 2008, the [[American Egg Board]] attempted to funnel $3 million to oppose a ballot measure in California prohibiting the extreme confinement of farm animals. They were stopped by an injunction issued by a federal court.<ref name="Los Angeles Times">{{Cite web|url=https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/09/needs-a-hed-3.html|title=Chickens beat eggs in Proposition 2 lawsuit|date=September 23, 2008|first=Veronique|last=de Turenne|website= | In 2008, the [[American Egg Board]] attempted to funnel $3 million to oppose a ballot measure in California prohibiting the extreme confinement of farm animals. They were stopped by an injunction issued by a federal court.<ref name="Los Angeles Times">{{Cite web|url=https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/09/needs-a-hed-3.html|title=Chickens beat eggs in Proposition 2 lawsuit|date=September 23, 2008|first=Veronique|last=de Turenne|website=Los Angeles Times|access-date=August 21, 2017}}</ref> In 2013, the Egg Board attempted to get government regulators and retailers to take action to halt sales of egg-free vegan "Just Mayo" brand products.<ref name="Fortune Magazine">{{Cite web|url=https://fortune.com/2016/10/10/american-egg-board-hampton-creek/|title=USDA Says American Egg Board's Anti-Vegan Mayo Campaign Was 'Inappropriate'|website=[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]]|first=Beth|last=Kowitt|date=October 10, 2016|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161011164246/https://fortune.com/2016/10/10/american-egg-board-hampton-creek/|archive-date=October 11, 2016|access-date=August 21, 2017}}</ref> In this scandal, an Egg Board executive was caught discussing "putting a hit on" [[Hampton Creek]] co-founder [[Josh Tetrick]].<ref name="Los Angeles Times 2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-egg-board-investigation-20161007-snap-story.html|title=The egg industry launched a secret two-year war against a vegan mayonnaise competitor|date=October 7, 2016|website=Los Angeles Times|first=Geoffrey|last=Mohan|access-date=August 21, 2017}}</ref> | ||
Despite $4 million spent to support the retention of the checkoff, a referendum held in 2000 among hog farmers voted to eliminate the checkoff. Ann Veneman, the Secretary of Agriculture, voided the results.<ref name="High Plains Journal">{{Cite web|url=https://www.hpj.com/archives/hog-farmers-criticize-veneman-for-not-terminating-checkoff/article_3c8c6451-5341-55b7-9c70-974e3d5435d9.html|title=Hog farmers criticize Veneman for not terminating checkoff|website=[[High Plains Journal]]|date=January 1, 2001|access-date=August 21, 2017}}</ref> | Despite $4 million spent to support the retention of the checkoff, a referendum held in 2000 among hog farmers voted to eliminate the checkoff. Ann Veneman, the Secretary of Agriculture, voided the results.<ref name="High Plains Journal">{{Cite web|url=https://www.hpj.com/archives/hog-farmers-criticize-veneman-for-not-terminating-checkoff/article_3c8c6451-5341-55b7-9c70-974e3d5435d9.html|title=Hog farmers criticize Veneman for not terminating checkoff|website=[[High Plains Journal]]|date=January 1, 2001|access-date=August 21, 2017}}</ref> | ||