Beef Checkoff – Thoughts From The Middle of Nowhere

<a href="http://www.billingsgazette.com//index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/05/23/build/nation/30-beefcheckoff.inc">High Court rules beef checkoff constitutional</a> n nOk, call me naive but I really am surprised by this ruling. The whole lawsuit was based on the fact that as beef producers we are required to fund a "message" sponsored by the Government whether we agree with it or not. This sounds like a violation of a producers freedom of speech but the Court has decided it doesn't. Now all the legal Mumbo Jumbo behind this is a little beyond my simple mind but I found this comment interesting over at <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/05/commodity_promo.html">SCOtUSblog</a> n n<blockquote>Today’s decision is likely to be extremely significant for First Amendment jurisprudence, as it signals that the government has a free hand not only to communicate its own views without oversight by the courts but also to require financial support for that communication from a discrete segment of the population. n nThe decision creates an interesting divergence in First Amendment law that may have substantial consequences in the future. The Court has previously held (in cases like Abood and Keller) that the government cannot compel private financial contributions in support of a private message. The contributions, the Court reasoned, were akin to compelled speech. Those rulings provide the doctrinal foundation for the United Foods decision. n nToday, the Court held that the same rule does not apply to forced contributions to support governmental messages. The reason for the different rule is not entirely clear, but is apparently that the government can require support through generalized tax revenues, and it makes no difference if the assessment is instead targeted. In most First Amendment contexts, of course, the Court deems it more objectionable – not less – that an individual is being required to support a governmental message.</blockquote> n nSo how it works is that the Government cannot compel people to pay for a private message but they can force people to pay for a Government message. Our freedoms at work, isn't it such a wonderful thing. n nCoercion may prevent many transgressions; but it robs even actions which are legal of a part of their beauty. Freedom may lead to many transgressions, but it lends even to vices a less ignoble form. Karl Wilhelm Von Humboldt n nP.S. I will point out that I don't have a particular problem with the Beef Checkoff but I do understand and support those people that do have a problem with it. n nUPDATE: Some reactions to the decision can be found <a href="http://www.billingsgazette.com//index.php?tl=1&display=rednews/2005/05/23/build/state/31-beefcheckoff-mt.inc">here</a>. It shows me how out of touch the Montana Stock Growers is with the cattle industry in Montana. I was originally going to say they weren't in touch with thier members but they have all ready driven people out that don't like the checkoff so they aren't members anymore.