Return to TFB Main Page
Return to Texas Agriculture Archive

August 3, 2001

Mushroom decision spurs
beef checkoff challenge

Some western livestock producers who contend their industry promotion checkoff has not boosted their income are preparing to bring their beef to court. Encouraged by a recent Supreme Court decision against mushroom promotions, some cattle ranchers said last week that they'd ask a federal judge to rule beef checkoff fees unconstitutional.

In a June 25 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that forcing mushroom producers to pay for advertising is invalid under the First Amendment.

But officials from other western livestock groups argue that the checkoff has been effective.

"It's a very good program," said Marshall Frasier, president of the Colorado Livestock Association. "Everybody pays, and it isn't very much—just $1 on a $700 animal. We've increased profits for the entire industry with this campaign."

The groups opposed to the livestock promotion, including the Livestock Marketing Association and the Western Organization of Resource Councils, already have a lawsuit pending before a South Dakota federal judge seeking a referendum on the program. Now they say they will go to the judge and ask for a ruling that the program violates First Amendment free speech protections because it forces all producers to participate.

"We believe that as a matter of law, the beef and mushroom checkoffs are alike," said LMA President Patrick Goggins. "A great deal of our money has been spent trying to get producers a simple vote on a program they finance. But we can't justify continuing to pour our members' money into a campaign for a vote, where there is now a substantial question whether the program is constitutional."

National Cattlemen's Beef Association President Lynn Cornwell expressed disappointment with LMA, charging the organization was "raising their lawsuit to a destructive new level by challenging the constitutionality of commodity checkoffs.

"Their action is based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding the mushroom industry—yet the differences between the mushroom program and the beef checkoff are as significant as the difference between mushrooms and beef," Cornwell said. "LMA's action indicates their intent is to terminate all state and national commodity checkoffs, including beef. This is frustrating considering the beef checkoff is producing such great benefits for cattlemen.

"Beef demand has increased nine out of the last 11 quarters and the checkoff has been a factor in the increase. It is unfortunate that LMA has decided to use precious industry resources to engage in negative legal battles instead of joining industry efforts to promote beef."

Pork checkoff action

Also prompted by the Supreme Court's ruling, the National Pork Producers Council said it will ask a federal judge to approve a settlement reached earlier this year with the Bush administration to allow the pork program to continue.

"We believe it is both pertinent and an efficient use of the court's resources to settle the constitutional question now," said NPPC President Barb Determan.

In a highly contentious referendum last year, hog farmers voted 15,951 to 14,396 to end the pork checkoff, which is funded through a mandatory fee of 45 cents for every $100 of a pig's value. The Clinton administration ordered the program to shut down. But the Bush administration, concerned that the referendum was incorrectly administered, reached a settlement amending the program but allowing it to continue.

Some producers who oppose the pork program said the judge should throw out the settlement and expressed concern that raising the constitutionality question could delay a settlement decision.

Farm Bureau supports both the beef and pork checkoffs.