|
Edwin Kneedler, a Bush administration attorney, defended
the beef checkoff program as "government speech," not subject
to the First Amendment. Speaking in front of the United
States Supreme Court on Wednesday, Kneedler said that the
program is generic — a general message about the desirability
of eating beef — and that the law passed in 1985 to charge
cattle growers $1 per head of cattle to subsidize the advertising
campaign is not only legal, but highly effective.
Speaking for dissident ranchers, Laurence Tribe, a Harvard
law professor and constitutional expert, said that the government
speech argument was specious and his clients were being
forced illegally to support speech with which they disagreed.
He pointed to a 2001 decision by the Supreme Court that
found a similar program in the mushroom industry unconstitutional.
Tribe broadened the argument to point out that a decision
in favor of the government would have a chilling effect
on all dissidents.
Dissident ranchers point out that the real beneficiaries
of the program are retailers and processors, who don't contribute
to the program, as well as foreign beef producers selling
beef in the United States.
A decision on the case is not expected until mid-2005.
|
