Texas-based groups cite views of court's decision

By MONETTE TAYLOR and other Country World staff reports

Shane Sklar, executive director of the Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas, expressed his group's thoughts of the Supreme Court's decision. "It's the best way to promote and advertise the cattle business and help boost the marketing and research at the same time," he said about the checkoff. -- Staff photo

June 2, 2005 - When the Supreme Court ruled May 23 to uphold the constitutionally of the nation's beef marketing program, many Texas-based groups issued news releases citing their views of the decision.

One of those pleased with the decision was Shane R. Sklar, executive director of the Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas. As spokesman for the group, he noted ICA is "… very excited about the results of the vote, and is 100 percent behind the decision.

"It's the best way to promote and advertise the cattle business and help boost the marketing and research at the same time," noted Sklar. "We're looking forward to moving forward!"

Sklar explained he's talked with beef producers who disagree with the checkoff program, but after he and others share explanations of the program, most seemed to come around to the understanding of what the money does for marketing their product.

Also pleased with the court's ruling was the Texas Beef Council, which administers the state's portion of the checkoff dollars. "This decision has come as the beef industry's momentum continues to accelerate," said Dan Dierschke, TBC chairman. "In the last seven years while checkoff programs have been working for you (beef producers), beef demand has increased 25 percent. Demand rose nearly 8 percent last year alone."

Dierschke, in an open letter to Texas beef producers, assured the "beef checkoff program will maintain its focus on the consumer that your business requires. ... The justices' decision not only sets aside previous unconstitutional rulings by lower courts, it also means that continued funding of the beef checkoff will fuel additional marketing momentum that builds beef demand."

The challlenge to the checkoff was led by Livestock Marketing Association (LMA) and the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC). The groups said the checkoff "unconstitutionally compells" producers to subsidize speech with which they do not agree through a $1-per-head assessment on each head of cattle sold.

The question was whether the beef checkoff compells subsidies of private messages, which twice had been ruled unconstitutional, or of government speech, which is not susceptible to a First Amendment compelled-subsidy challenge, explained Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association's President Dick Sherron.

LMA and WORC argued the speech generated by the beef checkoff is not government speech because it is controlled by non-governmental agencies, specifically the Beef Board and Operating Commmittee.

But the court disagreed, saying the "message is effectively controlled by the federal government."

Sherron pointed out the court did say LMA and WORC may return to district court to pursue their original challenges, which were set aside after the Supreme Court ruled the mushroom checkoff unconstitutional. The organizations have not yet indicated whether they will pursue their original suit filed five years ago challenging validation of signatures on a petition to call for a new checkoff referendum. (The checkoff assessment became mandatory when the program was approved by 79 percent of producers in a 1988 referendum vote.)

TSCRA will continue to keep the beef checkoff on the front burner, added Sherron, who personally advocated the state checkoff program approved by the Texas Legislature during its last session (in case the national checkoff program was declared unconstitutional).

Sherron said he hopes all segments of the beef industry can put their differences aside and work together for long-term profitability.