|
Congress enacts the Beef Research and Information Act (the Beef
Act), a system of voluntary assessments on cattle producers to promote
beef.
Congress adopts amendments to the Beef Act, now called the Beef
Promotion and Research Act, making the $1 per head assessment
mandatory once approved in a referendum of cattle producers.
Cattle producers approve the new beef checkoff program, triggering
a provision that makes the checkoff mandatory. Just 17.5% of eligible
producers voted in the only referendum ever held on the program.
Over the next 13 years, more than $1 billion is collected and spent
on beef research and promotion, but U.S. beef consumption per capita
falls 13%.
February: Citing continuing producer unrest over the
direction and administration of the beef checkoff, the Livestock
Marketing Association (LMA) announces a petition drive seeking a
producer referendum on whether the program should continue.
LMA begins
circulating petitions asking for a referendum. According to the
Beef Act, calling for a referendum takes signatures from a minimum
of 10% of eligible producers. According to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, that means 117,000 signatures
June: WORC announces
its support for petition drives for producer referenda on the
beef and pork checkoff programs.
Mid-year: The Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB) and the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) dramatically increase
spending on "producer communications," or advertising
targeted to the producers who pay the checkoff.
July: LMA criticizes the CBB's decision to spend almost
$3 million on producer communications. LMA says this spending is
an illegal attempt to keep producers from signing LMA s petitions.
February: LMA's Board of Directors offers to end the
petition drive if the CBB agrees to an immediate producer vote and
periodic votes. LMA says if producers reaffirm the checkoff in its
current form, it will abide by that decision. The CBB rejects the
proposal.
April: WORC and LMA write to USDA, protesting increased
producer communications designed to oppose the petition drive and
referendum.
May: Campaign for Family Farms submits 19,000 signatures
from hog farmers on petitions calling for a referendum on the mandatory
pork checkoff program.
September: WORC and LMA end signature gathering.
November: LMA submits nearly 146,000 signatures
of producers wanting a referendum to USDA. Of the total, about 126,000
were collected during a continuous, 12-month period required by
USDA.
December: USDA's Research and Promotion Task
Force releases its report on commodity checkoffs. Among its 21 recommendations:
hold producer referendums at least every five years. Secretary Dan
Glickman endorses all 21 recommendations.
February: Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman calls
for a referendum on the pork checkoff. Glickman says it is a bedrock
democratic principle to allow producers to vote.
March: Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals finds the mushroom
checkoff program is forced commercial speech, and therefore a violation
of the First Amendment rights of mushroom producers who object to
the speech, in United States v. United Foods.
April: USDA begins reviewing beef checkoff petition
signatures.
June: LMA and WORC renew protest of the CBB's spending
on illegal producer communications programs.
Summer: USDA holds referendum on the pork checkoff
program. 53% of 30,000 hog producers vote to terminate the program.
September: Having takien no action on the beef checkoff
signatures WORC and LMA submitted to it ten months earlier, USDA
contracts with the accounting firm of PriceWaterhouse Coopers (PWC)
to review and validate the signatures.
Mid-December: PWC sends survey validation forms to
beef referendum petitioners in. PwC rushes to complete the validation
process in order to get outgoing USDA Secretary Glickman a report
by January 15.
December 27: WORC and LMA file suit in South Dakota
federal district court to compel USDA to order an immediate referendum
on the checkoff. The groups also challenge the use of producer communication
funds to promote the program to producers paying the checkoff.
January: Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman says
he will honor the vote of hog farmers and end the pork checkoff
program. The National Pork Producers' Council sues to block Secretary
Glickman's decision.
Secretary Glickman declines to hold a beef checkoff referendum,
based on a preliminary report by PriceWaterhouse Coopers. WORC and
LMA say the validation process was grossly flawed and legally improper.
January 25: Federal District Court Judge Charles Kornmann
holds a hearing on the suit by LMA and WORC in Aberdeen, South Dakota.
February: PriceWaterhouse Coopers issues final report
on validity of beef checkoff petition signatures, using criteria
developed after the petition signatures were submitted. Extrapolating
from a small random sample of signatures, PWC concludes that insufficient
valid signatures exist to require a referendum.
Judge Kornmann issues his final
decision and order on producer communications. He finds that
the Cattlemen's Beef Board and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association
spent checkoff funds illegally and unconstitutionally to promote
the checkoff itself and to defeat attempts to hold a referendum.
He enjoins further such expenditures.
New Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman settles lawsuit with NPPC,
without consulting Campaign for Family Farms. Veneman agrees to
retain the pork checkoff program, in spite of the vote of hog producers
to end it.
March: WORC, the Campaign for Family Farms, and Montana
ranchers Steve and Jeanne Charter join in an amicus
curiae (or "friend of the court") brief with the United
States Supreme Court in the United Foods mushroom checkoff case.
WORC argues that the mushroom and beef checkoff programs both infringe
on producers' First Amendment rights by forcing them to pay for
speech with which they disagree. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
National Pork Producers Council and five other checkoff-funded trade
associations file an amicus brief arguing that the decision striking
down the mushroom program threatens other checkoff-funded promotion
programs. The brief also contends that checkoff-funded promotion
is government speech, exempt from First Amendment challenge.
April: U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in
United Foods. Government attorneys tell the Court that the beef
checkoff is identical to the mushroom checkoff.
June: The United
States Supreme Court upholds the ruling of the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals striking down the mushroom checkoff. Speaking for
WORC, North Dakota rancher Linda Rauser says the ruling "will
mean the end of the beef and pork checkoffs and other undemocratic,
unfair programs that force farmers and ranchers to subsidize
speech with which they fundamentally disagree.
The Campaign for Family Farms raises compelled speech issues in
its pork checkoff lawsuit.
July: Judge Kornmann asks both sides in the beef checkoff
lawsuit for their views on the mushroom case, and its application
to the pending suit. Both sides tell the Court that the constitutionality
question involving the beef checkoff needs to be resolved prior
to proceeding with LMA's request for a referendum. The Cattlemen's
Beef Board and USDA withdraw their appeal of Judge Kornmann's initial
rulings.
August: WORC and LMA file an amended
complaint in LMA v. Veneman, asking the federal court to declare
the beef checkoff unconstitutional because it violates producers'
First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association.
October: WORC and LMA file a
brief supporting the amended complaint filed in August in
LMA v. Veneman.
December: Michigan Federal District Judge Alan Enslen
rules that the pork checkoff referendum was non-binding and that
Secretary Veneman had discretion whether or not to terminate the
checkoff.
January 14-15: Trial held in South Dakota Federal
District Court on First Amendment issues in LMA v. Veneman. The
Cattlemen's Beef Board maintains that the beef checkoff is government
speech, reversing how the program has always been promoted to producers,
and not subject to the First Amendment.
June 21: Federal District Judge Charles Kornmann rules
the checkoff and Beef Promotion and Research Act unconstitutional
and unenforceable, pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in
United
Foods. He throws out the defendants' arguments that the checkoff
is government speech, and rules producers cannot be compelled to
support a program with which they disagree. He orders collections
to stop in July.
July: USDA and the Cattlemen's Beef Board appeal Judge
Kornmann's decision. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals grants
the government's motion to stay
Kornmann's order to stop collections pending its decision on
the appeal.
October: Federal District Judge Enslen
rules the mandatory pork checkoff unconstitutional in Michigan
Pork Producers Association vs. Campaign for Family Farms. The court
finds that the program violates the First Amendment rights of speech
and association, compelling farmers to fund and be associated with
speech to which they object. "The government has been made
tyrannical by forcing men and women to pay for messages they detest,"
the court finds. "Such a system is at the bottom unconstitutional
and rotten."
The Pork Producers and USDA appeal Judge Enslen's decision. The
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stays Judge Enslen's order terminating
the checkoff pending the appeal.
March 10: Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral arguments in LMA,
WORC et. al v. Veneman.
March 14: The Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals hears oral argument in the pork checkoff case.
July: A three-judge panel of the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upholds Federal District Judge
Kornmann's July 2002 ruling and finds
the beef checkoff unconstitutional on all counts. The court
suspends its order to allow the defendants to seek a rehearing.
October: The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals
denies the government’s request for a rehearing of its July
decision striking down the beef checkoff, and the government’s
request for an en banc hearing of the full 8th circuit. The Court
suspends its order to allow the government to seek review by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals strikes
down the Pork Checkoff, upholding Federal District Judge Enselen’s
decision. The Court suspends its order to allow the government to
seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
February: The Justice Department asks
the Supreme Court to review the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
decision striking down the beef checkoff program, and the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the pork checkoff
program.
WORC
Responds to Government Appeal in Beef Checkoff Case (2/13/04)
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals strikes
down the national dairy checkoff program, finding that the program
forces dairy farmers to support speech with which they disagree.
April: WORC and the Livestock Marketing
Association file
an objection to Supreme Court review of the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals decision striking down the beef checkoff. The Campaign
for Family Farms filed a similar brief
about the pork checkoff.
May: U.S. Supreme Court agrees
to hear the U.S. government's appeal of the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals decision striking down the beef checkoff program. In
a statement, WORC said it was looking forward to a final decision
by the U.S. Supreme Court.
August: The U.S. Solicitor General's office files the government’s
brief with the U.S. Supreme Court defending the constitutionality
of the beef checkoff.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association and
other trade groups dependent on checkoff dollars file an amicus
curiae (friend of the court) brief arguing that the beef checkoff
is "government speech" and therefore does not violate
cattle producers' first amendment rights.
October: WORC and LMA file respondent’s
brief (pdf 280k) with the Supreme Court, opposing the checkoff.
50 family farm and ranch groups file amicus
(friend of the court) brief in
support of WORC.
December 8: The United States
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Veneman v. Livestock
Marketing Association, Western Organization of Resource Councils,
et. al. Wyoming rancher Skip
Waters attended the hearing representing WORC. A decision in the
case is expected in the first six months of 2005. see
Supreme Court hearing photos
May 23: The United States Supreme Court voted 6-3, that the mandatory beef checkoff
is government speech and therefore does not violate the constitutional
right to free speech.
March 1: The LMA, WORC, and government attorneys filed papers with the District Court in South Dakota, formally settling remaining issues in the case.
|
