Posted 5/24/2005 05:01:00 PM by Douglas

Government taking your money, part [shit, I lost count]. Should beef producers be mandatorily forced to contribute to the national advertising campaign "Beef, it's what's for dinner?" Well, today, the United States Supreme Court said yes.

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the federal government can have cattle ranchers pay for an industry marketing program, known for its "Beef, It's What's for Dinner" advertisements.

By a 6-3 vote, the high court handed a victory to the government. It said the generic advertising at issue is the government's own speech and therefore exempt from the First Amendment free-speech challenge that had been brought.

Maybe it's just me, and I'll admit, I'm a bit reactionary, but the phrase "victory to the government" leaves an incredibly bad taste in my mouth. The government needs a victory? The entity that can take your house, take a third of your income (off the top, mind you), force you into compulsory military service (if they so desire) and finally, legally take your life? The government needs a victory? I digress.

The U.S. Agriculture Department operates a number of promotion programs for commodities such as beef, pork, eggs, milk and cotton. Producers of the commodities must contribute to funds that pay for programs that encourage consumption.

The ruling in the beef case could affect similar cases pending before the Supreme Court on the pork checkoff program known for "Pork: The Other White Meat" campaign; the "Got Milk?" dairy advertisements with milk mustaches on celebrity faces; and a state-run program promoting alligator products.

So the government can force the produces to pay for advertising, because it's government sponsored. You always knew those subsidies didn't come cheap, bitches.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the message is effectively controlled by the federal government. He said the agriculture secretary has final approval authority over every word in every promotional campaign.

So since the Secretary of Agriculture has final approval, it's OK? And they call Scalia conservative? What a statist whore he's become.

One time I was trying to buy a car in the greater Houston Metro Area. The salesman told me I had to pay for the "advertising fee," which was basically the portion that their dealership was responsible for bringing me the bright, shiny TV commercials about how great this particular car was. I told him there's no way in hell I'm paying for that, and if the manufacturer isn't smart enough to roll advertising costs into the cost of the vehicle, then I'm not going to waste my money. After many sessions of pointless yelling and slapping, I got my way, and didn't pay it.

But the Supreme Court wasn't involved.