The Supreme Court has decided the case of Livestock Marketing Association and others similarly situated versus United States Department of Agriculture and the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board. We just don't know the ruling yet. The justices will soon announce their legal interpretation of the challenge to mandatory contribution into a program administered and regulated by the federal government that assesses a fee of one dollar each time an animal is sold in its path from birth to beef. The check-off generates approximately $80 million each year.

The independent judiciary will rule on the Beef Referendum case that has economic ramifications for every beef producer and all related industries. The escalation of the conflict is an example of the contentious positions of competing sectors of the livestock industry and their inability to compromise for the greater good. It also is an unfortunate example of vindictive behavior and the power of money and influence, which has yet to fully play out.

The current battle between the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation USA has gotten most of the headlines for the past year, but the basis of this court case goes back to a filing in July 2003 based on a disagreement between the LMA, comprised primarily of auction market operators, and the NCBA, comprised primarily of ranchers and feedlot operators. LMA attempted to gain NCBA's support to prevent packers from buying cattle direct from feedlots and avoiding their auction markets. NCBA denied the marketers and embraced the packers. That's not all of it, but enough to start this war.

Stay with me on the acronymns: LMA challenged NCBA by asking USDA to initiate the two step process for a recall vote on the beef checkoff as the most vulnerable part of NCBA's influence on revenue gained from the Cattlemen's Beef Board who administers the check-off money. LMA claimed the loyalty of small cattle producers and attempted to influence them to first sign a petition and later vote down the beef check-off so they could keep the dollar that LMA members now are required to collect and send to the state beef councils. The NCBA fought the effort every step of the way and LMA members became overzealous in their solicitations of cattlemen. The USDA's final call was that they couldn't deliver the required 10 percent (roughly 126,000) valid cattle producer's signatures.

I should at this time recognize the incredibly inept efforts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in making the rules clear and being able to count high enough to see if the complaining parties had enough signatures for a recall vote. The USDA, in the 1990s, had three high-profile referendum recall efforts in Wool, Pork and Beef. Each time it either reversed its own ruling, called the vote invalid or failed to count all the ballots/signatures to anyone's satisfaction. I'm glad the USDA wasn't counting the votes in Florida or we'd have Pat Buchanan as president right now.

LMA lost the first battle so they turned to the courts and used jurisdiction shopping, politics and populism to get a lower court to rule against the mandatory collection. NCBA challenged and the Supreme Court accepted the case.

Now we wait for the decision. If it's upheld, the opposition is going to retrench and challenge again unless NCBA invites them to the table for a compromise. Perhaps this will lead to a simpler mechanism for a vote every five years? Perhaps the NCBA will invite LMA onto its board and align with it against the packers? Sorry! What am I thinking?

If the referendum goes down, even just the mandatory contribution and promotion components, the money for promotion and research is at risk. Several state beef councils are prepared to move to a collection system with a refund, if requested. This is going to get interesting as LMA says it will fight a "mandatory-voluntary" state system as it reflects the same issues of the current program. There is also the question of big producers, who are few, but contribute enough for it to be "real money" that they can put toward their bottom line. Unless there is a lot of courting or a full court press put on these people, most are going to ask for their money back. Some may even give it to R-CALF. How insulting will that be?

If there is a negative decision, there is the potential reaction of the George W. Bush administration and "turf protection" by the USDA. NCBA has never been tighter with a president and the USDA is laced with administrators who are sympathetic to NCBA's cause. Go back to the Pork Referendum of 2000 and look at how fast USDA switched sides of the table and changed the rules. The pork referendum was recalled and voted down by producers according to rules set forth by USDA under the Clinton administration, but the first words of new Secretary of Agriculture, Anne Veneman, were: "The lawyers said that the referendum vote was invalid." I doubt they would be so bold after a Supreme Court ruling but there could be a lot of modification in a short time with the goal of keeping the program mandatory.

Finally, what role has the media played in causing or escalating this conflict? The media, including me, saw a newsworthy story that we reported. It has all the elements of David versus Goliath, big government and big business manhandling small producers and Hatfield and McCoy feuding. Think of us as you will, but media didn't take this to the Supreme Court any more than we sued to keep the Canadian border closed. Conflicts became ugly and public and we covered them. The public relations machines of both sides played us a lot more than we played you.

When the decision comes, I will find no satisfaction in either ruling of the court. I sometimes wonder if the originators of the check-off programs in the 1970s realized that it would come down to this? Regrettably, I think they did, but they would be surprised that it took this long.

Editor's note: Ken Root is a farm anchor at WHO Radio in Des Moines, Iowa. He is a 28-year veteran of agricultural broadcasting and writing. He can be reached by e-mail at: kenroot@clearchannel.com or by writing to him at the Journal at P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801.

Date: 4/21/05