Milk Got Milk Abstract Motivation -- There

Milk Got Milk Abstract Motivation -- There is nothing like a good television commercial to make one's day. Some are funny and some can make you sing or dance and the really good ones; well, they can make you laugh and more importantly, they can actually create a need to buy the product that they are advertising. This is also a world of big business. The Super Bowl, for example, charges millions of dollars each year for each 30 second commercial spot.

One would think that everyone wants their 'fifteen minutes of fame' so television and radio ads seem like an excellent opportunity to go out and get that fame. That is, unless you are being forced to pay for an ad that you may or may not want to be in.

Or worse, what if you were legally mandated to pay for a particular advertising campaign or risk fines or jail time? Do you remember this one -- "Got Milk?" Well, that was the advertisement that eventually became the underlying story of the now infamous case of Cochran v. Veneman. "Compelling milk producers to subsidize generic advertising is unconstitutional, the Third Circuit ruled in late February. The unanimous court agreed that a government-mandated promotional campaign for milk is subject to First Amendment scrutiny. (Cochran v. Veneman, No. 03-2522, 2004 WL 333103 (3d Cir.

Feb. 24, 2004).) The district court based its decision on two previous challenges to food-marketing programs that met different rates in the U.S. Supreme Court." (Goliath) Problem statement -- Milk producers were forced to pay for the popular 'Got Milk?' advertising campaign. "So-called 'generic' advertising programs such as 'Got Milk?' And 'Ahh, the power of cheese' are funded, in part, through the congressionally authorized dairy checkoff, which places a mandatory assessment of 15 cents per hundredweight (roughly two cents per gallon) on all milk domestically produced and marketed commercially.

Last year, the dairy checkoff raked in more than $250 million in hard-earned dairy producer money." (CFIF) Those producers felt that this was not just wrong but illegal and unconstitutional. They took their case to court to point out that this was against their right to free speech. They won in court but then that decision was overturned by an appellate court. Low and behold, the Supreme Court got involved.

Approach -- There are very few people who have not at one time or another either seen or heard the 'got milk?' ads. At one time, they were all over television, radio, billboards, buses and of course, on milk cartons everywhere. What is not known about that campaign is that dairy producers were forced to participate in this program through mandatory sponsorship donations under the federal Dairy Promotion Program. That was the problem; dairy farmers were literally under legal obligation to pay for the commercials.

But one couple did not like the undue pressure. Dairy farmers Joseph and Brenda Cochran who live in Westfield, Pennsylvania complained because the assessment fees totaled more than $4,000 annually. They were barely squeaking by and this amount was just too much for their budget. The federal Dairy Promotion Program was not income rate adjusted so the Cochrans were forced to pay the same as large-scale producers. Results -- Represented by the Institute for Justice, the Cochrans challenged the law in the United States 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The Cochrans attempted to challenge the government-mandated dairy checkoff after mushroom growers won in a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that said the Mushroom Act was unconstitutional." (American Agriculturist) They argued that they were being forced to participate in a program that they did not agree with. They successfully disputed that government compelled speech was a direct violation of their First Amendment right to abstain from paying for speech in which they did not agree with. The 3rd Circuit agreed.

But, in February of 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, in 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a similar case regarding compelled speech programs. Like the Dairy Program, this new case also equated to 'government speech' which translates into the government having the right to make the Cochrans and other farmers to dish out for the ads because of the legal decision that because the ads benefit all of society, government compelled speech is not unconstitutional.

Conclusion -- There may in fact be an unconstitutional tax being applied to these and other dairy farmers, but this decision will also impact other many other agricultural industries or where ever the government decides they have to advertise for the good of all. "This case will have major implications for the many similar programs promoting a wide variety of agricultural products such as 'ahh, the power of cheese,' 'beef, it's what's for dinner' and 'pork, the other white meat' ad.