The Constitutionality of Generic Advertising Checkoff Programs

John Crespi and Roger A. McEowen

ISU General Staff Papers from Iowa State University, Department of Economics

Abstract: Until recently, the legal status of generic advertising programs seemed questionable. After an initial victory for generic advertising proponents in 1997 in Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc. (521 U.S. 457 (1997)), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled four years later in United States v. United Foods, Inc. (533 U.S. 405 (2001)) that the federally-mandated mushroom advertising program was not part of a larger regulatory scheme (as was present in the 1997 case), and was, therefore, unconstitutional as compelled private speech. To many, the marketing of mushrooms under the checkoff statute at the heart of the United Foods case seemed no different from the way in which other commodities promoted through checkoff programs, like beef and pork, were marketed. After the United Foods case, it seemed only a matter of time before all mandatory checkoff programs would be ruled unconstitutional as well.

Date: 2006-01-01
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstre ... fe1334353d04/content
Our link check indicates that this URL is bad, the error code is: 403 Forbidden

Related works:
Journal Article: The Constitutionality of Generic Advertising Checkoff Programs (2006)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:isu:genstf:200601010800001505

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in ISU General Staff Papers from Iowa State University, Department of Economics Iowa State University, Dept. of Economics, 260 Heady Hall, Ames, IA 50011-1070. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Curtis Balmer ().