Mediaboss Marketing

A state District Court hands independent ranchers a long-awaited win.

Last week, the United States District Court for the District of Montana issued a decision that could have major implications for the beef industry inside the state and beyond. Judge Brian Morris upheld a lower courts decision that the beef checkoff program, as currently operated, violates the First Amendment rights of the states cattle ranchers. As as result, the Montana Beef Council (MBC) will only be allowed to collect funds from producers who voluntarily opt in to the program.

Quick refresher: checkoff programs are a mandatory tax the federal government collects on certain agricultural commodities, money farmers are compelled to pay to fund industry research and promotion. Over the years, checkoffs have raised billions of dollarsand have paid for some iconic advertising, from Got Milk? to Beef: Its Whats for Dinner. But theyve also been a sore spot for farmers who claim they dont have enough say over the way the funds are being used, yet are forced to pay even when they feel the message doesnt serve their interests.

To understand why the Montana case could be such a big deal, heres what you need to know: In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that, in order to be constitutionally viable, checkoff programs must be overseen directly by the federal government. The government, after all, can compel certain forms of speech: I have to fund the military through my taxes, for instance, even if I dont like its actions. Legally, the government is granted that exception only because its supposed to be an extension of the peoples voice already (thanks to our democratically elected representatives). If you dont like a policy paid for by your taxes, the logic goes, you can always vote to change the government. (For more on this, see my piece on the fraught legal history of checkoffs.)

But private entities cannot compel speech, and thats where the Montana case comes in. Beef checkoff money is split evenly between the federal Cattlemens Beef Board and smaller, state-level organizations like the Montana Beef Councilprivate entities not subject to the same level federal oversight. Thats why the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF) filed suit against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), arguing that compelling payments to a private organization amounts to an unconstitutional first amendment violation.

The USDA lacks the authority to appoint or remove any of the Montana Beef Councils members. The USDA does not control how the Montana Beef Council spends the checkoff assessments, Judge Morris agreed, in his decision. Defendants claim that it effectively can control the Montana Beef Council through the Beef Board proves incorrect. The Beef Board is not a democratic[ally] accountab[le] body that is mandated to respond to and implement citizenss concerns.

The suits unwitting catalyst was a famous fast food chain: advertisements ran put out byWendys that promoting the companys use of fresh, North American beef in its four-cornered burgers. Since the ads were funded, in part, by the Montana Beef Council, some of the states ranchers felt their checkoff dollars were being used against them. Why were they being forced to fund the promotion of beef that came not just from the U.S., but alsoMexico and Canada?

Thats what I think made the case unique: It was a clear, in-your-face insult to U.S. cattlemen that were paying into the Montana beef checkoff, says Mike Callicrate, a Kansas rancher and activist whos been a longtime critic of the beef checkoff.

Where some saw an insult,R-CALF, another vocal opponent, saw opportunity.

After the Supreme Court ruling that said that the checkoff was government speech, we knew we had to find another avenue, Bill Bullard, R-CALFs CEO, tells me. Thats why we focused on money taken by the states.

The states cattle ranchers will still have to pay into the checkoff program$1 per head of cattle. But the Montana Beef Council will only receive its fifty percent share of that money when a rancher opts in. In Bullards view, state funds like Montanas have long been used to suit the interests of politically powerful meat packers. He thinksthe ruling will deprive them of a crucial source of income, and may help level the playing field between beef producers and processors. (Again,you can read more inmy history of the beef checkoff and its discontents.)

Our industry has been dominated by multinational meatpackers that have been working to vertically integrate and control the supply chain of the U.S. cattle industry, Bullard says. Now, this case gives us hope that were able to pull further away from the integration that the packers have already accomplished, ensuring that we can maintain a widely dispersed family farm system of cattle production in America.

Weve found a court that was willing to take our concerns seriously and act on them. Thats huge.

Its not a done deal yet: USDA may decide to appeal. But it also has the opportunity to respect the ruling, or even play an active role in rolling out voluntary state-level checkoff participation in other statesheading off a raft of potential lawsuits elsewhere. No ones quite sure what will happen, but Dudley Butler of Butler Farm & Ranch Law, which represented the plaintiff, feels that future arguments against this decision would face a tough legal battle.

People look at the constitution sometimes like they look at the Bible, they pick and choose what parts they want to use, he tells me. But the First Amendment right is extremely important. Under our system of government, you just cannot force speech on someoneunless it passes the rigors of being determined by a court it is government speech.

For its part, the Montana Beef Councilwhich was not named in the suitis taking a hard look at its post-ruling future.

As a result of the preliminary injunction, after assessments are collected from Montana beef producers, if they do not provide prior affirmative consent to the Montana Beef Council, their full assessment will be forwarded to the Cattlemens Beef Board for general use on national programs and projects, it says, in a statement. MBC is working through the details to develop a process for this Court Order and a way for producers to provide consent.

It could be an onerous task.And complaints about the federal checkoff program are likely to remain. But for now, the victors are celebrating as they look ahead.

Its probably the biggest thing that independent producers have achieved in trying to get their interests represented by the government, Bullard says. Weve failed to convince Congress to listen to the producers. Weve failed to convince the USDA to listen to the concerns of the producer. But here, in our third branch of government, weve found a court that was willing to take our concerns seriously and act on them. Thats huge.

Read this article:
Does "Beef: It's What's For Dinner" violate the First Amendment? In ... - The New Food Economy

The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee criticized President Donald Trump's budget proposal for slashing funding for libraries, public broadcasting and the arts, saying the cuts "would have a disproportionate, adverse impact on rural and underserved communities."

"That is not only short-sighted; it is deeply disturbing. It's like something out of 'Fahrenheit 451,'" she said, referencing the 1953 dystopian Ray Bradbury novel.

Clinton spoke in Chicago at the American Library Association's convention, where she previewed a forthcoming memoir due out in the fall, as well as the children's version of "It Takes a Village."

Her memoir, she said, will cover "what it's really like to run for President -- especially if you're a woman. And there's a lot to that, not just hair and makeup. But ultimately it's about resilience -- how to get back up after a loss."

"It is the most personal book I've written. I am looking forward to sharing it with you and readers, because I know it doesn't have all the answers to every problem we face as a country, but I think it's important that we begin a conversation about who we are and what we stand for and the values we hold dear," she said.

See more here:
Hillary Clinton hits Trump's budget cuts in Chicago - CNN

In the wake of the 2016 elections, EMILYs List renewed its efforts to recruit women to run for office, and apparently a lot of women are interested:

@HillaryClinton: For more than 30 years, @emilyslist has paved the way for women to run & succeed in elected office, including me.

@HillaryClinton: Today, @emilyslist announced that 15,000+ women have reached out since Election Day about running for office! 7,000+ want to help them run.

@HillaryClinton: Their determination & passion is truly inspiring. And I can't wait to see what this new generation of women leaders accomplishes. Onward!

Safe to say many of those 15,000 wont follow through, and it would probably be more helpfulif those proportions were flipped and twice as many women wanted to help other women run, but for those who are serious about running, EMILYs List will have resources:

EMILY's List's largest-ever national recruitment program, Run to Win, is focused on training, recruiting, and identifying opportunities for pro-choice Democratic women to run and win in state and local offices across the country. The campaign will train, politically advise and assess candidates from school board to Senate.

Republicans have been building their pipeline from local office to Congress and governors mansions for decades now. Its past time for Democrats to make a serious effort to do the same.

Continued here:
Hillary Clinton and EMILY's List announce 15000 women interested in running for office - Daily Kos

AP

BY: Madeleine Weast June 27, 2017 11:34 am

The seven least patriotic states voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, according to a new study released on Tuesday.

New Jersey was ranked the least patriotic state, followed by Illinois, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, and California,according to a report from WalletHub.

Each of these seven least patriotic states voted for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016.

States were graded on a 100-point scale stemming from data comparing 13 key indicators of patriotism based on military and civic engagement.A score of 100 would represent the highest level of patriotism.

The data factored inmilitary enlistees, active-duty military personnel,veterans, and share of adults who voted in the 2016 presidential election.

The lowest ranked state, New Jersey, received a patriotism score of 27.46, followed by Illinois with a score of 28.46. Clinton won by over 50 percent in both states.

New York garnered a patriotic score of 30.59, and California scored a 37.70. In both states, Clinton won with almost 60 percent of the overall vote.

Red states ranked higher in patriotism overall than blue states. Red states had an average score of 28.55, while blue states had an average rank of 23.47.

The top three most patriotic states were Virginia, Alaska, and Wyoming.

The data was collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defense Manpower Data Center, Corporation for National and Community Service, Peace Corps, Military OneSource, United States Elections Project, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

Read more here:
Report: Least Patriotic States Voted for Hillary Clinton - Washington Free Beacon

How I Lost by Hillary Clinton sets out to explain Clintons 2016 defeat in Clintons voice. The book presents a collection of Hillary Clintons speeches and emails, originally published by Wikileaks, annotated by journalist Joe Lauria.

Lauria relies on a series of addresses to Goldman Sachs and at various industry events, emails from the Wikileaks Podesta release from last fall, and public campaign statements to argue that Clinton was the victim of her own insider elitism and that her elitism is to blame for her defeat.

Ultimately Lauria doesnt make a compelling argument as to how Clinton became so widely disliked by Americans of all political stripes, and how that ultimately resulted in her defeat. But How I Lost succeeds in illustrating why she was widely disliked and distrusted, showing Clinton to be completely removed from ordinary Americans.

Clintons public persona has been so thoroughly managed and filtered through focus groups that its impossible to know how genuine her personality is, nor is it easy to grasp what she really believes politically.

But as these leaks show, the Democrats promises ran aground against the reality of her private statements. Voters instead chose the more fantastical promises of Donald Trump, a man who might actually be dumb enough to believe his own bullshit.

Still, as Lauria writes, Clinton [did] not see the rise of right-wing populism in the US as being connected with the elitism she and her backers represented.

One of the long-running national criticisms of Clinton, stretching back to her run for the nomination in 2008, was that she was too tied into the inside-the-Beltway money pipeline.

It was true that Clinton was reflexively invested in the institutions she had protected for her entire public career. As she told the American people during an October 13, 2015, primary debate with Bernie Sanders and other opponents, every so often the US government needs to save capitalism from itself.

This tone-deaf approach to the aftermath of the economic crisis was nothing new. Clinton had delivered remarks to that effect two years earlier to Goldman Sachs in October 2013. Then, Clinton suggested the victims of the financial crash of 2008 misunderstood the situation completely. People were yelling at her everywhere she went, she said, because the conventional wisdom was wrong.

Tellingly, Lauria writes of those comments, she names only two victims of Wall Streets perfidy: Wall Street itself and governmentnot ordinary Americans.

Clintons inability to conceive of new ideas and her lack of any interest in turning the clock back or pointing fingers at those who destroyed the economy meant she was exceptionally vulnerable to a challenge from someone like Sanders in the Democratic primary or Trump in the general election.

Clinton refused to accept the electorates desire for a new economic direction in a country where the majority of wealth recovery since the recession had gone to the top. People wanted a change, but Clinton wouldnt or couldnt give it to them.

In a fiercely anti-establishment year for both parties, it was risky for the Democrats to put up a quintessential insider like Clinton up against the demagogue Trump, Lauria writes.

Voters felt Clinton was neither as real nor as honest as Trump. They believed she was part of the elite, and nothing she had done in the years leading up to the election disproved their view of the candidate.

Her insistence on giving speeches to the banking institutions that had destroyed the economy only years later for fees in the hundreds of thousands was not a good look. Especially not for someone considering another run at the White House.

And the existence of the private email server she had as secretary of state was a perfect example of Clintons arrogance and disdain for playing by the rules. Using the server was a blatant violation of protocol, but Clinton didnt care.

The server, described by Clinton ally Neera Tanden as fucking insane, would be a constant theme on the campaign trail and an easy attack line from Trump (Sanders did nothing with the information during the primary, instead providing cover as the scandal grew. At a debate in October 2015, he told the crowd that he was sick of hearing about Clintons damn emails).

Beyond simply exposing the candidate as careless with sensitive intelligence, the server revealed Clinton for a career Washington insider, unwilling to play by the same rules as the rest of the country.

Lauria hammers this point home by referring to the easily exploitable cellphone hacks exposed by the Snowden leaks.

If Clinton knew about that crack in the countrys cybersecurity armor, Lauria wonders, how could she have thought using a private server in her home was a good idea? And if she hadnt been a member of the ruling elite, is there any doubt she would have faced grave legal consequences for her actions?

Of course not and thats the point. After all, no substantial punishment was given to General David Petraeus when he leaked classified information to his lover-biographer. Clinton was secure in the knowledge that her behavior would have no legal ramifications.

But there were political ramifications for Clinton. When Clintons documents were released by Wikileaks during October and November of 2016, the nation found itself staring into the insular world of a candidate representing the political and financial elite.

The existence of the server alongside the unrelated Podesta email leaks turned her damn emails into a maelstrom of corruption and scandal that the candidate would not be able to get out from under. Clinton found herself on the defensive where she would remain for the majority of the campaign.

Lauria could have used the data he collected to great effect by providing some perspective how specifically the information leaks damaged the candidate.

In the end, however, Lauria isnt able or willing to tie all the information together to make a cogent and compelling argument of the how behind the loss. He doesnt draw the reader into the kind of campaign intrigue that Shattered, the recent gossipy tell-all from the trail, was able to deliver.

Instead, Lauria wants us to interpret the speeches and comments he compiles as the explanation for Clintons loss, full stop. Clintons candidacy and campaign ultimately collapsed, Lauria argues, because the personality at the center of it was so obviously disingenuous and corrupt.

Clintons own words in this book portray an economic elitist and a foreign policy hawk divorced from the serious concerns of ordinary Americans, Lauria writes.

But how that elitism translated into her electoral downfall is never fully explained. It simply is.

Clintons elitism played a role, and not an insubstantial role, in turning voters off her campaign. But by not connecting that elitism to the many other factors that helped determine the outcome of the election, How I Lost fails to live up to the promise of its title.

The fact that Trump was able to defeat Clinton handily in November surely speaks to a widespread dissatisfaction with the politics of the center. In 2016, voters wanted something different than the same old, same old of Washington. The defeat of Clintons campaign threw this dissatisfaction into harsh relief. This, at least, is one lesson we can take from How I Lost.

Originally posted here:
Clinton's Slow-Motion Strikeout - Jacobin magazine