LMA Sending 146,000 Signatures
To USDA On Checkoff Referendum

KANSAS CITY, MO. — The Livestock Marketing Association is submitting to the U.S. Department of Agriculture signatures from approximately 146,000 beef producers seeking a vote on whether to continue the mandatory beef checkoff.

"This fulfills the promise LMA and its members made to producers 18 months ago — that we would work to let them decide whether they want to keep funding this program," said LMA President Jim Schaben, Jr. "Given this overwhelming interest in a referendum, we are also urging USDA to call for it without delay."

Schaben said the signatures are being submitted in two portions. The first portion includes signatures from 125,788 producers obtained from Sept. 1, 1998 to August 31, 1999. This 12-month period was selected after USDA advised LMA in May that the association could submit the required signatures "for any 12 consecutive month period it chooses."

The additional 20,000-plus signatures were signed outside of this designated period, but are being submitted "to further demonstrate the extraordinary support" in the country for a checkoff referendum," Schaben said.

The signatures are on individual cards and multi-name petitions. They were gathered at LMA member markets, at farm shows and other events, and by numerous producers soliciting other producers. To expedite the validation process, LMA is not only submitting the signatures, but also providing those signatures on a computerized database.

USDA said approximately 108,000 signatures are necessary to call for a referendum. This "threshold for a vote has been far exceeded," Schaben said. "And given this enormous outpouring of support for a referendum, it should not be delayed for a period of years after producers have signed their petitions." LMA is also strongly urging USDA to keep the identity of the petition signers confidential. A federal district court judge recently upheld the right of confidentiality for petitioners for a pork checkoff referendum, and "the same confidentiality should be accorded to signers" of LMA's petitions, Schaben said.

"I am very proud of our members, our hard-working staff, and of course, the hundreds of thousands of producers who signed these petitions," Schaben said. "These producers simply want the most basic of rights: to decide whether to keep spending their own money."

The petition process has not been without its detractors, principally the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Cattlemen's Beef Board. The latter collects the checkoff and the former is the principal contractor for disseminating funds.

NCBA and CBB lobbied cattlemen heavily against participating in the referendum, and have deluged ag media with news releases and articles promoting the checkoff. That tactic further inflamed referendum supporters, who objected to checkoff funding being used to promote the checkoff itself rather than beef.

With the referendum now complete, opponents are still lobbing criticism. The Texas Cattle Feeders Association newsletter quotes NCBA president George Swan as criticizing referendum promoters for "deceptive and misleading tactics."

"During the petition-gathering process," Swan says, "USDA three times directed LMA to stop using deceptive and misleading tactics to get people to sign petitions.

"We expect USDA to verify the names of people who may or may not be cattle producers and who may or may not have known what they were signing," Swan continued. "USDA must do this to protect the integrity of the process and the overwhelming majority of cattlemen who support the checkoff."