standing that state law determination as a technical matter the state bar was a governmental agency it still did not qualify for the government speech dot's friend to the extent that the auction it's because of the specialized characteristics of funding by a discrete group serving the interests of that discrete group controlled by that discrete group those sorts of things actually beautician to the bar for example all of those factors and color were dispositive of the question whether or not that should be treated as government speech for purposes of first amendment we think our control this case michigan pork producers and those would be funding by discrete group nine x reviews into the government's government does not claim this as its own it does not say brought here by the department of agriculture nexis with the funding with the discrete group of funders i next yet there was still exposed next to a private party as well which disqualified that kind of speech from any lenient treatment so that's why i break them out a few separate things satisfy national government would not necessarily save the speech and finally fine let me also point out by the way that it's not just an ad that says it believes this money goes to do a lot more speech for example it goes full so take positions on a radiation and things like that the primary contractor that claims to be speaking for everyone because it gets and makes it harder to accomplish that market stinks and that my clients would otherwise make when they market their own goods without weeks we sell a better variety of beef it's not fake outbrain it's not subject matter how any of that stuff and they recognize that generic advertising make my name it fast to collect from the department of justice on behalf of the u s department of agriculture richard rhodes year is with me for the intervenors and we'll be taking five minutes of the argument time and i'd like to begin by particular message a message that is formulated with u s d a has put from the beginning by a board that is appointed by the secretary of agriculture subject to removal by the secretary of agriculture  the control is not merely negative record is very clear that in addition to participating in the in the generation of the program from the beginning and having input from the first meeting to the last m exports to japan and when i do that that's what the board does so the notion that this is something like censorship of private speech is wrong  they don't take their orders from the government if they're if their c e o was or c opposed or just you know people who work in the industry they come in and they stood on a board and they may hear what the agenda is over a private corporation it is a board who will conjunction with u s d a decide what has to run what promotions to do and how to do them and that's what the government wants they want t the participants still required to come to their own conclusion and in other words they can just take a directive from the some government official well certainly that they will exercise as agree of independent judgment remember when they're subject to removal to every decision they make every contract they enter into every proposal that they adopt every advertisement of a proposal ultimately is approved every advertis bridge and then we're going to use that money to hang american flags over the overpasses and it would be no question that asks the government who is speaking when it's the american fla yes i think that's an important political check on a program and i think one of the key reasons why government speech is subject to different rules that is people are obviously going to disagree when the government speaks and the solution is political ones we have a you had teachers who were putting them outside their classrooms materials some material prepared by third parties and this court in fact found expressly rejected the notion that the actually you should know how the public would perceive the speaker is important instead rather than focusing outward members of the public might perceive the speech to be it's more helpful to focus on who is actually responsible for the speech to lose the government government but i'm just having trouble viewing these beef industry executives just sort of dancing to the tune the government calls it seems they exercise an independent own discretion within the test certain bounds in this court sense just because the principle is that roaming the halls and calling everything off every day doesn't mean that it isn't the principal or the school board that has the ultimate control in any any situation you're going to have a degree of discretion if you hire a contractor u s army hires a contractor to devise advertisements there's certainly going to be a degree of discretion on what t appoint citizens commissions will appoint at our committees to advise to government or to be involved in certain aspects of government and they may be leaders of industry well they are doing that charm on their very clear on this back u s d a officials are the ones who are calling the shots so to speak they are at every meeting and they you know that part i'm having trouble with maybe i'm operating too much of an something and they set an agenda when policy issues are decided i expect the industry executives are making up their mind about what they think is best for their industry i don't think  secretary of agriculture is on the board and then disagrees with what the government official says that's caused them immediately well certainly as if the secretary is unhappy with the way the program is working and that colette number one your honor trust wardog leave you ask about where there's any case where government speech was found to exist where the government didn't fund it if that means there was a targeted tax such as the specimen the answer is yes the bomb tech case involving r j reynolds with a targeted tax on tobacco companies the judge in the eastern district found that that was government speech we've cited that and that is certainly relevant on many aspects of the matter before this court i would also note that the trial court frankly a long time ago found that the fact was government columbia for avocadoes the avocado board with that targeted assessment it's government speech so certainly there are many judges many cases where on these facts are very similar facts government speech has been found so if i understood your question correctly focusing on have they found government speech where it's a targeted tax the answer is yes also i would point out southward well i was just going to the supreme court it's dicta it's not the holding but i think it's very important dicta because in that case that involved in activity by the university of wisconsin which is needs to mount how the state of wisconsin and the university didn't adopt this speech as its own so therefore it wasn't analyze just government speech but the supreme court decision said if the university had had said it was its own speech it would have been appropriate to analyze tuition which is analogous i would submit to a targeted tax on beef and as providing for the support of government speech in the wisconsin southworth case that's dicta that wasn't the hol but i think it's very relevant here i would also point out that the quote with regard to your honor's question on united food united foods did not decide government speech glickman didn't decide government speech the supreme court has never decided government speech therefore if any and i think what the government speech i'm sorry the teller they held that the state bar of california was not a government entity but they described the government speech concept there but they found that the state bar was more analogous to a union and it didn't operate like a government here your honour's this message this probate message was decided by congress congress said the government should promote beef and the reference has been made to beef industry executives serving on the beef board their cattle producers they pay the check cost they're not dissimilar from mr and mrs charter that are the petitioners here so it's not like you have the executives on one side and the small has ever gone there and it's practical matter i don't think she ever would cause normally mean things like they don't have the meeting or the come to the meetings they're they're not so over or not doing their homework  agree this mean that somebody disagrees with them but the key point here your honor it's very crucial the secretary doesn't need to exercise that power to get her way and this isn't just an academic debate  reference was to the beef producers as a group they tend to not like chicken ok so they didn't and that was anti chicken when you have rattlesnake or lizard if you generally think taste like chicken  as an everest witness he indicated that the u s d a really stops ideas early on in the process from ever seeing the light of day because the people serving on the state beef council know that it won't pass muster that gentleman and in the excerpts of record two fourteen johnny i forget his last name his name is johnny he says that's what they tell us that to be counsel you come up with a program or something like this and they'll say well it probably won't fly you say what i want to fly and they say because it might it might at headquarters but u s d a will not go for it so they have the last  that's from an adverse witness that's from a challenge so this message created by congress and facilitated by the beach board in the operating committee process is ultimately controlled control a over the billboard and that's the proper analogy finally i would say the references to santa fe is also important to consider here where the prayer was deemed to be government prayer and therefore essentially government speech in the in the santa fe school case just like and leave braun with amtrak being essentially the government where you had very similar factors going on and i know my time i'm way past my time but thank you very much this court should be appalled by the depth of the big lie of the government is willing to help in trying to save this program the notion that they could remove someone who didn't agree with his opinion is a complete fabrication and saxe that this board itself describes itself as a business run by a board of directors and accountable to the producers six twenty nine of them because to quote from the board itself if what the government is saying now is true what the before to say to the public and to its members and to congress since this program was adopted has been my answer is yes it would have violated the person yes absolutely just as if the government walked into a union and said union you have to negotiate and say we want to promote of course rights that w right even though the union exist in some parts of the government course it would still like unions rights in the union would be very justified in making a claim for the board here too would be would be justified i want to think the notion that the board i generate speech what you can never do is force them to run the program the example that the collective that if we ordered you to run this that about mad cow you didn't you're fired a complete fabrication not in the record could happen that it would be the and our open group of course points out that other aspects of santa fe dealing with staff works make it perfectly clear that even if that were political speech and not religious speech it would have been unconstitutional and that example again where the students get the vote on whether to have a political speech and whether to have them a republic today same thing here what you have of the even history voting what the have speech at all and then voting what type of speech to have within that and even though the government reserves the right to check that stuff that once again that people into stating what he wants but that shows you the problem censorship it shows you the problem of government involvement in private speech is that of course the government uses that involvement to twist people's arms that's a problem that's point