that coerced government speech is akin to economic regulation and not entitled to First Amendment protection. See Glickman, 521 U.S. at 476, 117 S.Ct. 2130. Instead, the United Foods Court propounded a broad constitutional protection against compelled contributions for commercial speech. See United Foods, 533 U.S. at 414, 121 S.Ct. 2334. Indeed, applying United Foods, one court has held that the issue of government speech, which generally involves the state’s power to control the content of its speech, is fundamentally different from the “government’s authority to compel [plaintiffs] to support speech with which they personally disagree; such compulsion is a form of ‘government interference with private speech.’ ” Livestock Marketing Ass. v. USDA, 335 F.3d 711, 720 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>) (certiorari granted in part by) Veneman v.
holding that limits on contributions to political committees which advocate the views and candidacies of a number of candidates induce no greater first amendment scrutiny than limits on contributions to an individual candidate recognizing retaliation involving promotion as adverse employment actions under the first amendment holding compelled contributions in beef promotion violated first amendment holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech holding that the countys permit fee violated the first amendment