1. The Court states that Glickman is not controlling precedent for this case. How does the Court distinguish Glickman from this case? What was different about the regulatory schemes that were involved in these two cases?
2. How could the government rewrite the regulatory scheme involving mushroom growers to make this forced subsidy constitutional?

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
Four Terms ago, in Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., 521 U.S. 457 (1997), the Court rejected a First Amendment challenge to the constitutionality of a series of agricultural marketing orders that, as part of a larger regulatory marketing scheme, required producers of certain California tree fruit to pay assessments for product advertising. In this case a federal statute mandates assessments on handlers of fresh mushrooms to fund advertising for the product. * * *