Government compelled subsidy/speech

So there was this Con Law case

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass.

The basic facts are that the respondents claim that the message which the govt was promoting with "Beef, it's what's for dinner" with the tag being "America's Beef Producers" made this ad a non-governmental speech and that making beef producers pay fees to support this actually hurts them and their own advertising.  The court says this is obviously governmental speech because the ad was paid for by the aforementioned fund which came about via the Beef Promotion and Research Act under the Department of Agriculture.

WHAT?

Not only is it stated in the ad but why is the government promoting beef? Not just American beef but just beef.

Now there was dissent by Souter, Stevens and Kennedy but still.  No one stepped back and went why is this govt speech? I know that the court is not interested in legislative motive but I can not believe that Scalia believed this was an all out govt message. No way.  Anyone seeing the commercial would not have known it was paid for by subsidies by the govt.

Sometimes decisions like this make me want to bang my head against a wall. I am not proof reading this because I have stuff to do so this may be deleted by tomorrow evening if I come back and read and realize it doesn't make any sense.  Just an FYI if anyone actually reads my blog.