news-record.com

NEWS

Coble bill to fortify alcohol restrictions upsets wine lovers

Article
Comments (11)

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

(Updated 3:00 am)

By Mark Binker
Staff Writer

Texas or Michigan might not be the first states that leap to mind when you say fine wine, but Joshua Sweeney of Hillsborough likes checking out the offerings from smaller, off-the-beaten-path vintners.

Sweeney, who blogs about wines and works for a business that sells wine-related accessories, is among those wine lovers up in arms over HR 5034, recently introduced in the U.S. House and co-sponsored by Rep. Howard Coble, a Greensboro Republican.

The measure would boost state alcohol control laws, including some that restrict the direct shipping of wine and have faced court challenges in recent years. Those suits have stemmed from a federal court decision that says state laws can’t discriminate between in-state wine and beer makers and out-of-state makers.

Sweeney fears that would mean an end to sampling wines from smaller growers, like his recent favorite, a pinot noir made by the Pheasant Ridge Winery in Lubbock, Texas. “I would have no way of getting that unless I drove to Texas,” he said.

Most alcohol in the U.S. is sold through a three-tiered system. Wine and beer makers sell to distributors, who then sell to retail outlets and restaurants. Put in place after the end of Prohibition, the system was designed to ensure tax collections and head off excesses caused by beverage makers selling directly to the public.

“That three-legged stool has served us well,” Coble said Monday. “This is in no way directed to frustrate the wine people.”

But wine lovers fear various state laws that outlaw direct shipping from wineries to a person’s home, unless that person lives in state. Smaller bottlers often only sell to customers at their wineries or through the mail, often because they don’t produce enough bottles to get the attention of wholesalers.

If direct shipping is outlawed, wines from smaller makers would become much harder to come by, Sweeney and others like him fear.

“I just don’t think it’s going to be a threat at all,” Coble said. Among the legislation’s stated purposes is to protect the three-tiered system.

“I’m not one who is normally promoting additional regulations,” Coble said. But alcohol, because of its potential for abuse, is a different kind of product and one that the states should be left to regulate, he said. He also pointed to economic reasons to support the three-tiered approach.

“If the distribution phase of the three-legged stool is eliminated, it would be a jobs killer in North Carolina,” Coble said.

Because it’s an election year, it’s worth noting that Coble has gotten campaign contributions from both the political action committees affiliated with the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America and the National Beer Wholesalers, as well as local supporters in the business.

Votes

Local members of the House were in agreement on most all the business before the chamber last week.

In the Senate, Sen. Kay Hagan of Greensboro, a Democrat, and Sen. Richard Burr, a Winston-Salem Republican, voted on opposite sides of four different nominations by President Barack Obama. In each case, Hagan voted for and Burr voted against.

Among the nominees in that group was Christopher Schroeder, a Duke University law professor who now leads the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy.

Noted

* Rep. Virginia Foxx took home a “Golden Mouse Award” from the Congressional Management Foundation. The award went to 21 members of the U.S. House for having user-friendly website designs.

* Hagan introduced the Payday Lending Limitation Act of 2010, which would require the Federal Reserve Board to license payday lenders. It would also restrict the number of payday loans a single individual could be issued. North Carolina outlawed payday lending in 2006, but it is still allowed in some states.

* A bill co-sponsored by Burr that blocks Congress’ automatic pay increase in 2011 passed the Senate last week on a voice vote. The measure heads off a $1,600 raise for members of Congress, who make $174,000 a year. The House passed much the same bill earlier this year.

Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker@news-record.com

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Interested

April 27, 2010 - 6:51 am EDT

Let me see if I have the basics of this article straight. A system that has been in place for decades needs tweeking in a manner that will protect sales for the middle men that financially support the campaign of the legislator who introduced the bill and also opens the state to litigation on bases that other states have lost on in federal courts already.

So all will get to pay for this well-considered piece of legislation, imbibers and non-imbibers alike; the first with a potentially higher priced product (if it can be found at all) and the latter with their taxes used to defend a lawsuit in state courts that has already been settled in federal courts.

Bilbo

April 27, 2010 - 7:01 am EDT

...looks like ol' Howard's been hitting the sauce again.....

uncwgm

April 27, 2010 - 8:20 am EDT

Yes, I think you explained it pretty well.

nemo0037

April 27, 2010 - 9:00 am EDT

"But alcohol, because of its potential for abuse, is a different kind of product and one that the states should be left to regulate, he [Coble] said."

That's one of the most ridiculous, patently absurd things he's said... this year at least. What alcoholic gets his alcohol via out of state shipping? When you can far more easily wander down to the local store for a quart of malt liquor... get real!

He must think the people of his district are pathetic simpletons, to put forward that sort of excuse for trying to support part of his re-election money stream.

casper

April 27, 2010 - 9:18 am EDT

Hey Howard, your districts unemployment rate stands at 12 percent!! Do you think there might be more pressing issues to attend to? Do you think your time would be better served working on the ridiculous deficts, the Outrageous Entitlement spending, the obvious trashing of our constitution, and unemployment? This is a perfect example of why I voted against you in this election, you have become clueless.

wineaccguy

April 27, 2010 - 9:37 am EDT

Unfortunately, the representatives who support this bill have blinded themselves to the potential consequences in the name of scoring a quick political point and pandering to their donors. They say that it won't affect anything. Why pass the bill if it won't have an effect? It's a classic "trust me" scenario where they ask us to believe that a potentially damaging law won't be used against us.

The reasoning behind it is horrendously flawed as well. You want to prevent abuses? Show me a minor who spends 40 bucks to order a bottle of wine from out-of-state so that he can throw a party 5 days later. As nemo0037 says, show me an alcoholic who would tie his fix to out-of-state wine shipping when he can get a fifth of bourbon for less than just the cost of shipping a wine bottle, not to mention the cost of the wine itself. It makes my blood boil to have this dreck thrust upon us in the name of "protecting" us. Conservatives who vote for this should be ashamed for violating small government principles AND infringing upon individual and small business rights in one fell swoop. Liberals who vote for this should be ashamed for aiding corporate greed and helping to destroy a very important part of our country's culture. It's nonsensical from any angle unless you're a distributor or someone receiving their donations.

An awful lot of wine enthusiasts such as myself will be stuck with only what we can get at Lowe's Foods and Harris Teeter, not to mention the fact that it will become exponentially difficult for us wine bloggers to reach out to wineries for new fare and for smaller, upstart wineries to grow their brand. Want to stagnate the entire US wine industry's innovation when we were just beginning to see gains in our international reputation? That's where we're headed. This is nothing more than a power grab.
- Joshua Sweeney

wineaccguy

April 27, 2010 - 9:55 am EDT

If you want to help take action against HR 5034, the wine blogger community has created a Facebook page with resources to help you contact your reps and learn more about the potential consequences of this resolution.
http://www.facebook.com/STOPHR5034

Interested

April 27, 2010 - 10:00 am EDT

As both you and nemo point out, this legislation will have little to no impact on the alcoholic and, despite Mr. Coble's assertion, is most likely to frustrate only the wine afficionado. Regulating alcohol for of fear of its abuse will not protect the alcoholic from himself. An alcoholic will consume any number of substances when standard fare is not available - cold medications, mouthwash, even rubbing alcohol. Instead of punishing those without an alcohol problem, perhaps Mr. Coble should look at avenues that will help those with an alcohol problem. That is, of course, if that is his true motivation in promoting this legislation.

newkid

April 27, 2010 - 10:40 am EDT

Behind every story like this stands a lobbyist.

MyWineWords

April 27, 2010 - 11:39 am EDT

My comment if for Rep. Howard Coble.

If you are "not one who is normally promoting additional regulations”, as you said, then don't. You state that alcohol, because of its potential for abuse, is a different kind of product and one that the states should be left to regulate? It seems to me that if a man wants to make a wine he should be able to sell it to whomever he'd like, as long as he follows the already strict guidelines set in place. He is, after all, a member of the private sector - not the public sector.

If you want to regulate wine distribution in the public sector, by my guest. However, as we are talking about privately owned businesses, I don't see why the government has any business making the call. People need to be accountable for their own actions - not the government. This country doesn't needs it's hand held by Big Brother. Let go and let people walk on their own - or they'll never learn how.

Should this bill pass and set the bar for the direction of future legislation, I will stock up on wine now, as another bout of Prohibition will soon certainly follow.