Please splain this HR 5034 thing in English, please.

Posted by: Roland Dumas

Please splain this HR 5034 thing in English, please. - 04-19-2010 16:44:58

I just noticed a lot of blogscreed on this piece of legislation that does something - not sure what - to the distribution of wine.

When I try to read the legislation, I feel like an Ambien tablet hit me upside the head, and when I read the blog posts, I think I need a fire extinguisher for my computer screen.

Is there a lawyer in the house?
Posted by: R. Schiffman

Re: Please splain this HR 5034 thing in English, please. - 04-19-2010 21:41:28

It's the brainchild of my local congressman (Jason Chaffetz). A man who made his money in multi-level marketing for herbal supplements. He won his race on his platform that we should round up all the illegal immigrants and place them in internment camps until we can ship them all home. We still have a couple nice locations in the desert used as Japanese internment camps during WWII we could use. So, the current brief thoughts of a Salt Lake Tribune political blog.

"Wine lovers are issuing a call to arms against a bill co-sponsored by Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz. According to Chaffetz, HB5034 is a states' rights bill meant to maintain a status quo:

"I want to keep things the way they are. I want to preserve states' rights to decide the appropriate regulation of alcohol within their borders."

But the blog Vinography says the bill was authored by beer industry lobbyists for their own benefit, not the consumer's. Wine aficionados, for instance, complain that the law will limit where wine can be shipped, making it difficult for them to order their favorites. [Welcome to Utah.]

The bill would make it difficult, Vinography says impossible, to liberalize any state's out-of-state shipping laws because "as long as any state can prove that its laws produce tax revenues or prevent children from buying alcohol, those laws, no matter how discriminatory, anti-competitive, or anti-consumer cannot be overturned . . ."

Under their usual guise of trying to "protect the children" from an "epidemic of alcoholism" the liquor wholesalers lobby has introduced a bill that effectively keeps the alcohol laws of this country an affair to be settled by state legislators and their wholesaler lobbyist friends.

Chaffetz, by the way, has not accepted contributions from liquor lobbyists. But wine writer Tom Johnson at LouisvilleJuice.com predicts:

. . . but count on that to change. I’d bet right now that between today and November’s election, co-sponsorship of this legislation will net each of them something around $25,000. Just watch."

Dispatched from a place just outside reality named Utah County, Utah. It proudly proclaims itself to be the most Republican county in the most Republican State in the Country.
Posted by: Ken Zinns

Re: Please splain this HR 5034 thing in English, please. - 04-19-2010 22:01:58

Not a lawyer, but there's a pretty good explanation on Wine Spectator's site here: An End to Wine Direct Shipping?

You may have already seen Tom Wark's "Fermentation" blog here: Stop H.R. 5034—The Anti-Consumer Wine Bill

Sounds like a pretty nasty piece of legislation that would really hurt a lot of wineries, particularly smaller ones.
Posted by: R. Schiffman

Re: Please splain this HR 5034 thing in English, please. - 04-19-2010 22:54:31

See, you guys thought our stupid liquor laws in Utah couldn't screw you up. There may not have been a "clamor to examine the state-based alcohol regulations" in 49 other States, butever since Granholm it's been a big deal here. So, my little moron of a congressman figures he has to take out the whole country to keep Utah safe. The local paper's political blogger does a follow up to the stuff I posted above.

"Warchol points out that Rep. Chaffetz is on board with a bill to reaffirm that the states control their own alcohol sales. I swear I wrote that story, but I can't find it. I can find some notes from a Chaffetz interview, including this gem:
'As much as I love Costco, I don't think you should be selling Jack Daniels next to the lawn chairs.'"
Posted by: Roland Dumas

Re: Please splain this HR 5034 thing in English, please. - 04-19-2010 23:12:08

is there any chance that this will pass?
Posted by: tomcwark

Re: Please splain this HR 5034 thing in English, please. - 04-19-2010 23:13:25

Basically, this legislation would amend federal alcohol laws (Web Kenyon Act) in such a way that states would be able to pass discriminatory direct shipping laws and not have to defend them if they are in challenged in court.

Another way of putting it is that it would repeal the Granholm v. Heald Supreme Court decision.

In that decision the SCOTUS explained that if there are less discriminatory ways of a state achieving its goals of temperance, tax collection and an orderly market, then the discriminatory law is unconstitutional. This is how the NY and MI laws at issue in the Granholm case got called unconstitutional and violations of the Commerce Clause: They ignored less discriminatory means of meeting their goals.

This legislation would allow states to pass discriminatory direct shipping laws without having to address the issue of whether there are less discriminatory means of achieving their goals of Temperance, Tax, Collection and an orderly market in alcohol distribution.

It's nasty. It's a matter of alcohol wholesalers swinging for the fences in an effort to take complete control of the alcohol market in America.

Tom Wark...
Posted by: Roland Dumas

Re: Please splain this HR 5034 thing in English, please. - 04-20-2010 00:12:21

thanks for the explanation. So, it's the "save our children" motto, again, though we have not a single real case of a minor mail-ordering a nice Sonoma zinfandel on-line, waiting the week for delivery, paying the premium price, and then quaffing to get a weekend buzz, right?

Thusly, it would not reduce the 0% rate of minors ordering wine on-line, but might incidentally benefit some large distributors ....

hmmmmm
Posted by: David Andreozzi

An Email From Mike Officer re: Shipping Laws - 04-22-2010 20:45:23

Dear David,

Generally I prefer not mix politics with wine but there’s something rotten brewing in Congress that I feel compelled to bring to your attention.

Do you value your right to purchase wine directly from wineries and have it shipped to your home or place of work? In what has been described as the most onerous piece of consumer wine legislation since the 18th Amendment (remember Prohibition?), HR 5034, written by the National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA), could effectively take that right away from you. The bill is currently in the House Judiciary committee, chaired by Representative John Conyers of Michigan. Not surprisingly, the NBWA has been one of John Conyers’ top five contributors in the last two election cycles. The NBWA has also contributed heavily to two of the four sponsors of HR 5034, Representatives Howard Coble of North Carolina and Jason Chaffetz of Utah. (The other two sponsors are Representatives Mike Quigley of Illinois and Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts.)

It’s hard to imagine that such an egregious piece of legislation, designed simply to protect the profits of big distributors, could pass but the threat is real. Please, if you enjoy receiving wines directly from wineries, we urge you to contact your Representative and encourage them to oppose HR 5034.

Freethegrapes.org has a convenient pre-written letter/tool to e-mail or fax your Representative. To access it, please click
here . Alternatively, you can click here to look up your Representative to e-mail directly. Finally, if you'd like further details on HR 5034, click here for a recent story by the Wine Spectator.
Best,
Mike Officer
Posted by: JFO

Re: But where's the rub here? - 04-23-2010 12:55:58

Dave,

Some flaws in Mike's letter...

"written by the National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA)"

Organizations can't write laws and submit them to congress. Only legislators can. He names a few that have "sponsored" the law - and sure, I'm sure the NBWA has lobbied for it - but what's the reason that the congressmen he refers to would submit this for a vote?

Even if it's just - we're donating to you, we want you to do this, they still need a "real" reason to submit a bill for discussion/vote.

So what's the rub? Is it the same old red herring about minors ordering alcohol?

J
Posted by: MRO

Re: But where's the rub here? - 04-23-2010 16:13:35

Unbelievable John... Okay, perhaps I should have said "crafted" instead of "written". I'm doing my best to keep wine flowing and you want to pick nits. Whatever.

Mike
Posted by: Roland Dumas

Re: But where's the rub here? - 04-23-2010 16:26:37

It is necessary that facts be absolutely solid and terms correct when circulating a letter or petition. Otherwise, the other side will unravel it and make you look ... um ... disingenuous ...

A critical (nit picky) read of something is helpful.
Posted by: JFO

Re: But where's the rub here? - 04-23-2010 17:28:31

Originally Posted By: MRO
Unbelievable John... Okay, perhaps I should have said "crafted" instead of "written". I'm doing my best to keep wine flowing and you want to pick nits. Whatever.

Mike


Mike,

I wasn't even meaning to be critical, though my point is valid and my question simple. WHY are the legislators doing this? And is there a new issue here?

J
Posted by: JFO

Re: Here's some more info on this - 04-23-2010 17:40:41

With a few other links. I haven't checked them all.

http://www.drvino.com/2010/04/20/hr-5034-wine-direct-shipping/

The irony of all this, is that here in NJ, where NO ONE used to ship (ask Dave Dyroff what I used to go through to get Snowden) now almost every winery I approach is willing to ship to me.

Dry Creek - Sequoia Grove - Snowden - Ottimino - Ghost Block

I know this is scary for small winery owners who rely predominantly on direct sales to make the most profit, but this proposed piece of legislation sounds like it's hung up in committee; where the politicians can do nothing with it, and all the while, say they are doing something.

And the wheels go round and round.......
Posted by: Roland Dumas

Re: But where's the rub here? - 04-23-2010 17:50:58

Originally Posted By: JFO
WHY are the legislators doing this? And is there a new issue here?

J


I think it's safe to assume that a random legislator is motivated by:
- Money
- Pandering to a vocal constituency
- Principle

with "principle" being a relatively rare exception.

The "follow the money" dictum would likely reveal the real drivers, and the pandering to the "save our children" would be the cover spin.
Posted by: JFO

Re: But where's the rub here? - 04-23-2010 17:54:14

Originally Posted By: Roland Dumas
Originally Posted By: JFO
WHY are the legislators doing this? And is there a new issue here?

J


I think it's safe to assume that a random legislator is motivated by:
- Money
- Pandering to a vocal constituency
- Principle

with "principle" being a relatively rare exception.

The "follow the money" dictum would likely reveal the real drivers, and the pandering to the "save our children" would be the cover spin.


I guess you're right. But you forgot the one that comes before money.

- Getting re-elected!
Posted by: Roland Dumas

Re: But where's the rub here? - 04-23-2010 17:59:32

money = getting re-elected.

Imagine the conversation that goes like:
Big Distributor: Yo congressperson! How about I give you a real fat campaign contribution and also give you the perfect platform to appeal to the 'save our children' constituency?
Posted by: Dave Cuneo

Re: But where's the rub here? - 04-24-2010 18:59:30

MO: "I'm doing my best to keep wine flowing and you want to pick nits."

Appreciate your efforts, Mike, but remember the legislators are doing their best to keep the Benjamins flowing so they can get re-elected. 90% of legislation is designed to restrict potential competition for entrenched interests/businesses. What's astonishing to me is the brazenness of their case: saving the children from underage drinking temptation through the mail. Absolutely preposterous, but it goes to show how deep and total the corruption is in the system. The Congress people are like vampires that are panicked at the thought that their blood supply may be cut off, thus are willing to go to ridiculous (and criminal at times), lengths to ensure it is not interrupted. They are bought lock stock and barrel.

FWIW, the wine distributors in this country have done a lot of consolidating in the past few years. Their assertion that their presence in the distribution system "encourages competition" is ludicrous - it kills competition. Just my 2 cents.dc.
Posted by: MRO

Re: But where's the rub here? - 05-14-2010 18:18:12

By the way John... From a recent AP article regarding HR 5034:

Paul Pisano, general counsel for the National Beer Wholesalers Association, conceded his group drafted the original measure before Congress and its members would benefit by strengthening long-standing liquor laws.

So hate to burst your bubble but yes, lobbying groups do write bills to be handed off to legislators. In fact, I have spoken with several lobbyist who have said it's common for them to employ the services of attorneys to draft legislation they desire. Do you think legislators actually have a grasp on these kind of industry-specific issues? No chance.

By the way, the bill has gained 81 more sponsors since the original 4 in mid-March. If you like less choice and potentially higher prices when it comes to wine, do nothing. Otherwise, your representatives need to hear from you.
Posted by: BEB

Care for CARE? (H.R. 5034) - 05-29-2010 12:07:31

Jon Bonné has an excellent article discussing H.R. 5034 in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle That he bothered to give voice to the wholesaler's side of things lends an air of balance to the piece. Yes, Bonné has a clear bias as to the measure, but he takes a long view by acknowledging Granholm is neither the last word nor the solution.
Posted by: John Tomasso

Re: Care for CARE? (H.R. 5034) - 05-29-2010 12:54:04

My biggest problem is that my employer is an Anheuser Busch distributor, and so I find myself on the opposite side of the company for which I work.

However, flawed legislation is flawed legislation, and I am free to have an opinion. Right? RIGHT?
Posted by: Ken Zinns

Re: Care for CARE? (H.R. 5034) - 05-29-2010 14:39:59

Originally Posted By: John Tomasso
I am free to have an opinion. Right? RIGHT?

As Joe Strummer said many years ago, "You have the right to free speech (as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it)."
"Know Your Rights"
Posted by: Alan Rath

Re: Care for CARE? (H.R. 5034) - 05-29-2010 18:10:14

If you want to cut to the chase, here's the money quote:
Quote:
"Craig Wolf, president and CEO of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, the distributors' main trade group, suggested to me that his real priority is to make sure direct shipping - a step toward deregulation, as wholesalers see it - remains the task of state legislators alone.

"You just want the courts out of it?" I ask him.

"Yes. Exactly."

Ask yourself why that is? It's an easy answer: so Craig Wolf and his Mafia-like organization can put state legislators in their back pockets and buy state laws and regulations that protect their already protected businesses even more - without fear of that legislation being challenged and turned over by Federal and Supreme Courts.

I met Mr. Wolf at a legislative hearing in Sacramento a couple years ago, on this exact topic - lobbying for laws to restrict shipping wines into California from out of state. Believe me, he has zero interest in the end consumer, our freedoms, our choices, only in protecting the interests of the wholesalers.
Posted by: BEB

Re: Care for CARE? (H.R. 5034) - 05-29-2010 18:24:19

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

You work for a food distributor, food, damnit, food. Don't tell me you work for a beer wholesaler!!
Posted by: BEB

Re: Care for CARE? (H.R. 5034) - 05-29-2010 18:25:53

Originally Posted By: Alan Rath
If you want to cut to the chase, here's the money quote:
Quote:
"Craig Wolf, president and CEO of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, the distributors' main trade group, suggested to me that his real priority is to make sure direct shipping - a step toward deregulation, as wholesalers see it - remains the task of state legislators alone.

"You just want the courts out of it?" I ask him.

"Yes. Exactly."

Ask yourself why that is? It's an easy answer: so Craig Wolf and his Mafia-like organization can put state legislators in their back pockets and buy state laws and regulations that protect their already protected businesses even more - without fear of that legislation being challenged and turned over by Federal and Supreme Courts.
Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding!!
Posted by: Steve_Felten

Re: Care for CARE? (H.R. 5034) - 06-09-2010 14:10:40

If this passes, better develop a taste for plonk.
Posted by: blil

Re: Care for CARE? (H.R. 5034) - 06-09-2010 14:54:49

I know how you feel. I work for a retailer. Every time we order wine from a wholesaler we're lining the pockets of those who are attempting to do away with our rights to support smaller wineries via direct shipping.

I feel all dirty now; like I need to take a shower.
Posted by: BEB

TTB opposed to H.R. 5034? - 07-12-2010 18:16:06

A snippet from Open Market suggests that the TTB opposes the current draft of HR 5034. Hearings on it may be delayed.
Posted by: TomHill

Interesting.... - 07-12-2010 18:25:14

Thanks for the link, Boyce. Interesting article.
Interesting in that the liquor lobby/big distributors can easily buy off the Congressmen, but are not successful in buying off the regulators. That is, unless you're in the oil biz. Then you provide trips & whores and the regulators w/ grant you anything you want.
Also interesting that the TTB would take a stand on this over constitutional issues. Seems outside their purview.
Course...this is all legal wrangling and lawyers....a subject way over the head of a simple little ol' country computational physicist. All that jurisprudence and whearas and habeas corpus stuff makes quantuum physics child's play. :-)
Tom
Posted by: Roland Dumas

Re: Interesting.... - 07-12-2010 18:43:47

Originally Posted By: TomHill

Course...this is all legal wrangling and lawyers....a subject way over the head of a simple little ol' country computational physicist. All that jurisprudence and whearas and habeas corpus stuff makes quantuum physics child's play. :-)
Tom


It's because the $/vote function is an irrational value.
Posted by: BEB

the Empire Strikes Back - 07-21-2010 00:32:38

oHHHH, NOW it makes perfect sense!
Posted by: Bruce L.

LA Times article - 08-06-2010 17:02:24

Here's an article in today's LA Times about the legislation (which it does not identify by name or number):

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wine-internet-20100806,0,6434175,full.story

Bruce
Posted by: BEB

Re: Care for CARE? (H.R. 5034) - 08-16-2010 18:36:26

A winery owner and current president of the Va. Wineries Assoc. has a good piece on this topic in the Richmond Times Dispatch today.
Posted by: Curt Wood

Re: Care for CARE? (H.R. 5034) - 09-16-2010 15:17:19

I understand that this bill has been rewritten. Not sure but it seems to affect wine retailers shipping from out of state as opposed to wineries (called producers) shipping from state to state. Did I get this right or is there some other analysis of what is going on here?
Posted by: R. Schiffman

Re: Interesting twist in Utah - 09-30-2010 14:47:00

I suspect this is happening all over, the politicians just may be smart enough not to admit to having the lobbyist write their testimony.

A story about our AG testifying before congress on 5034.

"Washington • Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday in support of a measure that would cede control of liquor sales to states, a move that comes as some groups are using federal courts to strike down state laws regulating alcohol.

After the hearing, Shurtleff acknowledged that the general counsel for the National Beer Wholesalers Association, Paul Pisano, drafted his testimony — with Shurtleff’s input.

“He gave me some information,” Shurtleff said in a telephone interview as he was boarding a plane Wednesday evening. “I was communicating with him, and he drafted it for me because I was coming straight here [to Washington, D.C.]”

Shurtleff later explained that Pisano arranged for his trip to the nation’s capital and he knew Pisano could print it out for him. An electronic copy of Shurtleff’s testimony submitted to the Judiciary Committee indicates that the author of the Word document was “ppisano.”

Pisano didn’t return a late call seeking comment."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50381759-76/shurtleff-testimony-state-beer.html.csp
Posted by: BEB

Re: Care for CARE? (H.R. 5034) - 11-16-2010 15:40:05

Does the pending change in Congress change the prospects for this bill? Pelosi supposedly had vowed to bury it. Will the Republicans see this as a pro-business piece or possibly a way to limit federal court intervention and breathe new life into it?