I'm not a lawyer, but from what I can see this a a very short bill.
A BILL
To reaffirm state-based alcohol regulation, and for other purposes.
- Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
- This Act may be cited as the `Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act of 2011'.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
- The purpose of this Act is to recognize and reaffirm that alcohol is different from other consumer products and that it should continue to be regulated by the States.
SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR STATE ALCOHOL REGULATION.
- The Act entitled `An Act divesting intoxicating liquors of their interstate character in certain cases', approved March 2, 1913 (27 U.S.C. 122 et seq.), commonly known as the `Webb-Kenyon Act', is amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR STATE ALCOHOL REGULATION.
- `(a) Declaration of Policy- It is the policy of Congress to recognize and reaffirm that alcohol is different from other consumer products and that it should continue to be regulated by the States.
- `(b) Construction of Congressional Silence- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the `Commerce Clause') to the regulation by a State or territory of alcoholic beverages. However, State or territorial regulations may not intentionally or facially discriminate against out-of-State or out-of-territory producers of alcoholic beverages in favor of in-State or in-territory producers unless the State or territory can demonstrate that the challenged law advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives.'.
SEC. 4. AMENDMENT TO WILSON ACT.
- The Act entitled `An Act to limit the effect of the regulations of commerce between the several States and with foreign countries in certain cases', approved August 8, 1890 (27 U.S.C. 121), commonly known as the `Wilson Act', is amended by striking `to the same extent' and all that follows through `Territory,'.
The Wilson Act, that it is purposed to amend is also very short.
All fermented, distilled, or other intoxicating liquors or liquids transported into any State or Territory or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage therein, shall upon arrival in such State or Territory be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such State or Territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise.
The modified version would then read:
All fermented, distilled, or other intoxicating liquors or liquids transported into any State or Territory or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage therein, shall upon arrival in such State or Territory be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted in the exercise of its police powers, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise.
That seems like such a small change. However, it gives states the right to enact legislation to regulate alcoholic beverages coming from another state differently than they regulate alcohol produced in the state. While I am a huge proponent of state's rights, I cannot see where treating alcohol produced in a state differently from alcohol produced in another state provides any benefit to the public or protection to "the little children." This has nothing to do with regulation of whether or not liquor stores open next to schools or how advertising is done.
What this does, is create an opportunity for Liquor wholesalers to take the fight to the states. They can then go to the state legislators and ask that out-of-state beers, wines, liquors be prohibited from direct shipping, or asked to pay special fees, or to do whatever other devious plan they can think of. In these cases, the political donations will be big, and since such rules won't be hurting the in-state producers, none of the in-state industry folks will be in opposition to legislation since it isn't their ox that's getting gored. Without organized, well-funded opposition, there will be little to stop such rules, and the preferences of the consumer be damned. This is why it is the beer and wine wholesalers who are promoting this.
As it stands now, direct shipment of wine is a tiny portion of the business, but just like Blockbuster learned from NetFlix, that tiny portion can grow fast. These folks would like to see it stopped before it begins to grow. With the Internet and great websites like Snooth and others, it is really easy not to depend on the recommendations from a local retailer, not to be limited to only what is carried by the distributor and sold to local retailers. If you see something you want to try, and can order it directly from the producer, you may find that becomes your preferred way of purchasing and then what?
Dr. Peter Venkman: ...a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Actually, I don't think direct sales will grow to be a large chunk of the market. Most people buy their stuff by dropping in to the local retailer and picking up something that they like or that catches their eye. Most folks are not going to be ordering meads or wines on the internet. However, for a small winery or meadery, that cannot easily get distributors to pick up their product due to small demand or low margins, the direct sales may be the difference between viability and out-of-business. Having direct sales is not going to put the wholesalers out of business, but clearly, they don't want to risk losing any market-share.
That's my two cents worth.
