Want to know why you can't ship wine to your state?

This chart from the American Association of Wine Economists, based on data from The Campaign Finance Institute, is revealing:

It’s interesting that the California figures are so high, since regulation there is relatively light. Note the New York, Florida and Illinois, which have cracked down on shipments from out of state, are near the top.

It seems to mirror population size generally, along with a few states with SEC membership thrown in at the top. Agree that California and Texas are quite high.

The figures for Illinois and Georgia are also very high relative to their populations (12.7 million and 10.5 million, respectively, versus Florida (21.3 million) and New York (19.5 million).

FYI, here are the top 10 states by estimated population last year, for comparison.

The one that’s out of place is Oregon.

The amounts appear to represent the industry as a whole, so I suspect that much of the California and Oregon spending is from producers trying to avoid regulation that would be a burden to their production and promoting regulation that protects them from competition.

The vast majority of Georgia’s spending comes from wholesalers trying to preserve their monopoly positions and to crush any threats to a strict three tier system. Tennessee is almost certainly mostly protectionist as well, but with more retailer involvement based on the pending Supreme Court case.

Good observation! (are you INTJ?)

Entj

Yes, that makes sense. The money spent by the industry in wine producing states is probably directed very differently than it is elsewhere. And these figures would encompass the liquor lobby, as well as wine wholesalers and wineries.

What surprises me is that these numbers aren’t higher. For a huge industry $1mm to get favorable treatment in states with such high pop (Michigan, Ohio, Mass) is a bargain. Tennessee & Georgia are shockingly pricey, relatively. Our politicians are both corrupt and cheap dates!

That’s because most politicians are cheap. The graft is entirely disproportionate to the value of the legislation. Granholm only got something like $50K and that was enough to make her take the case to the US Supreme Court. She got something less than that from A. Taubman when he got out of prison and for that signed legislation prohibiting purchase of shopping centers owned by Michigan-based entities. The second had implications in the billions, the first not so much.