No one from MI surprises me since they sponsored last time around and seems like many of the reps are cosponsors this time around.
Adam, don’t be surprised to see someone from Maryland, it’s only a matter of time until they receive a large enough contribution.
I still really don’t see how this is even legal. Can’t people from wineinstitute.org work with one or more lawyers to make a case on a Federal level to show that this is illegal racketeering?
The fact that in the USA today, people can be charged with felonies because they bought wine in one state then moved it to another makes me sick. It’s completely unamerican and unconstitutional.
Unamerican and absurd? Yes. Unconstitutional? That’s dubious. States can do pretty much whatever they want with alcohol because the text of the 21st Amendment: “The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.” The default is no trade in alcohol, but various States have chosen to legalize possession, consumption, and trade to one extent or another, and while SCOTUS has smacked down individual state shipping laws, that was on the basis of their unequal application. I’m fairly sure that a State could ban alcohol deliveries entirely if they didn’t distinguish between wineries and retailers that happen to be in or out of the State.
Federal law is opened up by the commerce clause, whose plain meaning gives Congress the power to regulate the transfer of goods across State lines and I don’t know of any historical controversies that call that into question. Furthermore, Gonzalez v. Raich, a poorly decided case (federal marijuana laws on possession upheld via the commerce clause) appears to mean that the current SCOTUS is perfectly happy to use a loosely interpreted commerce clause to uphold federal laws they agree with; theoretically the US could ban moonshine, a result that I would consider unconstitutional, but as I think Holmes once said, “The Supreme Court is not the court of last resort because it is always right, it is always right because it is the court of last resort.” And of course, any given state could re-enact prohibition within its own borders, at least as far as the federal Constitution is concerned.
Representatives that peddle sound-bite nonsense to appease the teetotalers stink, but the problem is the Puritanical streak in the society. If these chicken&^% members of Congress weren’t so afraid of being accused of corrupting the youth, as if alcohol use was really that dangerous, the corrupt wholesalers would get blown off more often. Campaign contributions + demagoguery combine to create a toxic environment, but if the audience of American citizens didn’t validate the fearmongering, it would lose its power. I’m not sure we are literate or selfless enough to do that anymore, alas. The answer is clearly more science and math education.
I wrote to my Rep. (Rush Holt, NJ) some time ago about this. Just got his reply (with an apology for lateness, not included here):
Introduced by Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), H.R. 1161 is a bipartisan bill that would, among other things, affirm that it is the policy of Congress that each state or territory shall continue to have the primary authority to regulate alcoholic beverages, which has been the case since the repeal of Prohibition. The bill would not allow states to “intentionally or facially discriminate” against out-of-state producers in favor of in-state producers, unless the states can demonstrate a legitimate local purpose that cannot be resolved otherwise.
I have heard from constituents who are concerned that this bill would impede the direct sale of wine or craft beer. It seems clear to me that this bill would not prevent out-of-state shipments of wine or beer to consumers, nor would it prevent producers or sellers from filing suit against a state, if they think an alcohol regulatory law is unjust. I am a co-sponsor of this bill because I believe it strengthens our traditional state-based alcohol regulatory system while simultaneously protecting the ability of all distillers, brewers, vintners, wholesalers or retailers to engage in legally sanctioned sales of alcoholic beverages. I will continue to follow this issue and welcome your comments and information about the wine, beer, and liquor industries.
Does this make any sense? Is he avoiding the issue? I dont’ have time to look into it now, but if somebody gives me good reason I’ll reply to him.
Peter,
I’m sure it makes sense to him. He’s obviously drank the Kool-Aid that the wholesalers are serving and they made him believe it will not have an impact on out of state shipping from retailers or small wineries. That is false.
States would be able to pass discriminatory laws and no one will have any recourse in the court system.
If you want a whole run down on the facts of what it all means, it’s all spelled out in the link below
http://www.stop1161.org/f-a-q--copy.html
Some more info by Tom Wark
http://fermentation.typepad.com/fermentation/2011/03/index.html
http://www.specialtywineretailers.org/TowardLiquorDomination.pdf
Thanks, Carrie. Too bad this bill doesn’t apply to Kool-Aid, it would be easier to fight 
.
I’ll look into this in a few days…
This is a bit of good news. Chaffetz (the sponsor) is not going to be running for Orin Hatch’s seat in senate. Keeping fingers & toes crossed this is a good sign but it’s hard to think the wholesalers will roll over.
You can read the rest of the article here
http://fermentation.typepad.com/fermentation/2011/08/supporters-of-anti-wine-law-suffer-setback.html
How about legal shipping to all 50-states but you have to use USPS? That would generate a ton of revenue they sorely need these days. Would be tough to be on the record (and obviously on the take by the distributors) to be against the Post Office & its employees, no?
Moving along slowly but still adding CoSponsors. Now at 109
Below are the newest, you would think they have more important things to do
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] - 9/8/2011
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 9/8/2011
Rep Tonko, Paul [NY-21] - 9/8/2011
Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] - 9/8/2011
Rep Schrader, Kurt [OR-5] - 9/9/2011
Five years ago, USPS was going to go into the business of wine shipping. Our mailman was excited about it and kept us up to date as USPS was preparing the necessary steps. Our mailman and his supervisor were pretty excited about it and they were confident they were going to save us 30% on shipping costs.
One day our mailman walked in and informed us the government was not going to be involved in wine shipping. Never did find out what really happened.
Mr. Schrader represents a big part of the Willamette valley. I wonder if he knows how big a mistake he just made. Oops. Bye Bye Kurt.
That’s as bad as having the Reps from CA as co sponsors that are in wine regions. It’s pathetic but I’m sure whatever wholesalers are in his distrist must be lining his pockets. I wonder if the wineries & retailers that this will impact are aware that he has thrown them overboard yet.
He will be aware shortly. There aren’t many if any distributors in his district. But there are many wineries.
Steve and Carrie, I actually live in the district of that ignorameous Mr. Schrader. Can’t remember when we last had a Republican or god forbid the tea party getting hold in our district but this may provide an opening. We all miss Darlene Hooley. Most pundits think he’s vulnerable in the election since he’s 2nd term. Gotta cozy up to big biz to stay in office I guess. We know the wineries are small biz but hopefully very vocal, along with us consumer folks. Mr. Schrader did not respond to my letters sent earlier to Not support this idiotic legislation.
As of today there is one less… Now 108 Co Sponsors .
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 7/28/2011 (withdrawn - 9/12/2011)
Wow. I’d love to know the reason for that.
Nick,
I was unable to find out why but if I do I’ll post it.
Dropped one, added one. Back to 109
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 9/13/2011
Are you in New Mexico?
Add Steve Pearce to the list of Cosponsors.
Clearly the push is on…