CARE Enough to Screw Over Wine Consumers
Last month Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) introduced the latest version of the Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (CARE) Act, which is aimed at bolstering the ability of state governments to obstruct interstate commerce in alcoholic beverages. The CARE Act is a response to the 2005 Supreme Court ruling that said states may not prohibit out-of-state wineries from shipping directly to consumers if they allow in-state wineries to do so. Chaffetz's bill (PDF) says such policies should be upheld if "the challenged law advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives."
This language is less sweeping than last year's version of the bill, which said a discriminatory law "shall be accorded a strong presumption of validity" that can be overcome only if the party challenging it "demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the law has no effect on the promotion of temperance, the establishment or maintenance of orderly alcoholic beverage markets, the collection of alcoholic beverage taxes, the structure of the state alcoholic beverage distribution system, or the restriction of access to alcoholic beverages by those under the legal drinking age." Since "the structure of the state alcoholic beverage system" (as well as regulators' idea of "orderly alcoholic beverage markets") includes legally privileged wholesalers who resist any attempt to let consumers avoid them, this standard would have given an automatic pass to almost any limit on direct shipments. It is less clear what "a legitimate local purpose" is, although it may amount to much the same thing. In a New York Times op-ed piece published today, wine blogger David White cites the CARE Act as an example of alcohol wholesalers' political influence:
Together, the nation's two largest wholesalers—Southern Wine & Spirits and Republic National Distributing Company—have revenues of about $13 billion.
A chunk of that cash is funneled to lawmakers. The National Beer Wholesalers Association maintains the nation's third-largest political action committee, and since 2000, it has donated $15.4 million to candidates for federal office — about $5 million more than the A.F.L.-C.I.O donated in that time.
In the past decade, it spent $5.6 million on lobbying Congress; the Wine and Spirit Wholesalers of America spent $9.3 million.
The expenditures make sense. The wholesaling industry's survival depends on maintaining today's highly regulated system. It is estimated that because of wholesalers, consumers pay 18 percent to 25 percent more at retail than they otherwise would.
More on the CARE Act here and here. More on the anti-competitive efforts of alcohol wholesalers here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“Read my lips – don’t tax beer!”
$hit like this is so frustrating that it makes me need a drink.
Prohibition continues to fuck us to this day. If we ever stop Prohibition II, I wonder how long it will be until it’s not fucking us as well.
There was no money or power for the government in Prohibition I, that’s why it failed. There’s BILLIONS in Prohibition II, so it will never, ever go away.
Prohibition I just made stuff illegal. Full stop. With Prohibition II, they can control healthcare. And when you control a nation’s healthcare…
I work in a liquor store wine department. Trust me, there are plenty of standards for ANY winery.
Sarcasm Detector.
Don’t browse Hit & Run without it.
// Fully charged and recently calibrated at that.
I caught it… that was more for the edification of the Regulation Warriors like Tony.
Then please accept my apologies.
BTW, any suggestions on a inexpensive, fruity, slightly dry red?
The SO and I have mostly non-overlapping tastes in wine, so I struggle to chose a bottle that will make us both happy.
Beaujolais. Shouldn’t cost you more than $15, even for a real spendy one.
Or, look into the “Big House” series of wines from Bonnie Doon. Big House Red might fit the bill. Whole Paycheck ought to carry them in 3L boxes for $19; roughly $5 a bottle.
Just so we’re clear: restrictions on the light bulb market equals encroaching state interference on free enterprise. Restrictions on wine market equals valid state interference that will appeal to his voter base.
Jason Chaffetz Is Mormon I would guess that the LDS church came up with the wording in the bill as they do with most alcohol bills in Utah
I’m seriously curious about the effect of Congress to use legislation to change the interpretation of the Constitution by SCOTUS. I’m not familiar with the previous case, so maybe SCOTUS wasn’t apply the amendment repealing Prohibition.
But do these Congressclowns really think they can, say, overturn Brown v. Board of Education by passing a law that says school segregation “shall be accorded a strong presumption of validity” that can be overcome only if the party challenging it “demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the law has no effect on the promotion of education, the establishment or maintenance of orderly schools, or the restriction of access to edcuational opportunities”?
What does the Wine Commonsewer have to write about this?