Maryland Bill to allow free trade for wine fails

[James Roscoe]

The bill that would have allowed Marylanders the right to have wine shipped to their homes has failed in committee in the Maryland House of Delegates. This was a big win for the distributors and their well-healed lobbyist Bruce Bereano (who has done a stint in the big house). One delegate took the time to write back to me with her reasons for voting against the bill. I cannot believe her logic or lack thereof. I print her response in full here:

Dear James,

Thank you for your correspondence. Let me explain why House Bill 1260 has failed to pass.

First, the Baltimore City Liquor Board or any other local board in the State would not have jurisdiction over, or the ability to revoke the license of, out-of-state retailers or wineries. We impose significant consequences upon in-State retailers who sell to minors, but would not have a similar ability to impose these same sanctions upon out of state retailers who ship wine to minors in Maryland. If we cannot closely control the activities of these shippers and discipline them in the same way we do in-State retailers, then it’s my view that we shouldn’t give them the same privileges.

Second, couriers that deliver wine across state lines cannot be properly regulated by the State. A recent Supreme Court decision made clear that whatever policies and procedures we put in place in Maryland to ensure that wine is not delivered to minors cannot be enforced, because they are pre-empted by federal law.

Finally, for wine connoisseurs who seek certain wines that are not currently carried by stores, there is already a way to do that. The wine can be shipped to a local retailer directly from the winery by obtaining a $10 permit from the Comptroller’s Office. While this does not deliver the product to your doorstep, it still provides access to the wine at minimal inconvenience. And, most importantly, it does not open another means for minors to access alcohol.

I am hoping that we can work out a mechanism to handle these shipments better and in the future we can more fully satisfy your needs.


Delegate Carolyn Krysiak
Room 314 Lowe Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-841-3303

As you can see, the lobbyist did his job and the people of Maryland are being ill-served by delegates who cannot think for themselves.

What a pity.

I think there must come a time for public dialogue on this topic: it must be shown that if such logic is in fact true - that of access by minors needing to be controlled - then it should follow that in jurisdictions where wine is available online there are already epidemics of under-age alcoholism precisely traceable to ordering wine online. Total nonsense, of course, but I think it's high time that it be shown to be just that.

Problem is, will most of the populace even care? And that, sadly, seems to bring us right back to square one.

Finally, for wine connoisseurs who seek certain wines that are not currently carried by stores, there is already a way to do that. The wine can be shipped to a local retailer directly from the winery by obtaining a $10 permit from the Comptroller’s Office. While this does not deliver the product to your doorstep, it still provides access to the wine at minimal inconvenience. And, most importantly, it does not open another means for minors to access alcohol.



Delegate Carolyn Krysiak
Room 314 Lowe Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-841-3303

I must admit to being too lazy to try this since I have an alternative shipping option located in DC. Anyone try this? Does it work? From the response, I am not sure I understand who has to get the permit and what it covers. I hope that it is the winery and it is a one-time permit to serve multiple customers otherwise what winery would bother to process a permit for each individual customer thus making it essentially a dead issue.

And if the old laws still apply be careful about transporting wine from DC to Maryland in your car. When I lived there in the 70's I was told that law enforcement could confiscate your car if you were caught transporting more than the allowed number of bottles of wine into Maryland. I shopped at some DC liquor stores but only bought a few bottles at a time for this reason.

And if the old laws still apply be careful about transporting wine from DC to Maryland in your car. When I lived there in the 70's I was told that law enforcement could confiscate your car if you were caught transporting more than the allowed number of bottles of wine into Maryland. I shopped at some DC liquor stores but only bought a few bottles at a time for this reason.

I guess if they thought someone was transporting large amounts for business purposes it'd be one thing, but the disturbing thing about the current interjurisdictional totalitarianism on wine movements - both in the USA and Canada - is that wine continues to be tought of as some kind of criminal substance. This viewpoint needs to be changed at all levels of the public consicousness so that wine is properly viewed as food at the very least, if not a culinary artform. The paranoia just has to end sometime - we're in the 21st century already. My 2¢.

Agree.

And if the old laws still apply be careful about transporting wine from DC to Maryland in your car. When I lived there in the 70's I was told that law enforcement could confiscate your car if you were caught transporting more than the allowed number of bottles of wine into Maryland. I shopped at some DC liquor stores but only bought a few bottles at a time for this reason.

The law is still on the books. I don't recall it being enforced in the 12 years I have lived here.

Thanks for the update, James. The outcome sucks, just as you predicted, but hopefully, the legislation will be resurrected in the next session and, if necessary, again and again. Maybe in that time, it will be possible to build some pressure to counteract the powers that be.

It shouldn't be hard to convince legislators that children and teens aren't going to be ordering wine to be delivered to their homes. I think legislators are using that as a blatant excuse to do the industry lobbyists' bidding. They are kowtowing to the special interests instead of acting in the consumers'/voters' interest.

It shouldn't be hard to convince legislators that children and teens aren't going to be ordering wine to be delivered to their homes. I think legislators are using that as a blatant excuse to do the industry lobbyists' bidding. They are kowtowing to the special interests instead of acting in the consumers'/voters' interest.

Very true, and reasonable / informed people know that. But I think that the dialogue should have the effect of embarrassing their rationale right out of the water, so to speak, and spark a rational debate about what good the current restrictions actually have. We all know that the only good they serve is that of the distributor's balance sheets.

[James Roscoe]

You think it's just one delegate? Oh, no! Here is the same insipid response from another lackluster delegate who whouldn't know her a## from a hole in the ground!
STATEMENT OF MARY ANN LOVE
REGARDING HOUSE BILL 1260 ENTITLED
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES – DIRECT WINE SHIPPER’S LICENSE

March 12, 2008

Thank you for taking your time to contact me over the last few weeks regarding House Bill 1260 which would have allowed wineries and retailers to ship wine directly to consumers. I did not support this bill and there are three reasons why I voted against this measure.

First, the local liquor boards in the State of Maryland and in particular the Anne Arundel County Liquor Board in the County I represent would not have jurisdiction over, or the ability to revoke the license of, out-of-state retailers or wineries. We impose significant consequences upon in-State retailers who sell to minors, but would not have a similar ability to impose these same sanctions upon out of state retailers who ship wine to minors in Maryland. If we cannot closely control the activities of these shippers and discipline them in the same way we do in-State retailers, then it’s my view that we shouldn’t give them the same privileges.

Second, couriers that deliver wine across state lines cannot be properly regulated by the State. A recent Supreme Court decision made clear that whatever policies and procedures we put in place in Maryland to ensure that wine is not delivered to minors cannot be enforced, because they are pre-empted by federal law.

Finally, for wine connoisseurs who seek certain wines that are not currently carried by stores, there is a way to do that. May I suggest that you go to the Comptroller of Maryland’s web page as follows: http://www.marylandtaxes.com. Go to Compnet and once there proceed to MATT Regulatory Division and on to Alcohol and Tobacco Tax. As you will note in paragraph two under Alcohol and Tobacco Tax it states that “consumers trying to obtain hard-to-find wines and other alcohol products can contact Alcohol and Tobacco Tax at 410-260-7327 to learn about legal distribution alternatives.” While this does not deliver the product to your doorstep, it still provides access to the wine at minimal inconvenience. And, most importantly, it does not open another means for minors to access alcohol

Wow! PLAGIARISM!

Their letters are identical. Which means they were written by someone out of Bereano's shop or the bastards he represents. Not even a pretense of it coming from the legislator's office.

You should send both letters to the news media -- might be a nice juicy little story here.

[James Roscoe]

Wow! PLAGIARISM!

Their letters are identical. Which means they were written by someone out of Bereano's shop or the bastards he represents. Not even a pretense of it coming from the legislator's office.

You should send both letters to the news media -- might be a nice juicy little story here.

I suspect this is standard operating procedure. What a bunch of mindless morons we have in Annapolis.

I suspect this is standard operating procedure.

I'm not especially familiar with the workings of Annapolis, but it certainly shouldn't be. My first job out of college was working for a member of Congress as a legislative correspondent -- i.e., responding to constituent letters. Something like this -- plugging in entire paragraphs written by a lobbyist verbatim -- would have been strictly verboten. Now, that was Congress, where members have more staff, and it was 29 years ago, but I don't think a practice like this should be treated as "business as usual."

I do have an idea, though, which I will send to you via email.

There are a couple of other responses posted on the Squires board in the Maryland thread. One is exactly the same while the other is completely different.

I just don't see how the fact that many of these responses are the same/similar is an issue. As long as the response is the view of the signee does it matter who wrote it? I am sure that if the vote had turned out the other there would have been a draft letter to be used to send out to those that wrote in against it.

It's an issue because the legislators are quoting the industry lobbyist verbatim and not really thinking through their own positions on the issue. They are not looking out for their voters/constituents but only for the special interest represented by the lobbyist (i.e., three-tier liquor system.) There is almost no real chance that children and teenagers (minors) would be ordering wine deliveries from out-of-state so that is a false justification for rejecting the bill. The bill probably wouldn't even cut into local liquor/wine store business by much because people will still opt for the convenience of picking up wine locally and saving shipping costs most of the time. I can now legally order from wineries in California or Oregon, etc. but probably buy seven or eight times more wine at in-state wine shops than I order to be delivered from out-of-state.

It's an issue because the legislators are quoting the industry lobbyist verbatim and not really thinking through their own positions on the issue. They are not looking out for their voters/constituents but only for the special interest represented by the lobbyist (i.e., three-tier liquor system.) There is almost no real chance that children and teenagers (minors) would be ordering wine deliveries from out-of-state so that is a false justification for rejecting the bill. The bill probably wouldn't even cut into local liquor/wine store business by much because people will still opt for the convenience of picking up wine locally and saving shipping costs most of the time. I can now legally order from wineries in California or Oregon, etc. but probably buy seven or eight times more wine at in-state wine shops than I order to be delivered from out-of-state.

Unfortunately, we will never know if the words used represent a throught through position on the issue. Because the words were feed to them does not automatically imply that they do not believe them. While it may seem absurd to us, the opposite is a real political problem. Just imagine what happens if they allow direct shipping and a single 15 year old gets drunk, takes the parents car and gets into a wreak. Investigation shows that the kid was drunk off of wine he purchased and had shipped direct. Major backlash and it only has to happen once for all the legislators that passed the bill to be put on the defensive. Some may even loose re-election. One can not look out for their constituents if one is not re-elected.

Disclaimer: I don't support defeat of the bill. I have just spent too much time dealing with politicians and I unfoturnately understand a little too much about how many of them think.

There are a couple of other responses posted on the Squires board in the Maryland thread. One is exactly the same while the other is completely different.

I just don't see how the fact that many of these responses are the same/similar is an issue. As long as the response is the view of the signee does it matter who wrote it? I am sure that if the vote had turned out the other there would have been a draft letter to be used to send out to those that wrote in against it.

Brian,

The fact that legislators blithely send off a lobbyist's communication says to me that they not only haven't their own position on the matter, they likely are paid something to have no position.

It's an issue because the legislators are quoting the industry lobbyist verbatim and not really thinking through their own positions on the issue. They are not looking out for their voters/constituents but only for the special interest represented by the lobbyist (i.e., three-tier liquor system.) There is almost no real chance that children and teenagers (minors) would be ordering wine deliveries from out-of-state so that is a false justification for rejecting the bill. The bill probably wouldn't even cut into local liquor/wine store business by much because people will still opt for the convenience of picking up wine locally and saving shipping costs most of the time. I can now legally order from wineries in California or Oregon, etc. but probably buy seven or eight times more wine at in-state wine shops than I order to be delivered from out-of-state.

Unfortunately, we will never know if the words used represent a throught through position on the issue. Because the words were feed to them does not automatically imply that they do not believe them. While it may seem absurd to us, the opposite is a real political problem. Just imagine what happens if they allow direct shipping and a single 15 year old gets drunk, takes the parents car and gets into a wreak. Investigation shows that the kid was drunk off of wine he purchased and had shipped direct. Major backlash and it only has to happen once for all the legislators that passed the bill to be put on the defensive. Some may even loose re-election. One can not look out for their constituents if one is not re-elected.

Disclaimer: I don't support defeat of the bill. I have just spent too much time dealing with politicians and I unfoturnately understand a little too much about how many of them think.

Brian,

Puleeeze!

How many 15 year-olds do you think will order wine by the case off the Internet and wait a week for it to be shipped for that party behind the schoolyard Friday night, plus pay the price for the wine and the service?

Wouldn't it be much easier, quicker and less costly for them to walk (or drive) to the nearest bricks and mortar and buy a pint of crap? Which is what they likely do now.

Maybe shipping is the wrong issue. Maybe we need to promote closing down those bricks and mortar retail shops!

How many 15 year-olds do you think will order wine by the case off the Internet and wait a week for it to be shipped for that party behind the schoolyard Friday night, plus pay the price for the wine and the service?

Wouldn't it be much easier, quicker and less costly for them to walk (or drive) to the nearest bricks and mortar and buy a pint of crap? Which is what they likely do now.

Like I said before, I don't support defeat of the bill. I live in Maryland. I am just making the point that one needs to understand the way most politicians think and that the words used in the form letter may actually represent their beliefs. The primary goal of any politician is to get re-elected. That requires two things, money and avoiding bad press. I was pointing out the potential bad press outcome of this bill. It only takes one. The money aspect is most likely obvious since there are serious business interest involved.

The real problem is that there are in reality very few people that care. If there was a fear of not being re-elected for not supporting the bill then you would see a different outcome. Since that risk does not exist, one needs to look at the risk of supporting the bill. From a politicians point of view, that is where the risk resides.

I never thought it would pass for that reason. Maryland will be one of the last states to change.

I am just making the point that one needs to understand the way most politicians think and that the words used in the form letter may actually represent their beliefs.

Look, I understand that. For a typical politician, 90 to 99 percent of the words that come out of their mouths (whether on the printed page or in speeches) were written by someone else. (If that wasn't the case, I'd have to find another line of work!) The point is, as you say, whether it reflects their real views. But -- and admittedly, this is a gray area, where journalistic standards do not apply -- I do think there has to be at least be some pretense of originality. And while it's one thing for a phrase or line to be used by multiple politicians, for different officials to use entire paragraphs copied word-for-word crosses the line IMHO. Moreover, if these lines were actually written by lobbyists or special interest people, rather than their own staff members, I think that takes it further over the line. It may be common practice and I may be naive, but it still strikes me that there may be the potential to publicly embarrass these folks.

...., but it still strikes me that there may be the potential to publicly embarrass these folks.

Which shows that you obviously understand the way they think. If you can do it then you have just added political risk that was likely not considered when they sent out the responses. Bravo.

FWIW, I contacted my state senator, Jamie Raskin, the sponsor of the bill, and my sense is that this type of lobbyist-driven plagiarism is not unheard of in Annapolis, so maybe your reactions to this, James and Brian, were more on the mark than mine. Not that it's admirable behavior or anything.

Sen. Raskin did write the following:

I have very much enjoyed learning more about the thriving wine subculture and confronting the awesome and totally unjustified power of the liquor industry in Annapolis. I'm determined to get this done; it may take a few years but would love to have your help and ideas to make it happen.

Anyway, I think this is a fight worth having again and again, if necessary, and despite his being a freshman, Raskin is a very energetic, creative and effective legislator who has already gotten a lot of bills passed. So I don't think this is totally Quixotic.

I have very much enjoyed learning more about the thriving wine subculture and confronting the awesome and totally unjustified power of the liquor industry in Annapolis. I'm determined to get this done; it may take a few years but would love to have your help and ideas to make it happen.

Now I am just kicking a dead horse by this point but even this encouraging response is not so encouraging when you look at the highlighted parts. If the bill's sponsor considers the primary beneficiaries of such action a subculture that is not a good sign. Likewise his acknowledgement of the power of the industry further speaks to the likelihood of success. The awesome power of the liquor industry will not be defeated for the benefit of a subculture.