SB-616: Maryland Direct Shippers Bill - Update from Annapolis: No resolution today!
March 7, 2008 by michael
If you ever thought about spending 6 hours in a senate hearing without eating anything before hand, let me tell you…DON’T! Kim and I just sat through what was actually an interesting afternoon before the Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee. We heard about some interesting bills before the senate, including a “definition of beer” bill that I’ll review at some other time. For now, we’re sitting at a wine bar on Main St. in downtown Annapolis, enjoying a glass of wine, waiting for food, and eavesdropping on a few of the opponents arguments of the bill sitting two tables over!
For now, here’s what I gathered from today’s hearing:
The bill comes from direct support of Senator Raskin of the 20th district. His opening remarks were right on, citing Adam Smith’s 1776 book Wealth of Nations that describes the importance of the free market and denounces monopolies and state control. He also sited Madison’s Federalist #10, which guards against factions. His points were well received and it seemed the senate committee enjoyed his references.
His main points were as follows:
- Consumers deserve this free market as Maryland retailers cannot provide access to all the wines in the US alone.
- Maryland wineries are restricted in that they can not even ship to Maryland citizens, let alone other states.
- The current policy is bad for the state- it doesn’t allow the state to recoup tax dollars that it deserves. He spent a good amount of time focusing on this aspect of the bill, which it appeared the senate committee warmed up to.
He closed by anticipating the questions of the proponents, stating that kids don’t want to order expensive wine, FedEx and the shippers have policies to prevent underage access to wine, and that in the other 35 states where direct shipping is legal, there hasn’t been one instance where a lawsuit came up following a minor ordering wine.
Further, he argued that tax evasion would not be an issue (as it has not been in other states) and that the three tier system of the wine market would remain in tact, as it is in all 35 other states.
He was followed by the testimony of a few consumers, a retailer, a representative from Maryland wineries and a few other folks who all reiterated his points in many other words and using different examples.
There was the gentleman who had invoices in hand of illegally shipped wine saying it happens anyways and another who mentioned that the legislature isn’t thought with much respect by the constituents if the bill doesn’t pass. I don’t think these arguments did much for the proponents of the bill. All in all, the testimony was strong.
It was followed by three panels of opponents ranging from wholesalers, shop owners, and liquor board members arguing that we need to think of the children. All bias aside, this was their main argument and it was pretty weak in my opinion. They did mention the importance of maintaining the three-tier system and that this bill would circumvent that system. This seemed to be Madam Chairlady’s major concern, as well as a few other members.
A highlight of the opponents argument was the gentleman who was on the Baltimore liquor board and expressed concern that college kids in Towson would be excited to hear about this bill as they could begin acquiring wine underage. He even noted that “he could just see UPS trucks lining up on campuses as kids order their wine underage.” COME ON! What college kid drinks high end wine, wants to wait 3-5 days for shipments, and doesn’t already have access to friends or fake IDs providing them beer and other liquors. There was also the Senator who, during the hearing, went on Ebay and sited over 1000 auctions online for fine wine…asking the opponents how long they would continue fighting inevitable, that is, the proliferation of ECommerce to fine wine.
In the end, they aren’t voting today on SB-616, but Senator Raskin remained hopeful afterwards. He told a group of us to remain hopeful and keep on our friends and neighbors to continue to send letters to our representatives.
I’ll write more later- time to enjoy my glass of Riesling and crab cake sandwich!
These things take time don’t they. However, I hope it resolved positively, for the wine industry that it.
Well, it looks like it’s going to be another year at least until this is resolved…until then, we in Maryland can only up that those in support of the bill (ALL OF US!) keep on our representatives!
Must be nice to be out in California
I just received this note from Delegate Carolyn Krysiak explaining why HB1260 did not pass.
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
[...] the same wholesale and retail supporters and lobbyists (the bad guys!) as those opposed to the MD-616 direct shipping bill. They argued that FMB’s are in fact beer since they are made in a process similar to beer and [...]
Anyone ever located one of these supposed retailers who will order you whatever wine you want? I’ve tried it but no such luck. If they exist, I’d love to know who they are.
Hi rr:
Apparently this is a big joke. Gary over at Vinotrip.Com did some poking around and found out that the only wineries that can ship direct are those without distributors. Further, they have to have an individual permit for our state. Of the thousands of wineries in the US, only 3 can currently do this.
It’s a bunch of BS that was thrown in the mix to confuse politicians (which doesn’t seem very hard to do). In the end, we consumers are still screwed.
We’re going to have to take a strong grass-roots approach to this next time around to make sure our representatives know the facts.
This will NEVER pass because the state still wants their share of the money out of it. It also will NEVER pass because the distributors still want their money out of it. Then you still have the Comptroller’s Office who wants their share of the money out of it. What do you have left - nothing.
This will never change until the representatives we have in office die and we get fresh meat into the circle. I would say it’s gonna take another 20 years and by then, I’ll be moved down to Florida where it’s LEGAL to ship inter/intra-state sipping my wine by the bay. Good luck Maryland consumers.
HI Jo,
I wouldn’t say “never” but it’s going to be a while. Once someone figures out a new system that would keep the pockets full of the wholesalers, then we might see some change!