Chicagoist: Blago Signs Wine Distribution Bill

guest

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:52:28 -0600

Indeed, based on her last answer she's turning into a great politician.

Chuck Sudo

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:34:45 -0600

4: Even though Illinois is considered a state that offers what's known as "full reciprocity" with regards to intrastate wine commerce, as it currently stands, wineries out-of-state are allowed to sell only two cases directly to a customer in Illinois. As long as they stay withing those guidelines, they have no restrictions. HB 429 raises that limit to twelve cases, which is equal to the current amount that Illinois vineyards can sell to residents in the state. It also brings Illinois in "compliance" with the Supreme Court's majority opinion in the 2005 Granholm v. Heald case. Note my quotations around the word "compliance." If you look solely at the disparity of case sales between in-state and out-of-state wineries, then Illinois is not in "compliance." Even though that case disparity exists, out-of-state wineries can still reach Illinois customers. If you go by the majority opinion in Granholm, Illinois is in compliance with intrastate commerce law. So what this law effectively does, #4, is force those Type 2 wineries Fred Koehler is defending both in and out of Illinois to find wholesale distribution if they want to reach Illinois consumers. It's an ingenuous move on the part of the wholesale lobby, which was the main muscle behind this bill. They've managed to effectively guarantee an increase in business by locking out the out-of-state retailers and wine clubs, without violating those Federal guidelines. And since most of the wineries in Illinois produce such small yields that locking them up into franchise rights would be considered by distributors as a waste of resources, the permit system works out perfectly for wineries like Baxter's. This is all assuming, of course, that the legislation holds up in court if the SWRA and allied organizations decide to litigate. What Brenda Logan never answered in my phone call was why the wineries couldn't find a compromise on a tiered permit system that accommodates the larger wineries and out-of-state retailers. If that happened, most everyone involved would have been happy with HB 429.

matty

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:26:07 -0600

"Any person manufacturing, distributing, or selling 2 alcoholic liquor who knowingly ships or transports or causes 3 the shipping or transportation of any alcoholic liquor from a 4 point outside this State to a person in this State who does not 5 hold a manufacturer's, distributor's, importing distributor's, 6 or non-resident dealer's license issued by the Liquor Control 7 Commission, other than a shipment of sacramental wine to a bona 8 fide religious organization, a shipment authorized by Section 9 6-29, subparagraph (17) of Section 3-12, or any other shipment 10 authorized by this Act, is in violation of this Act." I thought you weren't allowed to interfere with interstate commerce as protected by the constitution. Anyway, fuck this law, I'll buy whatever I want. FedEx don't check shit.

guest

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:57:39 -0600

The big losers here are the consumers. I've vacationed in Napa Valley and while there, signed up for a couple of wine clubs, from both large and small wineries. I always enjoy getting the wine shipped to directly to me because it's (A) convenient and (B) a nice reminder of our vacation. If I wanted to buy Illinois wine I would, either from a retailer or directly from the winery. I don't and I won't. Forcing me to give up my wine club memberships won't make me buy more wine from Illinois vinyards. How Brenda Logan thinks this bill benefits consumers is beyond me. She obviously only cares about her own interests. Baxter's Vineyards won't be on my shopping list any time soon.

guest

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:23:46 -0600

What this does is fuck the consumers as it eliminates all but local retailers for upscale wine. Ie, if I want a specific bottle of wine, I now have to use Sam's or Binnys or John Hart or whatever. Don't you think they don't know it. I thought that according to the Constitution, the right to regulate commerce was reserved to the federal government. Didn't the U.S. Supreme Court recently hear cases about this from NY and MI?

guest

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:31:41 -0600

They should leave it that way! I was talking to a wine distributor who said it's such a difficult business because not only are you dealing with each country, county and city's almost impenetrable red tape, it's also extremely corrupt. I recognize everything in the world can't be pared down to idealistic simplicities, but I just don't understand laws like this. I feel like if I want to order a few cases of wine from Australia or Canada I should have that right.

Chuck Sudo

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:25:40 -0600

That's sort of how it is currently.

guest

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:10:17 -0600

Here is a radical idea: Why not let people buy and sell whatever they want to whomever they want in whatever quantity they want?