Constitution Never Meant to Serve Beer

Last week, the National Beer Wholesalers Association President Craig Purser, who happens to be a former colleague of mine, had an article in The Washington Times, suggesting that the alcohol bill on Capitol Hill (H.R. 1161) serves constitutional principals. Although we haven’t chatted in years, I like Craig. He’s a super-nice guy, and he surely works hard to serve his industry. But this is one issue on which we certainly disagree. I addressed this issue in the Daily Caller earlier this year and in a CEI study. Today, I address it again in The Washington Times:

Wholesale Deception
By Angela Logomasini

Beer wholesalers contend that alcohol legislation they are pushing on Capitol Hill would safeguard state and local rights – but in reality, it is designed to simply serve the wholesalers’ special interests.

Wholesalers crafted the text of the Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act (H.R. 1161, aka, the CARE Act) to appear very similar to language in a 2005 Supreme Court case, Graholm v. Heald, which addressed direct shipping of wine from wineries to consumers and retailers. Wholesalers would like lawmakers to believe that means the bill upholds that legal precedent.

In reality, the CARE Act promises substantial change that could reverse market-based – and consumer-friendly – policy trends produced by Granholm. This case addressed laws in Michigan and New York that applied differential treatment to in-state and out-of-state wineries seeking to ship to state residents, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional …. Read more on the Washington Times website.