Maryland Senator Joan Carter Conway and Delegate Dereck E. Davis think the interests of liquor distributors trump those of Maryland consumers, who overwhelmingly support the direct wine shipping bill these two are blocking.
It’s hard to know the impact of Friday’s four hours of testimony in the Maryland General Assembly – with proponents out numbering opponents at least two to one – but according to media accounts and even the grass-roots organizers of movement to let Marylanders legally buy wine over the Internet, 2010 will not be our vintage.
Having sat through the excruciatingly long hearing on the House Bill 716 before the Maryland House of Delegates’ Economic Matters Committee, it’s hard to fathom how the measure to repeal the prohibition-era ban on direct-shipping of wine – co-sponsored by 106 of the 188 state legislators – could still be dead in the water. But despite what veterans of the years-long movement to end the ban said was the most “engaged” legislators have ever been in the debate, even the most optimistic proponents say they are still rolling a rock up a hill.
We won’t bore you with a verbatim account of our testimony, which we foreshadowed Friday in Mr Budget Wine Examiner Goes to Annapolis, except to say that we were near the tail end of more than 40 witnesses called and politely asked by the bill’s chief sponsor to not repeat points made earlier. So we tossed our prepared remarks and simply tried to summarize our reaction to some of the testimony from the opposition (which principally comes from the liquor distributors, aka the Maryland State Licensed Beverage Association, and the legislators who appear to be in their pockets).
To summarize more succinctly than we did in our allotted three minutes, what we learned from the opposition is that:
Convenience for Maryland consumers is bad. The opposition repeatedly derided proponents of direct wine shipping as wanting to change the system (heaven forbid!) for the convenience of Marylanders who want wine delivered to their doorstep. (How dare they want that! Who cares if they want it because they only have access to 15 percent of the wine selection available nationwide in their local stores controlled by a few powerful – and lazy – distributors.)
Marylanders should be happy with their 15 percent! We should be satisfied with the meager selection we have (Ever wonder why most of the value wines highlighted on this page are available only and for the best prices in Virginia and the District?), because thousands of jobs would be lost at Maryland distributors and retailers, if they were forced to compete with out-of-state retailers and wineries. It doesn’t matter that those out-of-state wines would carry hefty shipping costs of $1, $2, $3 per bottle on average. Marylanders are uncommonly slothful, the argument implicitly goes, and will gladly pay higher prices for home delivery. (The reality is, of course, the most Maryland wine drinkers would use direct wine deliveries – like consumers in the other 37 states that allow them – to get wines that they can’t get locally, particularly those from small boutique vineyards that don’t produce the volume to gain retail distribution here. There would be minimal if any impact on Maryland's retail wine trade.)
Children will be illegally buying wine on the Internet, because Federal Express and UPS can’t be trusted to require an adult signature for wine delivery. This is the worst of the red herring arguments; it’s a red herring made of straw! This one’s just too ludicrous to waste any more time on. But it’s related to the other big objection. …
Out-of-state wineries and retailers can’t be trusted to pay Maryland taxes. Unscrupulous out-of-state wine clubs and other evil gift-basket sellers are already shipping wine illegally into Maryland, and not requiring the proper proof-of-age for delivery, according to one Delegate who held up a mysteriously unmarked package he said contained wine shipped from Connecticut (uh, how exactly did he know that from the unopened, not properly labeled box, anyway?). That was supposed to be the smoking-gun evidence that we can’t legalize wine shipping, because bad people already break the law. Later in the hearing, the bill’s principal sponsor, Delegate Carolyn J. Krysiak, noted the obvious, that just because people break the law against murder doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a law against murder.
For those interested in learning more, there are lots of interesting accounts of the proceedings, among them the Baltimore Sun’s depressingly headlined story, "Wine shipping bill is all bottled up" and blog posts on Dave McIntyre’s WineLine and Dr. Vino, both detailing the abrupt resignation of the head of Marylanders for Better Beer & Wine Laws, in an effort to remove his hardball lobbying tactics as a potential roadblock in the bill’s progress. And for a real blow-by-blow on the hearing and a good sense of the frustration generated by the slimy underbelly of Maryland politics, check out this entry on his Fermentation wine blog by Tom Wark, executive director of the Specialty Wine Retailers’ Association, who also testified on Friday.
Cheers, anyway!
And please re-tweet this post if you like it.And PLEASE click on the Subscribe link at the top of the page and enter an email address to receive email alerts when new value wines are highlighted here.
Comments
Thank you for taking up the battle cry for those of us that have been stymied by these ridiculous rules for years. I often go to my father's house outside Philadelphia and we may enjoy a bottle of something together only to discover when I return home to Gaithersburg, that I cannot purchase this near me.
At the holidays, I have often wanted to send gift baskets to friends from an online catalog company which creates beautiful baskets of foods and wine...but most of my friends live here in Maryland leaving me annoyed again at the absurdity of our rules.
We should be happy with 15%; would any of those elected officials have been happy with 15% of the vote that put them in office?
Children buying wine? Really?Let's be serious-there are far more dangerous substances available to children without them trying to buy wine on the internet...and they know it too.
More to say but no more room!
Another example of worthless politicians protecting a few special interest groups rather than helping the people they are supposed to serve. I wish I could say that it is surprising.
Shafer Smith
Maryland has always favored the political status quo and financial favored programs (read: County controlled liquor stores) over doing what is in the best interest of their constituents. Unfortunately, that's why I buy all my wine in DC or Virgina where I get access to a larger selection at better prices. Heaven forbid you visit a winery on vacation out-of-state, sample a great wine, and try to ship it back to your home in Maryland.
Good luck and keep up the fight.
Garretson is right, at the end of the day this is about consumer choice. Yes, there are potential taxation issues (let's see, seems like this problem could be as big as the "Amazon," but it isn't), and yes an enterprising minor may get their hands on a bottle of wine (if they steal a parent's credit card and are willing to wait a few days -- wait, couldn't they also get it from their neighbor's house, with a false ID and innumerable other ways?), and yes the state liquor board may lose an occasional sale or two. What wine lovers will tell you is that these direct sales are almost always incremental and are made by wine hobbyists and others who cannot otherwise get wines from small growers/importers. Look at the license plates in the parking lots of Washington, DC's, better wine stores and then decide whether Maryland might not be better off in offering choice to its consumer-citizens and keeping some of those taxes in the state.
Often throughout the year, we visit my brother's family in Virgnina. Having moved back from California, they have a deep love of wine and often share with us the latest bottle they had mailed to them via their wine clubs. Wine clubs you ask? Not an option for us in MD. Want to try that bottle of wine you read about from a botique winery in Seattle? Nope, won't happen. Unless of course you break the law and have it shipped to a friend or family member. It's time for a change.
This is such an embarrassment for Maryland. The law as it stands forces me to buy wine in DC (and thus lottery tixs too). I blame the reps who keep these inane laws intact. Sure wish there was a way around or even better through this.
It's nice to know that us residents of the "Free State" really are being shackled by this archaic law. With every state in a dire financial situation, it isn't logical that the MD legislature would encourage us to spend our money out of state, which many of us are doing regularly.
Mr. Alecock makes a great point and a good suggestion for some photographic evidence to be placed into testimony at next week's hearing. A few photos of the parking lot at Calvert Woodley or Paul's of Chevy Chase (a stone's throw for so many Marylanders) might help some people realize how much of our tax dollars are lost to DC and VA wine shops because of our anachronistic restrictions on wine sales. Thanks so much for your comments!
I concur with Rob Garetson and applaud all efforts to avoid another ridiculous "feel good" law. Aren't there more important issues to tackle!?
As if watching the federal government in action is not frustrating enough!! Nothing riles me more than politicians who self righteously stand behind transparent and discredited arguments and pretend they are doing the right thing. The right thing for whom, I ask? Apparently not for the majority of their constituents! I know...follow the money. Did opponents present any evidence from the 37 states that allow direct shipping that it will adversely impact teenage drinking? I suspect not. Too bad we cannot put something like this to a statewide referendum, binding or not, like CA does for seemingly every issue of public interest. Thanks Rob for keeping us all informed about this issue.
We all know that government beleives they know better than we mere subjects what we should have access to. And we also know that their premise of power requires them to hold some degree of control over us. Oh... and they need the tax money, too. Who would have thought that wine would be government's last bastion of control. Give me wine or give me death. An Annapolis Wine Party sounds even more exciting than the Boston Tea Party.
this is just another example of how the wholesalers have these laws bought and paid for. The state alcohol laws continue to get written by the biggest check books. These two are shamefully hiding behind a ridiculously transparent ruse. Majority of state residents agree with Rob, majority of state reps agree with Rob, these two lackeys need to be held accountable for their actions.
Yes, pushing a rock up a hill is exactly what this feels like to me! But, we need to call our Delegates, especially the ones on the Committees that hold this up. If you live in D39 that is Charles Barkley. Montgomery County.
Not that our government officials have other "issues" to tackle of greater significance, but I thought we abided by the moral compass of free trade which states that: traders act and transact without interference from government.
Words normally cannot describe how ridiculous this law is, but you have done so perfectly in your piece. Thank you for inspiring us to take action. This law is so anti-commerce. Didn't the US Supreme Court have something to say about this recently?! Barring an immediate repeal of this law, I would like to think that our state legislators could muster up the courage and creativity to agree to some sort of limited pilot program to measure the level of public interest in this new-found freedom and to test how real their concerns are. Some of these legislators might then learn something about what many of their constituents actually want and also realize that their concerns are way overdone.
Thanks for trying to abolish an antiquated law.Is this law really about trying to protect teens from buying wine over the internet? I don't think so! Using the "teen" argument is simply a smoke screen that allows the legislators to appear noble, while they ignore the will of the people.
I would say the "Free State" is quite the oxymoron...Government officials need to make smart decisions that encourage open markets and focus on the positive big picture opportunities. This will generate significant tax revenue and eliminate the need to purchase wine in neighboring states. Hopefully the number of responses will enlighten our politicians that increased availability of wines from around the world will have a direct positive impact on knowledge, education and growth of the wine industry in the "Free State"...Rob keep up your great efforts to keep this subject relevant.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!