Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, September 20, 2010

Beer Sends More Bucks to Block Booze

Posted by on Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:15 AM

According to recent reports from the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, the Beer Institute, a trade association of major brewers, has donated another $1 million to oppose initiatives that would let hard liquor compete with beer on grocery-store shelves. Not alone, beer and wine distributors from around the U.S. that have gotten into the game in the last couple of weeks include: $50,000 from California, $25,000 from Michigan, $10,000 apiece from Arizona and Texas, and $5,000 each from Indiana and Tennessee. This is in addition to $4 million donated last month, primarily from the national beer industry, with some help from wine wholesalers. Of that dough, the campaign has spent $3 million on disingenuous ads like this one:

The argument is that "alcohol abuse" is dangerous and that alcohol would be available at "24 hour gas stations and mini-marts." Of course, the hours of gas stations is irrelevant because the initiatives do nothing about the state's 2:00 a.m. alcohol cut-off. And before 2:00 a.m., folks could keep buying alcohol regardless of whether this initiative passes. Despite the message crafting, it's not about "alcohol" or "alcohol abuse." This campaign is first and foremost about protecting the beer industry from competition.

 

Comments (30) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
I'm glad our "citizen" initiative process allows wealthy corporate lobbies to fight it out over our best interest.
Posted by codswallower on September 20, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Joe Szilagyi 2
Just wait until there is a marijuana legalization option up for a vote. ALL the liquor interests will swarm to bury it like they're trying to do in CA now.
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://www.joeszilagyi.com on September 20, 2010 at 11:24 AM
barzen 3
There is more to this story: it's not all about alcohol abuse, but promoting small Washington state breweries.

http://www.washingtonbrewersguild.org/pd…

Posted by barzen on September 20, 2010 at 11:29 AM
4
Yay, Beer!
Posted by J.R. on September 20, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Will in Seattle 5
I am really hoping both initiatives fail - but not by much - so that the legislature gets out of the hard liquor business and does so in a way that doesn't increase street drunks on my street and kids downing fifths of scotch.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 20, 2010 at 11:35 AM
Fnarf 6
Any time people argue against something using the exact same argument that could just as easily be used against them as well, you have to think that maybe this is hypocritical BS.

I think the obvious solution is to end the legal sale of beer and wine AND liquor, and go back to total prohibition.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on September 20, 2010 at 11:36 AM
Jesus 7
Freedom isn't free
Posted by Jesus on September 20, 2010 at 11:40 AM
Will in Seattle 8
@2 is correct.

Atlantic City's "Boardwalk Empire" ftw!
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 20, 2010 at 11:42 AM
9
Freedom costs a buck 'o-five.
Posted by Bhamjason on September 20, 2010 at 11:43 AM
Kinison 10
Well what they should be focusing in on, is the fact that the state will probably lose alot of tax revenue. So in order to compensate for the loss, they will either...

1) Raise the tax for alcohol.
2) Raise the sales tax.
3) Raise the property tax.
4) A mix of all of the above.

I dont drink spirits, so I dont care if these laws are passed or not.
Posted by Kinison http://www.holgatehawks.com on September 20, 2010 at 11:50 AM
BombasticMO 11
This is one of the few initiatives I still haven't picked a side on. I think all of our Liquor Stores are completely obsolete and obscene, and at a time when we're laying off teachers and not hiring police officers, it seems awfully petty for Liquor Store Employee unions to be complaining about the sacredness of their jobs.

But the money we'll lose for the local government scares the shit out of me. We're SO broke.

I'm optimistic about the idea of both passing and the legislature having to do something, but if they need a 2/3 majority to get it done, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect any sort of progressive (or even break-even) legislation making it through.
Posted by BombasticMO http://www.BombasticMo.com on September 20, 2010 at 11:59 AM
wilbur@work 12
so pisswater breweries, including most WA breweries, want this stopped. good, that should ensure that it'll pass.
Posted by wilbur@work on September 20, 2010 at 11:59 AM
13
Privatize liquor sales, legalize/tax/regulate weed, tax the shit out of candy & soda & use the $ to stimulate renewable energy projects, smart grid, high- speed rail & green manufacturing jobs. Get with it, bitches!
Posted by Vadt on September 20, 2010 at 12:02 PM
14
@3: This actually sounds bad, if it's as the Washington Brewer's Guild would have its members believe. Their "no on I-1100" page makes it sound as if the threat to craft brewers if I-1100 passes is not so much hard liquor in gas stations, but the fizzy yellow beer megabrewers:

What this means for YOU as a brewer:


I-1100 would legalize Tied-Houses moving Washington State towards the English Pub system, making it harder for small breweries to obtain handles. I-1100 allows beer and wine to be purchased on credit, creating a greater accounting burden as you track down customers with overdue balances. I-1100 legalizes Pay to Play, creating a sales system where money speaks louder than quality. I-1100 allows producers and distributors to give away free draught systems, product, mirrors, neons, store remodels, etc. Long-term affect: Those breweries not willing or able to compete with large producers’ deep pockets will be forced out of the marketplace and close their doors.


I-1100 takes away consumer choice.


The success of the craft brewing industry has been a huge success for the consumers of Washington State . Consumers have literally hundreds of choices of locally made, hand-crafted beers from across our state. I-1100 hurts consumer choice by giving volume pricing discounts to the largest companies, thereby reducing competition. Without the means to compete in the marketplace, small, neighborhood craft breweries will close and consumers will have less choice at their favorite establishments.


What this means for YOU as a brewer:


With a pay to play system, a brewery will be chosen based upon their ability to pay in goods or services instead of upon the merits of their beer. Washington state’s reputation as a destination for great craftbeer will cease to exist as more and more craft handles are replaced by big beer and breweries close their doors.



More...
Posted by Phil M http://twitter.com/pmocek on September 20, 2010 at 12:12 PM
15
I too am concerned about the hundreds of millions of $$ in lost state revenues, at a time when we can ill afford such whacks. And with virtually no possibility of the Legislature increasing alcohol taxes to begin making up the revenue losses, not with Timmy's 2/3rds vote Initiative likely passing, again.

And if the revenue issue isn't decisive, I have a personal opinion about State Liquor Stores. They are quaint, and anachronistic, and I don't mind at all having to travel an extra mile or two a few times a year for a little of the hard stuff.

I'm sure the system could be improved, but initiatives written by corporations, with text tailored for their benefit over the public benefits...sorry, but that stinks.
Posted by Citizen R on September 20, 2010 at 12:13 PM
16
And with virtually no possibility of the Legislature increasing alcohol taxes to begin making up the revenue losses


Please. Even Republicans love sin taxes.
Posted by keshmeshi on September 20, 2010 at 12:28 PM
17
You mean it isn't all about saving the children? That the only real concern about selling liquor outside of state stores is the profits of the beer producers? I am shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED!
Posted by montex on September 20, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Will in Seattle 18
Meanwhile Jeff Bezos and a certain MSFT CEO gave $100,000 to defeat the Income Tax on the Rich - amusing, since the amount they gave is LESS than they would pay in one year for the Income Tax on the Rich.

cheap skates.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 20, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Fnarf 19
I'm still waiting for in independent analysis to prove that the state would lose money. State liquor stores, with their huge, mostly empty store footprints, and state-worker salaries, plus their ludicrously inefficient centralized ordering and management system (probably ten times as many managers as private stores would have) have to be eating up the lion's share of that revenue in overhead.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on September 20, 2010 at 12:59 PM
20
It's too bad. The best chance for marijuana legalization would've been for it to be sold in state-run liquour stores. Lose the state-run stores, lose that opportunity.
Posted by TJ on September 20, 2010 at 1:08 PM
21
@19 - you're only accounting for retail sales. Don't forget LCB gets money from fines and licenses.
Posted by TJ on September 20, 2010 at 1:09 PM
Pol Pot 22
# FTW Both initiatives are flawed and hopefully both will lose. As much as I loathe and despise the horrid, antiquated WSLCB, I will be voting no on both.
Posted by Pol Pot http://bottlefuelrag.blogspot.com on September 20, 2010 at 1:14 PM
23
Bear in mind the craft brewering industry is divided on this issue - there are a good number of brewers who SUPPORT getting better access to grocery stores to compete against the big corporate interests.
Posted by olychick on September 20, 2010 at 1:23 PM
Fnarf 24
@21, and those monies won't be going away. Neither of the initiatives abolishes the WSLCB, just the stores.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on September 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM
Will in Seattle 25
right you are @20.

cash cow.

Moo.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 20, 2010 at 2:42 PM
Fnarf 26
Sez who, @20? Let's compare the success rates of marijuana legalization schemes in states that sell the stuff in state liquor stores versus states that don't. Hmm. There don't appear to be any of the former.

The best chance for legalization is the expansion of medical-marijuana dispensaries, as in California, which has many thousands of them.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on September 20, 2010 at 3:49 PM
watchout5 27
Reading that last line reminds me that they'll do the exact same kind of campaign against Marijuana. At least, that's what I'm to assume based on the competition argument. I still don't like this bill though, an unlikely ally indeed.
Posted by watchout5 http://www.overclockeddrama.com on September 20, 2010 at 7:35 PM
Free Lunch 28
Man, I'd love to be able to buy a bottle of booze at 1:59 a.m.
Posted by Free Lunch on September 20, 2010 at 7:45 PM
TheRain 29
"Please. Even Republicans love sin taxes."

Given the absolute line on taxes that the current GOP has drawn, I don't think there's a chance in hell that even a liquor tax could pass the legislature.
Posted by TheRain on September 20, 2010 at 9:21 PM
30
Who cares about all the BS from the opposition , vote for Initiative 1100
Posted by cycas on September 23, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy