retail news in context, analysis with attitude

Wine Spectator reports that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has introduced a new version of the Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (CARE) act that, if passed and signed into law, “could end direct shipping of wine and other forms of alcohol in the United States, or at least put major roadblocks in front of lawsuits by consumers and wineries trying to reduce restrictions on direct shipping ... The bill’s stated intention is to ensure state governments maintain their ability to regulate alcohol under the 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition, and protect them from costly litigation challenging their laws governing direct-to-consumer wine shipping.”

The story notes that the bill has a level of bipartisan support: “In addition to Chaffetz, who represents Utah’s 3rd district, eight other representatives are sponsoring 1161 thus far: Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.), Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.), Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fl.), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.), Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fl.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl.). Last year’s CARE Act was eventually sponsored by 153 representatives, with 94 Democrats signing on and 59 Republicans.”
KC's View:
Which just goes to show that bad legislating knows no partisan boundaries.

This is dumb. The ability to direct ship benefits both consumers and wineries, and the only reason to create restrictions is to protect certain constituencies - like distributors that don’t want to have to compete on a level playing field.

More to the point, how come GOP legislators - who keep preaching the notion that government has to stop meddling in people’s lives and businesses - somehow forget that position when it comes to issues on which they have a vested or political interest?