View Full Version : The latest on our wine laws...



metro
04-16-2008, 07:32 AM
House approves wine distribution legislation

April 16, 2008

OKLAHOMA CITY – After two years of working on a compromise bill that would both help the state’s wineries and would not violate interstate commerce laws, state Rep. Danny Morgan thinks this is the year the problem will be resolved.

The state House of Representatives on Monday approved Senate Bill 995 and Senate Joint Resolution 29, which together would once again ask the people of Oklahoma to decide if wineries should be allowed to sell their products directly to retailers and restaurants in Oklahoma.

But this time, the proposal would extend the privilege to out-of-state wineries as well. Oklahoma’s wine industry is still young, and almost all wineries in the state produce very small amounts.

Oklahoma law does not require wholesalers to work with Oklahoma wineries, and some winemakers in Oklahoma said they had trouble finding a wholesaler willing to take on such small accounts.

Freedom to sell directly to restaurants and retailers can help a small winery grow, said state winemakers. Oklahoma voters had approved a law in 2000 allowing Oklahoma wineries to sell their products directly to retailers and restaurants without using a wholesaler. But in late 2006, federal Judge Stephen Friot struck down the law, finding it violated interstate commerce laws because in-state wineries were given an opportunity not extended to out-of-state wineries.

Liquor wholesalers had challenged the law in federal court, asserting the measure threatened Oklahoma’s three-tiered system for liquor distribution, which requires all manufacturers of alcohol to distribute their products through a wholesaler.

Friot delayed the effectiveness of his ruling until after the 2007 legislative session to give lawmakers the opportunity to address the situation, but the Legislature failed to do so.

SB 995 languished in the House Judiciary and Public Safety from March of 2007 until February 2008, when the measure was reassigned to House Rules. Morgan, D-Prague, said those involved have worked very hard over the last year to work out a compromise that addresses everyone’s concerns.

Wholesalers were concerned that the measure could expand access to alcohol in Oklahoma, or could allow large winemakers from other states to flood the local market without using a wholesaler. Morgan said the wineries were better able to communicate their position to lawmakers this year, and were greatly benefited by the support of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau.

The Farm Bureau, which focuses on agricultural issues, had approached the issue as an opportunity to expand a new cash crop in Oklahoma. SB 995 would limit self-distribution to wineries that produce 10,000 gallons or less per year; SJR 29 would send the issue to a vote of the people. Only five of Oklahoma’s 55 wineries are large enough to produce more than 10,000 gallons of wine per year, said Oklahoma Grape Growers and Wine Makers Association President Andrew Snyder. About 10 wineries produce between 5,000 gallons and 10,000 gallons, he said.Wineries making more than 10,000 gallons per year would need to use a wholesaler anyway, said Morgan, as the size of the operation would make self-distribution impractical.

The bill does not expand access to alcohol in any way, said Snyder, but allows Oklahoma wineries to compete for shelf space in the state’s existing liquor stores. Out of state wineries are required to deliver their product to Oklahoma retailers in a company vehicle, and are not able to ship their wine into Oklahoma using a common carrier.

Lawmakers discussing the bill Monday noted that out-of-state wineries are unlikely to spend the gas money to bring their products into Oklahoma. The measures are expected to go to Gov. Brad Henry for his signature.

http://journalrecord.com/_images/articles/t_labswine.jpg

Bartender Amanda Perkey pours a glass of Copperidge chardonnay for a customer Tuesday at the Bricktown Brewery in Oklahoma City. The California wine is the resturant’s house white wine. (Photo by Jennifer Pitts)

Midtowner
04-16-2008, 07:58 AM
Must....protect....wholesale....racket....

ultimatesooner
04-16-2008, 09:41 AM
no doubt, the wholesale racket is one of the saddest things in this state

Martin
04-16-2008, 09:52 AM
out of state wineries are required to deliver their product to oklahoma retailers in a company vehicle, and are not able to ship their wine into oklahoma using a common carrier.

this is the only part that concerns me... certainly all qualified wineries will be required to ship their product via company vehicle and not common courier. otherwise, the law seems to create an unfair situation for out-of-state competitors and will be struck down just like the last one.

-M

metro
04-16-2008, 10:32 AM
who cares, at least our in state companies that create jobs will have a chance for once, as it is now, the out of state companies have the unfair advantage.

Martin
04-16-2008, 10:38 AM
you're missing the point, metro. the last law was struck down since it violated interstate commerce laws. if this law also creates an 'unfair' situation it could give its opponents ammunition to help strike it down as well. so, yes... you do care.

-M

metro
04-16-2008, 10:41 AM
I understand your point mmm, but if there is going to be an unfair advantage, I want it to be to our in state wineries, not out of state like it is currently.

solitude
04-16-2008, 10:56 AM
Another wine bill that doesn't address the package store monopoly on wine sales? Where is the grocery lobby? Why aren't they raising hell over this? It's 2008!!

Midtowner
04-16-2008, 11:05 AM
this is the only part that concerns me... certainly all qualified wineries will be required to ship their product via company vehicle and not common courier. otherwise, the law seems to create an unfair situation for out-of-state competitors and will be struck down just like the last one.

-M

Which makes the law discriminatory in effect, thus just as unconstitutional as the law before it.

Idiots. [the legislature, not the posters here]

solitude
04-16-2008, 11:18 AM
Which makes the law discriminatory in effect, thus just as unconstitutional as the law before it.

Idiots. [the legislature, not the posters here]

You can say that again - and again - and again....

kevinpate
04-16-2008, 03:52 PM
Not a wine drinker, but if I were, I'd probably already be on the phone with my local rep and senator offices over the hink referenced above, as there remains time to fix such nonsense, unless of course the hink was not sans intent

Midtowner
04-16-2008, 04:06 PM
I thought about writing an email to the author... even had it partially written and ready to go.

I can't help to think that this is some sort of a compromise deal to make sure that even though out of state companies can still deliver their products, they'll still in effect have to go through wholesalers to do so.

I'll bet the legislator thinks he was clever in doing this. If he really did this at the behest of the liquor lobby, they won again. We'll have at least another year or two without any substantive reform here which will pass constitutional muster.

Midtowner
04-16-2008, 04:23 PM
Reading through the Bill, (and this was a very cursory reading), it would seem that both in state and out of state sellers of wine can opt to have their product delivered by common carrier provided that carrier is licensed to do so. I *think* this could get past being a burden on interstate commerce.