First, they came for my wine…then they came for my beef.
I’m more concerned about the likelihood of this passing than some others.
Chris,
I am too especially with it gathering more support. Shows what big political donations can do.
Someone posted on Stop H.R. 5034 Facebook page today, that they’ve received info that the Reps are going to try to push this through in the next couple weeks, I’m not surprised at all. This could mean end of wine shipping. Are you worried about pre-arrivals, future wine clubs, etc. You should be.
Here was the reply I received from my congressman:
Dear Monte:
Thank you for contacting my office in regards to HR 5034, the Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (CARE) Act. I appreciate the benefit of hearing your views on this matter.
As you may know, HR 5034 was introduced by Representative Bill Delahunt (D-MA) on April 15, 2010. This legislation will reaffirm and protect the primary authority of States to regulate alcoholic beverages. This bill will also acknowledge that alcohol is different from other consumer goods and taxation of alcohol and other regulatory matters should be handled at the State level.
HR 5034 was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary on April 15, 2010. While I do not sit on this committee, I will be sure to pass along your thoughts to my colleagues who do. Should this bill come before the House for a vote, I will give it my full consideration.
Once again, thank you for contacting my office. Also, please feel free to visit my website, http://www.mccaul.house.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for more information on constituent services, legislative updates my E-Newsletter, and the ongoing work in Congress. It continues to be a great honor to be allowed to represent you in the United States House of Representatives.
M
Sincerely,
Michael T. McCaul
Member of Congress
I still have not figured out how I will respond to his response.
Monte,
At least he took the time to respond. The stand he takes is the problem if others have the same view, which I’m sure those supporting it do
I think after 48 hours of “grieving over the MSWBB” are done, we really need to seriously address H.R. 5034, the topic which (IMHOP) should be a sticky at the top of each forum here.
I agree but that’s 48 lost .
Hopefully there are still people focused on this. Bulletin Boards will be around but getting wine shipped to consumers may not with as fast as Congress is trying to get this pushed through.
That was a response?
Not to sound to flippant about the issue, but this is why we have a Senate.
It was more of a response than I got from any of my Representatives!
I received a letter from Congressman Mike Thompson.
Dear Ms. Bowman:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (CARE) Act of 2010 (H.R. 5034). I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me on this issue.
As you are aware, this bill would significantly harm the California wine community, especially small wineries. H.R. 5034 was proposed by the National Beer Wholesalers of America as an attempt to increase their control over which products are sold by beer, wine and spirits wholesalers. It’s completely wrong-headed, which is why I’m working extremely hard to make sure it goes nowhere.
Before I give you the background on the bill, let me assure you - this bill is widely opposed in Congress, and I’ve been told by Speaker Pelosi that it’s very unlikely to succeed. However, the effects of this bill could be devastating to California wine and the beer wholesaler guys are working overtime for its passage, so I am going to stay vigilant in my opposition. And I hope you will join me in that effort.
Simply put, this bill is an attempt to upend our country’s current alcohol distribution system. For decades, our courts have struck a balance between the 21st Amendment, which allows states to regulate the transportation or importation of alcohol, and other constitutional rights such as the Commerce Clause, which ensures the federal government’s right to protect fair and non-discriminatory commerce across state lines.
H.R. 5034 would make the dormant Commerce Clause inapplicable to any state laws dealing with alcohol unless “unjustified” and “facially discriminatory.” It would shift the burden of proof away from the states to defend laws they pass and make state laws supersede any federal law that is inconsistent with state law’s provisions. Laws like the recently struck-down direct shipment law in Massachusetts would be immune from Constitutional scrutiny.
Bottom line: this legislation allows Congress to pick the winners and losers in the wine business. It means wholesalers could have complete control over which wines consumers can access. And wineries and wine retailers would have no recourse if discriminated against.
I’ve heard from many people in our Congressional District who oppose this legislation and I am very grateful for your support. If you have colleagues or friends in any other Congressional Districts - in California or any other state - I encourage you to have them contact their Member of Congress and ask them to not co-sponsor H.R. 5034.
And you can also join a Facebook group against H.R. 5034: Facebook" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please continue to contact me on all issues of importance to you and to our district.
Sincerely,
MIKE THOMPSON
Member of Congress
While I appreciate Mike Thompson being against this bill, there are now 43 CoSponsors.
We still need to get the word out.
I do like his response though.
If anyone is in California’s 51st District, Rep Bob Filner has apparently signed on today.
I didn’t think I see anyone in CA involved in this
Make sure to tell yoru friends, families and anyone else you know to contact him with their opposition.
I’m bumping this up since it has moved to page 3 or 4 and we should stay on top of it.
Again, WHY IS THIS NOT A STICKY???
There has never been an issue with more importance to all wine lovers, yet it keeps getting faded.
With all of the new viewers who may be unaware of this bill, it is especially important to keep it up front.
And another thing, which I find incredible. I just spent the last hour visiting as many U.S. retail websites and winery sites as I could stand. Not a single retailer, and only one winery (Tablas Creek) had any mention of this enormous threat to their livelihoods.
This should be a glaring banner on the home page of every wine-related site in this country.
It’s not like all wine consumers visit forums, y’all.
I’ve sent Todd a PM asking if we could.
Thanks
Seeing how something similar to this took place here in Michigan, I have no doubt that this will continue to proceed in our government of whores. This seems like a no lose prop for most politicians. A very wealthy special interest group vs. very few people (outside of major wine exporting states) who give a hoot about the issue.
Plus any politican who supports this restaint of trade can always publically explain themselves by claiming the underage drinking issue. I know many people here, who until they are engaged in a thoughful conversation, believe that this will make it more difficult for kids to get alcohol. And at the point where they understand that it will do nothing, they just don’t care, as it doesn’t affect their lives.
Separation of powers would certainly pose an interesting question if the bill passes. The bill places a presumption that a state law regarding alcohol is valid unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the law does not promote the state’s interest in temperance and alcohol regulation. I doubt the bill would survive in challenge where a law is facially discriminatory. But it poses in interesting question if the law has to go through the Pike test.
Courts already shy away from true balancing tests. This bill, however, would make laws that would have been unconstitutional now constitutional, but it is the duty of the courts to say what the law is. By accepting this bill, the court would allow congress to tell it how to interpret the constitution when encountering. The other view would say that this bill is giving a legislative addition to the courts attempting to weigh competing values.
Hopefully courts would see the bill as attempting to determine what a constitutional test should be, and thus be an invasion on judicial duties. If it does pass, I will have a good issue to write a law journal note.
Bump.
Carrie? Todd? Sticky?
We have a LOT of new people arriving… they can help with this.