Illinois Consumers Fight Back Against Anti-Shipping Laws

Those of you in Illinois are probably aware that last year a law was passed that prohibited us from purchasing wine from out of state retailers (although, strangely, in state retailers can still ship out of state). A group of us have gotten together to form a non-profit corporation advocating changes of this law to re-grant the right to shipping that we had for 15 years –The Illinois Wine Consumers Coalition.

We’re hoping that with enough voices and enough signatures on the petition, we can get the attention of our legislators and change this anti-consumer law. Please visit our website at http://www.IllinoisWineConsumers.org and sign up, sign the petition, and most importantly, share this info with your Illinois wine drinking friends! As little as a few thousand names can really make our voice heard – we need your help.

Also, we should be getting some press coverage this week – so write to your editorial pages, send a letter to your representatives, and let’s get our access to fine wine back!

Let me know if you have any questions, ideas for us, want to get more involved, or would like to donate in support of IWCC. The legal tide is turning in our favor – now is our time to make a difference!

Thank You,

Gretchen Neuman

http://www.illinoiswineconsumers.org

IIRC, LTH'er John Danza is one of the directors of this org.....

I signed up

mhill95149 wrote:IIRC, LTH'er John Danza is one of the directors of this org.....

I signed up

Yes, I'm one of the directors of the group. We're working to get the laws changed so that we can regain the rights we've had for 15 years. Please recruit your wine loving, or liberty loving, friends!

Thank you for your support. (Stated in the same accent from that commercial a while back).

All the best,
John

Just signed up and starting the letters to my Representative and Senator.

Sorry to be nitpicky, but I'd like to know what actually shows up on the petition when it gets sent to the legislative powers. Is it everything that is on the screen where you enter your name? Just the top paragraph? Just the paragraph with the asterisk at the bottom? The reason I ask is that I definitely want the law changed, and so I support everything in that bottom paragraph. However, I do not support what is written in the top paragraph. Rather than stating facts about the situation, it (unfairly, imo) attributes borderline-malicious motives to the legislators. Many, if not most, passed this bill simply because they thought it was necessary to make the state compliant with a Supreme Court decision. They were wrong, and I want them to correct the mistake. But I don't want to sign something that says I think they were acting to "protect the profits of special interests." I’d also suggest that it was not in the best interest of the petition-creators to include that kind of divisive language.

Though it's certainly drink-related, maybe this topic is too politically charged for LTHForum.

Hi Kenny,

I don't know what will get printed on the petition when it is printed, so I'll have to check with the web developer on that. I suspect it's only the bottom paragraph based on the way it's worded.

I respect your position and being uncomfortable about the wording of the top paragraph, however, the facts are what they are. The liquor distributors in Illinois have spent over $3.5 million in campaign contributions in the past two year expressly to get this legislation passed. Having followed this from the beginning and the outright lies told by the distributors that in some cases became part of the legislators' responses to constituents when replying to inquiries, it's hard to draw a conclusion other than the one stated in the paragraph in question. As a member of the advisory board, I advocated much stronger language, however the concensus was to got with the toned down language you see. If in the end, that top paragraph is part of the petition and you're uncomfortable about signing it, then you shouldn't. But we need to get this legislation reversed.

As far as whether or not this topic belongs on LTH, I'll let the moderators decide. This was not posted to LTH to start a political debate. It was posted to advise Illinois residents that there was a group founded to try to get them their rights restored, and to direct them as to where they could learn more and make their own decisions. No need to debate the merits on LTH.

All the best,
John Danza

Hi John,

We pretty much agree. If the petition just described what greedy crooks the distributors are, I'd have signed it in an instant. I'm also sure you're right that when questioned by constituents, some legislators just spouted the "company line" given to them by lobbyists for those distributors. I used to lobby these same legislators on behalf of another industry, so I understand how such things work. Even so, when they spouted the company line, I suspect most did so out of ignorance rather than malicious intent. All of that expensive lobbying worked on them, and they just didn't know any better. I just don't think most were trying to protect the distributors' profits any more than someone who ate margarine in the 80's was trying to protect the profits of the margarine industry. Sometimes we all fall victim to expensive, underhanded marketing schemes.

Kenny

John (or anyone else), it seems clear that the new Illinois law is not constitutional. Is there a lawsuit in the works?

Darren72 wrote:John (or anyone else), it seems clear that the new Illinois law is not constitutional. Is there a lawsuit in the works?

Hi Darren,

You're absolutely correct that the law is clearly unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there is no lawsuit in the works. The reason for that is money. There's no one involved with deep enough pockets to fund the lawsuit. Knowing that, the decision was to form the IWCC in order to work with friendly legislators to get the law changed.

If at the moment you don't feel comfortable with the petition but believe in the cause, I urge you to email your legislators telling them that you support a consumers right to purchase wine from any source.

You can find your legislators' contact information here: http://www.illinoiswineconsumers.org/Ta ... t-Your-Rep

Kennyz wrote:

We pretty much agree. If the petition just described what greedy crooks the distributors are, I'd have signed it in an instant. I'm also sure you're right that when questioned by constituents, some legislators just spouted the "company line" given to them by lobbyists for those distributors. I used to lobby these same legislators on behalf of another industry, so I understand how such things work. Even so, when they spouted the company line, I suspect most did so out of ignorance rather than malicious intent. All of that expensive lobbying worked on them, and they just didn't know any better. I just don't think most were trying to protect the distributors' profits any more than someone who ate margarine in the 80's was trying to protect the profits of the margarine industry. Sometimes we all fall victim to expensive, underhanded marketing schemes.

Hi Kenny,
I believe it may well be true that not all of our legislators fully understood all the issues before voting for HB 429. Don't misunderstand the goals of the IWCC--we are not pointing fingers at our elected officials, just at the source of some rather large campaign contributions that not coincidentally came across before HB 429 came up for vote.

Moreover, an emotional smoke screen was thrown up to obscure the wholesalers' true motives, raising the bogus issue of the ability of minors to obtain wine via the Internet. Although there has never been any evidence that minors use the Internet to purchase their Saturday night tipple (oh boy, I can order a bottle of Screaming Eagle from New Jersey!), the specter of such a horrendous possibility was raised over and over. Thus, a vote against the bill became synonymous with a vote to allow the youth of Illinois to squander their allowances on out-of-state wine purchases, to drink and drive irresponsibly, and to all that implies. This also despite the fact that shippers do require proof of age upon delivery of alcohol.

Don't underestimate the power of the wholesale wine distributors' lobby. Three and a half million dollars talks, and it came in large chunks, not $10 here and $5 there. So if you get a $20,000 campaign contribution, it will certainly come with a message. Those few legislators who did take large contributions could not be thinking that XYZ Beverages was just buying 500 tickets for the Turkey Trot Ball in Smallville because their employees were into square dancing.

The level of money that greased palms (pardon the pun) in the margarine wars was chump change compared to this. The margarine issue was, however, very serious back in its day. Don't forget that the dairy industry in Wisconsin was one of the largest in that state. The margarine wars actually started well before the 80's, but I guess you're just a youngster and wouldn't recall--as I do--the 50's and 60's :>). What is so amazing in this scenario is that the wine business is big, but not by any means a Top-5 Illinois industry. However, the wine distributors themselves have other interests in this state, huge other interests, including beer and spirits and a lot of cash to throw around. Check out who owns the Blackhawks, for example.

As for the self-interest of wine distributors, I can personally attest to the motivation (profit) behind their desire to keep a stranglehold on all wines sold in Illinois; I actually worked on the Dark Side for a while. They are a rapacious lot, as shown by the enormous pace of consolidation within their industry. They have total power over what you and I drink these days. Today it's wine, tomorrow it could be chocolate, next week it might be books.

The thing is, though I don't like the law AT ALL, I suspect it will be hard to overturn. There is a method to be able to ship in to IL, and most outside places are getting the license or permit or whatever. Is it annoying and costly (and probably unconstitutional)? Yes. Will it be overturned without a law suit? Probably not.

leek wrote:The thing is, though I don't like the law AT ALL, I suspect it will be hard to overturn. There is a method to be able to ship in to IL, and most outside places are getting the license or permit or whatever. Is it annoying and costly (and probably unconstitutional)? Yes. Will it be overturned without a law suit? Probably not.

The thing that restricts us the most, and there's no method around it, is purchasing from out-of-state retailers. There is no provision to allow that. If anything, we'll push for that provision in the law, since the state really is more concerned about collecting sales tax than anything else. Clearly that's not the concern of the distributor lobby, as they don't want the competition.

John - I am confused as I am still receiving my quarterly wine club shipments from a few Napa and Oregon producers. Is this verboten per the law you describe? If so, is it not being enforeced as yet?

Davooda

Davooda wrote:John - I am confused as I am still receiving my quarterly wine club shipments from a few Napa and Oregon producers. Is this verboten per the law you describe? If so, is it not being enforeced as yet?

Davooda

Great question. The law allows out of state wineries to ship directly as long as they apply to Illinois for a permit and pay the related taxes, which of course you will pay. The law does not allow the same courtesy to out of state retailers, which is what we want to have changed.

I do know that many out of state retailers are treating orders placed before the effective date of the law as being grandfathered and they are shipping those wines. I received all of my futures orders for 2005 Bordeauxs in October 2008, after the law had been enacted, because I ordered them in 2006.

There's been some comments on other boards that out of state wineries may ignore the law, not apply for the Illinois permit, and ship the wines to you anyway. The thought is that they'll say "I'm in California and you're in Illinois, come get me". Most winery websites say in small print that the title for the wine that you order from them changes hands at their winery and what they're doing is helping you ship your wine to yourself. It's a gray area that many companies will probably not want to take a chance on because, while they might be correct, that doesn't mean they won't spend a ton of money on lawyers in civil court.

To make the matter more complicated, there's also the question about whether or not you the consumer can visit an out of state winery, by wine in their tasting room, and then ship it home to yourself. One of our group is checking on that with the state authorities. It's your personal property at that point and you should be able to ship it to yourself, but remember that these are bureaucrates we're talking about, so we're trying to get that clarified.

I'm also going to recommend to the others in the IWCC that we capitalize on this story, which illustrates the corruption in the Illinois wine industry. I believe that legislators will want to back our position and not get in bed with distributors that the federal government has determined to be dirty.

In the end, we have to get this law straightened out.

All the best,
John

Thanks for the clarification, John. I had wondered about the "transfer of title" fine print and now I know what's up with that. I see my state representatives and senator regularly so I will be sure to make the case - pun intended - to them for changing this law at the earliest convenience. Until then, I assume my friends who winter in south Florida will continue returning to Illinois with their trunks full of cases of wine. There is a Sam's-esque retailer down there that is determined to sell wine at the lowest cost and the their sales volume is phenomenal. I assume that retailer is paying a boat load of Illinois dollars as sales tax to the state of Florida!

Davooda

A state representative from Evanston has introduced legislation to change the law that prevents Illinois consumers from purchasing wine from out-of-state retailers.

The Stew provides details here.

Ronna

REB wrote:A state representative from Evanston has introduced legislation to change the law that prevents Illinois consumers from purchasing wine from out-of-state retailers.

The Stew provides details here.

Ronna

The IWCC is integrally involved in this bill. The steering committee met on it this morning. I'll be posting some more information in a few days. Thanks very much for the support!

I heart Julie Hamos

Illinois consumers are now on the road to regaining access to out-of-state wines. Illinois House Bill HB2462 has been introduced by Evanston representative Julie Hamos, which would restore the 15-year-old rights that were taken away by legislators last year.

HB 2452 would establish a system where an out-of-state retailer can obtain a permit allowing them to ship wine to Illinois residents. The retailers would be required to collect Illinois taxes, making this a positive for the state.

It's extremely important that Illinois residents contact their state representatives and get them to support, or better yet co-sponsor, this bill. You can access the Illinois Wine Consumers Coalition website to get additional information about the bill, how to find out who your representative is, and a sample letter that you can send to your rep.

I would also encourage you to join the IWCC, of which I'm a steering committee member, to help in this fight. We can do it, but it won't be easy as the state distributors will be lined up against us. With strength in organization, we can prevail.

All the best,
John

Personally, I think this is the wrong approach. No out of state business is going to go through the hassle of getting an Illinois license for a handful of customers. This is simply an illegal restraint of trade law, clearly unconstitutional.

The way to attack it is to ignore it, order out of state, and then if harassed take them to court to get the existing law trashed.

We have too many laws on our books already. To pass a new law to fix part of al law that never should have been just compounds the problem. We need to get rid of stupid laws.

j r wrote:Personally, I think this is the wrong approach. No out of state business is going to go through the hassle of getting an Illinois license for a handful of customers. This is simply an illegal restraint of trade law, clearly unconstitutional.

The way to attack it is to ignore it, order out of state, and then if harassed take them to court to get the existing law trashed.

We have too many laws on our books already. To pass a new law to fix part of al law that never should have been just compounds the problem. We need to get rid of stupid laws.

I hear what you're saying. The problem is that we can't find someone to donate the seven figures we would need for the legal fees to fight the constitutionality of the law. This is a much more streamlined approach.

Hello all,

This is a critical time for HB 2462. It's currently in the Businesses and Occupational Licenses Committee and may get killed there if we can't come up with the support in the committee to get it released to the floor for a full vote. The following is a list of the representatives on the committee. Please contact them, especially if one of them is your rep, and let them know that you support the bill and you would like them to support it also. Ask them to allow it to be released to the floor for a vote.

Chairperson Robert Rita D
Vice-Chairperson : John A. Fritchey D
Member: Edward J. Acevedo D
Member: Luis Arroyo D
Member: Daniel V. Beiser D
Member: Daniel J. Burke D
Member: Franco Coladipietro R
Member: Michael G. Connelly R
Member: Thomas Holbrook D
Member: Michael P. McAuliffe R
Member: David E. Miller D
Member: Bill Mitchell R
Member: Rosemary Mulligan R
Member: Angelo Saviano


Thanks very much for your help with the bill.

All the best,

John

Beer, Wine & Liquor contributions in 2008
(collected from www.followthemoney.org)

Chairperson Robert Rita D $6,950
Vice-Chairperson : John A. Fritchey D $4,000
Member: Edward J. Acevedo D $10,750
Member: Luis Arroyo D zero reported
Member: Daniel V. Beiser D $3,500
Member: Daniel J. Burke D $5,750
Member: Franco Coladipietro R zero reported
Member: Michael G. Connelly R zero reported
Member: Thomas Holbrook D $3,500
Member: Michael P. McAuliffe R $6,000
Member: David E. Miller D $3,950
Member: Bill Mitchell R zero reported
Member: Rosemary Mulligan R $250
Member: Angelo Saviano R $22,000

no news yet...
check this link to see how the first meeting went..
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=2462&GAID=10&SessionID=76&LegID=44641

mhill95149 wrote:no news yet...
check this link to see how the first meeting went..
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=2462&GAID=10&SessionID=76&LegID=44641

Rep Hamos has decided to not bring it up for a committee vote today. She's thinking about a separate tact where it stays in committee and we go into a full blown negotiation on the bill. Stay tuned and keep contacting your reps to co-sponsor the bill.