Stop HR 1161

A new bill has been introduced that will once again try to further take away the ability for wine, beer and spirit lovers to obtain those items from out of state sources should those item not be available in their home market. Our esteemed Congressman, Aaron Schock, was a co-sponsor of the law in IL that has already stripped these rights from Illinoisans and was co-sponsor of HR 5034 which would have done about the same thing as HR1161, but was defeated. Write Aaron and tell him NOT to support this bill.

How HR 1161 Will Hurt Consumers
by StopHR1161 on Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 11:40pm

Wine consumers are the ultimate target of HR 1161. HR 1161 gives states the power to pass otherwise unconstitutional laws that reduce consumer access to wine, to wine over the Internet and to smaller production beers and spirits.

HR 1161 gives states the power to follow the advice of alcohol wholesalers and forbid wine lovers from purchasing imported wines, wine of the month clubs, rare wines and auctioned wines that they can't find locally. It does this by allowing discriminatory bans on shipment of wine from out of state retailers, who are the ones that sell imported wines, offer wine of the month clubs, auction wines and most often sell hard to find and rare wines.

If you want a sense of what kind of wine laws wholesalers favor, consider that they have

-opposed shipment of wine from in-state wineries

-opposed shipment of wine from out of state wineries

-opposed shipment of wine from out of state wine retailers

-opposed shipment of wine from out of state wine of the month clubs

-opposed wine being sold in grocery stores.

-opposed retailers' being able to buy directly from out of state wineries.

All these things give consumers better access to a larger variety of wines. But wholesalers have opposed them all. Wholesalers, who are behind HR 1161, oppose these policies that promote consumer access to wine not for any altruistic reasons having to do with minors accessing wine or the state being able to collect taxes. They oppose them because in each instance the sale doesn't go through the wholesaler. (In other words, if the liquor distributors in your area or state, don't want to, don't feel it is profitable for them or don't have the distributorship power to be a distributor, you won't have access to a particular wine, beer or spirit).

There is no reason to believe that once HR 1161 passes wholesalers won't continue their legislative crusade to take wine choices out of consumers hands.

Here is pretty much the text of HR 1161:

H. R. 1161

To reaffirm state-based alcohol regulation, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 17, 2011


Mr. CHAFFETZ (for himself, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. COBLE, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. ROSS of Florida, and Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To reaffirm state-based alcohol regulation, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act of 2011’.


SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purpose of this Act is to recognize and reaffirm that alcohol is different from other consumer products and that it should continue to be regulated by the States.

SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR STATE ALCOHOL REGULATION.

The Act entitled ‘An Act divesting intoxicating liquors of their interstate character in certain cases’, approved March 2, 1913 (27 U.S.C. 122 et seq.), commonly known as the ‘Webb-Kenyon Act’, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR STATE ALCOHOL REGULATION.

‘(a) Declaration of Policy- It is the policy of Congress to recognize and reaffirm that alcohol is different from other consumer products and that it should continue to be regulated by the States.

‘(b) Construction of Congressional Silence- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the ‘Commerce Clause’) to the regulation by a State or territory of alcoholic beverages. However, State or territorial regulations may not intentionally or facially discriminate against out-of-State or out-of-territory producers of alcoholic beverages in favor of in-State or in-territory producers unless the State or territory can demonstrate that the challenged law advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives.’.

SEC. 4. AMENDMENT TO WILSON ACT.

The Act entitled ‘An Act to limit the effect of the regulations of commerce between the several States and with foreign countries in certain cases’, approved August 8, 1890 (27 U.S.C. 121), commonly known as the ‘Wilson Act’, is amended by striking ‘to the same extent’ and all that follows through ‘Territory,’.


STOP HR1161