Direct Shipping

[mrdutton]

For Anna - thanks! PS: I've been in touch with Matt Hale and offered what little support I might be able to provide as an interested party.

Here is a generic verstion of the letter I sent to all of my state Senators and Delegates and to all of my Federal Senators and Representatives and to all of the rest of the Federal Senators:

As an adult voter of our great state, I strongly encourage you to support my ability to purchase wines not readily available in my local market. In addition, I hope you will oppose any further attempts at restricting my ability to purchase fine wine.

Legislation will be re-introduced at the Federal level in 2000 (Senate Bill S577) giving state attorney generals the right to seek an injunction in Federal court against wine direct shippers. This legislation would merely favor a state-legislated monopoly in wine distribution at the expense of consumer access to the incredible diversity of America's wines.

There are other legislative options available that would satisfy consumer demand for wines not available locally, and provide the necessary tax collection provisions and regulations for a socially-sensitive product like wine. The National Conference of State Legislatures passed a resolution in 1999 asking Congress NOT to pass this biased legislation. If not the states, then who is this legislation protecting?

Don't tell me that in Virginia it is a tax issue. Virginia already has laws in effect that require consumers to report the value of items purchased out of state for use in state and then pay the appropriate sales tax. The consumer use form is the vehicle required for consumers to pay taxes on items they purchased from out of state.

Don't tell me that in Virginia it is an issue of easily enabling minors to purchase alcohol. The only time that has ever been an issue is when state authorities run stings using underage detectives deliberately designed to entrap the already dishonest. Simply requiring the shipper to collect an adult signature upon delivery is sufficient to prevent sale to minors. Please note the following information provided by Free The Grapes:

March 10, 1999, NAPA, Calif. - Jeremy Benson, Executive Director of Free the Grapes!, commented today on the recent misrepresentation of the wine industry as "bootleggers" when wine is directly shipped across state borders to consumers. Free the Grapes! is a national, non-profit coalition of 145,000 wine consumers and associations representing over 1,000 of America's winemakers whose goal is to ensure access to fine wine.

"This issue is not about minors. These false and misleading claims seek to protect the profits of an entrenched state-sanctioned monopoly that no longer has the financial incentive to distribute for small family-owned wineries. The wholesaler lobby has attempted in numerous forums, including a United States Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 9th, to portray the wine industry as a "bogeyman" handing out wine to teens through home delivery."

"The wholesaler lobby turns a blind eye to direct shipping when it doesn't cross state lines. In fact, intrastate delivery is legal in 30 states. The Americans for Responsible Alcohol Access (ARAA), a self-proclaimed 'safety coalition' which is fully-funded by the wholesaler lobby, has been noticeably silent regarding intrastate deliveries. 'Any shipment that crosses a state border outside (the existing) system is illegal', (ARAA press release March 9, 1999). Are we supposed to believe that a shipment from Los Angeles to San Francisco isn't a threat to minors, but from L.A. to Phoenix it is?"

"In states where interstate direct shipping is legal, minor access has not been a problem. Manny Espinoza, Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control, stated in written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, '...We have to date witnessed no measurable adverse effects on public welfare or safety that could be attributable to interstate mail order alcohol sales.'

The United States Constitution provides me, as a consumer, the right to purchase from whomever I please and further tells the individual states that they can not prevent free commerce for the sole purpose of protecting an in state concern. Recent court descisions in Indiana and Texas have clearly shown that the 21st Ammendment is not intended to restrict free trade. Hopefully, that will also become clear in the present case against the state of Virginia.

Regarding the court case in Virginia, I am following that very closely and with great interest. Progress so far is encouraging for the consumer. Information that I've received from the Coalition for Free Trade is quite positive. To quote my contact at CFT, "In Virginia: I just received a transcript of an oral hearing regarding the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. "The Virginia ABC tried to couch the shipment issue in terms of compliance with VA's labelling requirements, but the good guys reminded the court that the BATF already has labelling requirements and background checks. "The judge denied the Motion to Dismiss and is allowing the case to go forward. Just from the judge's brief comments (e.g. his statement re: the ABC's "inflated prices"), it appears the Court is leaning toward our side in VA as well."

I clearly do not understand why it is okay for me to have wine shipped to my home from a Virginia distributor, but not from one located in California or Washington.

Please let me know where you stand on this important consumer rights issue.