LET THE CRONY CAPITALIST BATTLE BEGIN ANEW …
Last year the S.C. House of Representatives passed a liquor distribution reform bill over the objections of a heavily-funded lobbying campaign led by Maryland-based Total Wine and More and national retail giant Walmart. Despite a furious push by these well-connected special interests, the House did not approve their crony capitalist language – and passed out a bill that we believe better protects consumers.
We extensively covered this battle (here, here and here) … although in fairness we have argued that the state would be best “served” by there being zero regulation of this industry.
Anyway, as we noted in an update late last month – Big Liquor is at it again. Specifically, its minions have shaken up their staff – and their strategy – and are now looking to accomplish in the S.C. Senate what they couldn’t get done in the House. In fact this week they launch their push to take the House bill – which passed last spring by an 88-11 majority – and amend it to effectively bankrupt small and mid-sized liquor distributors.
For those of you who didn’t follow this debate a year ago, this debate is all in response to a lawsuit brought by Total Wine against the state. As we’ve previously noted, in other states (and here) when Total Wine encounters a law or a rule it doesn’t like – it simply ignores the statute and forces the state to spend tax dollars bringing them into compliance. Then the cycle repeats. Basically, the company uses its market power and size to maintain an unfair advantage over their law-abiding competition.
Most alcohol retailers have no choice but to follow the law. When they are fined because of a violation, they simply pay what they owe because it is too expensive for them to fight with the state.
Total Wine has been described by those with knowledge of their actions as a bully. In fact the company president, David Trone, was recently accused of threatening a local business owner – saying that the local owner needed to stand down because he (Trone) “owned” South Carolina.
Stay tuned for more on that alleged encounter in a future report …
In the meantime, for more on Trone’s behavior in other states check out this document (.pdf here).
Bottom line? Total Wine and its Big Liquor allies want to create a system whereby they control the pricing of alcohol – thus shutting down their competition and allowing them to enjoy an effective monopoly. In their efforts to do just that, they reportedly have liberal S.C. Senator Brad Hutto of Orangeburg, S.C. – a member of the subcommittee scheduled to hear the legislation – eager to do their bidding. While Hutto probably doesn’t have the votes to prevail at this stage of the game, he is a master parliamentarian and we have no doubt he has all sorts of tricks up his sleeve.
Obviously we will keep our readers updated on this fight – and we’d urge them to pay attention. If you drink, this will have a direct impact on your wallet …
18 comments
I thought Alphonse CaTrone was …. dead!
I should put you in medieval stocks for that horrible pun.
There was a king’s jester who punned incessantly until the king, in desperation, condemned the jester to be hanged. However, when the executioners had taken the jester to the gallows, the king, thinking that after all a good jester was not easy to find, relented, and sent a messenger post haste with a royal pardon.
Arriving at the gallows just in time, where the jester stood with the rope already about
his neck, the messenger read the king’s decree, to the effect that the jester would be pardoned if he would promise never to make another pun. The jester could not resist the temptation of the opportunity, however, for he cackled out: “No noose is good news.” ….. and they hanged him.
**groan**
Did you get ice?
Yes. And, quite a bit of snow. Thanks for asking.
You’re welcome.
What’s the bill number? If you’re talking about H 3450, you have no clue what it does or what interests it would benefit or harm. Your description of its impact is completely ass backwards.
i dunno about “no regulation” being better. not having booze shoved in our faces all day long is probably a good thing. the temperance movement was ultimately doomed and for good reason, but it didn’t grow out of nothing – people were spending a lot of time shit-faced. there really was an existential threat to society.
Booze is a staple must have item to live in SC.
I think the state has no business saying how many liquor stores a person can own. Local communities should have the power to address the concentration of liquor stores in an area by zoning ordinance, but the free market should prevail in terms of the ownership of stores and the prices they charge.
FITS protecting the ability of “distributors” to have a stranglehold on beer, wine and liquor in this state. Strange times indeed.
As I understand it the big box stores just want the ability to use there own distribution networks to bring alcohol to their stores, which would drive the price down. How is this bad for the consumer?
Don’t blame Folks – he’s just writing whatever his paymaster tells him. It’s not like he knows or cares about the truth of the issues.
Thank you for pointing out the REAL reason for this article and the basis for most of the articles on this pathetic website. Will’s free market, libertarian bullshit goes out the window when cold, hard cash is involved.
He’s a “Libertarian” after all.
California (and others) have a strange setup in some of the big box stores. There will be 2 VERY large grocery stores under the same roof (Albertson’s and Pathmark come to mind) that not only compete with grocery prices, but with their separate liquor businesses. OF COURSE, there’e no collusion but it seems that if one is cheaper than the other on GOOD Scotch, then the other will be somewhat cheaper on GOOD (if there is one) Bourbon.
Historically, SC has always been on the thirsty side of dry, but at the end of prohibition, it was highly recommended that drug stores (which could fill ‘alcohol’ prescriptions issued by a physician during “the great experiment”[usually grain alcohol, which is an “official drug” (according to the USP/NF)] should be licensed as the SC ‘official’ liquor stores. However, being then and now the Buckle of the Bible Belt, the measure was defeated. When I was much younger, it was more legal to drink booze in the summer, because (for whatever opaque reason) the state-licensed liquor stores had to close at sundown. I have fond memories of Columbia cabdrivers buying multicase quantities of booze in half pints to sell to people like me that ran out of daylight booze – usually only at a $2 premium delivered to your dorm or apartment.
I buy today from both – based on price alone. Passport Scotch (purportedly half-aged Chivas, and is quite smooth) is a bit cheaper at the “Locals” than at “the crony capitalist’s” – but good wine is cheaper (with shipping ‘deals’) on the internet than either. See “Wine Anthology” on Google. BUT BE SURE to pay the “use tax” on your SC 1040.
“[A]lthough in fairness we have argued that the state would be best “served” by there being zero regulation of this industry.”
Lol! Full-throttle libertarians always crack me up with this “zero regulation” stuff. Sure! Let’s trust the public with unfettered access to any type of stimulant or depressant that one can get their hands on.
Will, please please come sit through a day of plea court in front of a circuit judge in any county in this state. I think you will find this very enlightening.
So, is this happening now because Senator Leventis retired a few years ago?