For The Love Of Port

In an amazing turn of events, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals voted on the side of the consumer and has changed history, for Moses Botbol and others who will now be able to buy direct and have wines shipped from wineries outside of MA for the very first time.

Hallelujah!

http://ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/09-1169P-01A.pdf

Hey Sean, that's what I call a GREAT birthday present!

For those skeptics who think this will be easily turned over on appeal, it would require the MA State Attorney General petitioning the US Supreme Court to listen to an appeal and submitting an Amicus (Curiae) Brief.

I am no lawyer, but believe that would be the logical requirement for this ruling (US District Court of Appeals) to be overturned. No small feat, but I wouldn't be surprised if this were at least tried by the MA AG. Someone who is more savvy with the law than I can confirm if my assumption is indeed valid.

Congratulations to consumers in the MA Commonwealth!

It looks like the deal is sealed. Seriously folks this is pretty amazing news and not just for MA. Another single state falls in this direction and it would open the door for consumer advocates to approach the Supreme Court.

Check this out: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9570960

It is time for everyone to break out some very fine Port and toast the brave souls who brought this about.

They didn't decide in favor of consumers, they decided in favor of a group of out-of-state wineries. The law was struck down because it was written (choosing the size of wineries adversely affected) to favor Mass wineries and hurt non-Mass wineries. All Mass has to do is make the onerous provisions apply to ALL wineries and Mass citizens will be worse off than they have been.

That's what Michigan did: because their shipping law was discriminatory and violated interstate commerce provisions by putting extra burdens on out-of-state wineries, they just applied it to in-state wineries as well.

All these state laws are trying to find ways to shut out wineries from other states in SOME way that will pass this obstacle, and one-by-one they are getting called on it. Their solution is generally to level the field by making it harder on their own wineries. Very few states actually make the law benefit the wine drinker and buyer.

Like the creepy Emcee in Cabaret says, "MONEY MONEY MONEY makes the world go around." It isn't even the local wineries, or the taxing authorities, in each state that are trying to exclude out-of-state shipments. IT IS THE MIDDLE TIER OF DISTRIBUTORS who see their stranglehold on the profits from alcohol reselling in danger. Taxes could be collected from anything going in any direction. The states do it easily with income generated by its in-state residents but earned in other states who also want a slice. The wineries would BENEFIT by being able to ship to other states. (Slightly more competition for in-state customers vs. freedom to ship to the other 49 states?? That's a no-brainer.)

The NRA has a strong lobbying arm, and it gets pounded for it by the press, and lampooned by stand-up comedians. Why do the alcohol distributors get away with the same kind of lobbying and skate on all fronts? No one says 'Boo!" about clearly anti-consumer laws being passed and retained at the urging of a relatively small industry.

How about a disclosure label on every bottle of alcohol sold in each state? It would state that XX% of the retail price of this bottle was used to lobby for restrictive alcohol laws.

I hope you didn't think that the distributors were paying for all that lobbying -- we are. It's like forcing the man about to be hanged to pay for the rope.

If nothing else, I'd like to see profits limited/reduced for distributors who spend money on lobbying. Governments seem to have no problem with the ethics of regulating how much utilities may profit. Why not limit the amount of profit distributors can make, and reduce it by the amount they spend on lobbying? I know -- paper tiger, slippery slope and all that. I really wouldn't like to see this, but it drives home the truly anti-consumer practices that the distribution folks are getting away with WHICH ALL OTHER INDUSTRIES ARE PREVENTED FROM DOING.

Peter,

For exactly 15 years now, I have been very vocal about the neo-Prohibitionists who do everything in their power to protect their little fiefdom on a state-by-state basis and as you've aptly mentioned, it is all about controling the $. If you want to know who/what/how ... look into WSWA, for that is the name of the organization ... Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, that organizes the trade and gathers to money to put up for legal "defense" of their turf. It is about paying for lobbyists and lawyers and attacking wherever there is a legal battle to "free the grapes." They're anti-consumer, anti-interstate shipping of alcholic beverages (mostly directed at wine) and anti-Federal regulations. So WSWA is the face of the enemy that remains otherwise cloaked and if you are looking to have them taken down, the only group really opposing them is called, FREE THE GRAPES.

Having studied this "phenomenon" for some time, I have learned that wine although important to us, is a very minor part of the $ flow and where the real money is situated is within the realm of "spirits" for the real big bucks are made in this country by the hard alcohol industry by leaps and bounds over what is made by the domestic wine market and businesses.

All of that said, I believe (from discussions with other serious wine lovers elsewhere) that the lawsuit above is a definite net-positive for the consumer in having more freedom of choice. I don't agree that the situation in MA and MI are that close and for at least one day, there is something significant to celebrate.

Perhaps this is why Sarah Palin is Keynote Speaker at this year's WSWA convention.

They certainly didn't choose her on the basis of her geographical knowledge
If asked , she could probably see the Douro valley from her backyard

Perhaps this is why Sarah Palin is Keynote Speaker at this year's WSWA convention.

First her book, then a TV gig and now this. What is in the future for this ambitious woman who would make for a lousy leader of a country like ours. Actually, she's not even close to being bright enough. Then again it will depend on the intelligence of the American voters to realize that. Odds are at least even. I'd have to decide whether I'd rather live closeby in Canada or move to Portugal once and for all.


Luc wrote:

They certainly didn't choose her on the basis of her geographical knowledge

Actually, I don't think her knowledge of anything came into play whatsoever, and certainly not wine knowledge ... but possibly beer and spirits are areas that she may be a bit more familiar with. Not that those are bad beverages either.

If asked , she could probably see the Douro valley from her backyard.

Depends on her telescope.

Nothing can surprise the electorate of the US anymore.

Almost sucked me in there. Not going to discuss politics here, except as it relates to wine/alcohol.

I value the friendly atmosphere here too much to risk it.

Oh, I'll risk it just a little bit.

Roy Hersh wrote:Actually, she's not even close to being bright enough.

Since when has that been a requirement?

Oh, all right, you sucked me in. I was going to say it wasn't a requirement and may even be detrimental. I think our last bright Prez was not all that great. Guess who?

Clinton.

Clinton? Nah.

I wonder if a FOI request could get a list of presidential IQs.

There appear to be a number of hoaxed lists purporting to show PIQ scores.

The reported score for Clinton suggests some problems with these lists.

First her book, then a TV gig and now this. What is in the future for this ambitious woman who would make for a lousy leader of a country like ours. Actually, she's not even close to being bright enough. Then again it will depend on the intelligence of the American voters to realize that. Odds are at least even. I'd have to decide whether I'd rather live closeby in Canada or move to Portugal once and for all.

Many of the recent presidential candidates from both parties have not been the brightest of bulbs. Apparently not a prerequisite for being a very successful politician.

Peter W. Meek wrote:Oh, all right, you sucked me in. I was going to say it wasn't a requirement and may even be detrimental. I think our last bright Prez was not all that great. Guess who?

Ronald Regan?

Woodrow Wilson

WW? RR? Not thinking of those, although I suspect WW was on the bright side.

What about the contenders ? like ............................. Ross Perot

Bush Sr?