NEWSROOM
Commentary Articles
In The News
News Releases
Experts



Media Inquiries

Kim Cloidt
Director of Marketing & Communications
(510) 632-1366 x116
(202) 725-7722 (cell)
Send Email

Robert Ade
Communications Manager
(510) 632-1366 x114
Send Email


Subscribe



Commentary
Facebook Facebook Facebook Facebook

Contribute
Your participation will advance liberty. Join us as an Independent Institute member.



Contact Us
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA 94621-1428

510-632-1366 Phone
510-568-6040 Fax
Send us email


Interested in working with us?  Click here for more information.

News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 18, 2005

Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Wine Shipping
Economist Says Decision on How to Respond Now Goes to the States

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that states must permit in-state and out-of-state wineries to ship their products directly to consumers. The ruling overturns direct-shipping bans in 30 states that currently prohibit shipping wine directly from an out-of-state winery to the consumer.

“This is a victory for consumers but likely a temporary one,” says economist Glen Whitman. “State legislatures might respond by extending their shipping bans to cover all winemakers, regardless of geography. Although local vintners would no longer be protected, local distributors and retailers would still have guaranteed markets. Indeed, the distributors’ lobbying efforts will probably underwrite the campaign to expand the scope of the bans instead of ending them. Without a constitutional argument on their side, wine lovers will have no option but to petition their state legislators to say ‘no’ to special interests.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court ruling will force states to treat wine just like the thousands of other products shipped to consumers across state lines every day,” says Whitman, Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and author of the study, Strange Brew: Alcohol and Government Monopoly (The Independent Institute). The case pitted the 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition, but allowed states broad authority to regulate and even ban alcohol sales, against consumers and independent wineries.

“The 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ended Prohibition, but set the stage for state and federal regulations that protect wholesalers from competition,” says Whitman, an assistant professor of economics at California State University, Northridge. “This boils down to special interests: unnecessary middlemen get a legally guaranteed role in the market, then pass their costs and markups on to wine drinkers,” he points out. In Strange Brew, he examines the laws regulating the alcoholic beverage industry—the Franchise Termination Laws—which give wholesalers monopoly-like powers to raise prices. “These regulations are a form of corporate welfare, justified under the guise of concerns about taxation and protecting minors from buying alcohol,” says Whitman.

For information on "Strange Brew: Alcohol and Government Monopoly," please
see:
http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=25

Glen Whitman is currently available to discuss this recent Supreme Court ruling. For an interview, please contact: Pat Rose at (510) 632-1366 x116.



Home | About Us | Blogs | Issues | Newsroom | Multimedia | Events | Publications | Centers | Students | Store | Donate

Product Catalog | RSS | Jobs | Course Adoption | Links | Privacy Policy | Site Map
Facebook Facebook Facebook Facebook
Copyright 2014 The Independent Institute