2008 Woodie Awards
Ohio's troubling new wine law hurts consumers
Brian Graney
Issue date: 10/23/07 Section: OpEd Page
In their infinite wisdom, the drafters of our Constitution left matters of interstate commerce to the federal government in order to prevent trade wars among the various states. Imagine a world in which consumer products made in Indiana or Michigan faced a steep tariff once they crossed the state border into Ohio. Retaliation and the breakdown of economic trade would surely ensue. Protectionist measures on the state level are ostensibly prevented explicitly in the text of the Constitution through the interstate commerce clause but that apparently has not prevented the Ohio Legislature from dabbling in the tempting arena of protectionism.
Effective at the beginning of this month, Ohio residents can no longer directly purchase out-of-state wine from wineries that produce more than 150,000 gallons of wine per year. Such purchases have been perfectly legal in Ohio since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar Michigan law in 2005-arguing persuasively that Michigan had to treat small and large wineries alike in their laws. But Ohio has shrugged off the Supreme Court and adopted a similar law "to protect Ohio's wineries." Aside from the obvious point that no winery should be in business if it cannot actively compete with other wineries around the country, the way in which this wine law was adopted is particularly disturbing.
There was no public debate in the legislature about the merits of restricting the direct sale of wine. A backdoor deal was struck among state senators and this law was sneaked into this year's state budget. The Chairman of the Ohio House Finance Committee, Matthew Dolan, overlooked the restriction and apparently thought the law would not apply to consumers. How wrong he was. But there's more.
A curious question arises when considering this backdoor deal and why it was considered so important by multiple members of the legislature. The answer, as it is too many times these days in politics, is special interest groups. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, lobbyists persuaded two powerful senators to include the winery restriction in the budget. Lobbyists who had donated handsome amounts of campaign money to at least one of the senators in question-Jeff Jacobson.
Effective at the beginning of this month, Ohio residents can no longer directly purchase out-of-state wine from wineries that produce more than 150,000 gallons of wine per year. Such purchases have been perfectly legal in Ohio since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar Michigan law in 2005-arguing persuasively that Michigan had to treat small and large wineries alike in their laws. But Ohio has shrugged off the Supreme Court and adopted a similar law "to protect Ohio's wineries." Aside from the obvious point that no winery should be in business if it cannot actively compete with other wineries around the country, the way in which this wine law was adopted is particularly disturbing.
There was no public debate in the legislature about the merits of restricting the direct sale of wine. A backdoor deal was struck among state senators and this law was sneaked into this year's state budget. The Chairman of the Ohio House Finance Committee, Matthew Dolan, overlooked the restriction and apparently thought the law would not apply to consumers. How wrong he was. But there's more.
A curious question arises when considering this backdoor deal and why it was considered so important by multiple members of the legislature. The answer, as it is too many times these days in politics, is special interest groups. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, lobbyists persuaded two powerful senators to include the winery restriction in the budget. Lobbyists who had donated handsome amounts of campaign money to at least one of the senators in question-Jeff Jacobson.
Be the first to comment on this story