A thread titled State of Wine Sales in the United States on the Mark Squires' Board on eRobertParker.com has renewed the debate over the arcane wine direct shipping laws consumers are forced to confront. Robert Parker himself even weighed in with a scathing comment of the system (see post #13 in the thread above).
A consumer coalition led by Parker?
Tom Wark, in An Open Letter to Robert Parker, Jr., broaches the brilliant idea of Parker extending his independent, well-respected voice as the "Wine Advocate" from helping consumers determine quality wines to buy to actually enabling greater access to the wines he is recommending.
Tapping the power of organized consumers is the foundation of a solution
A few basic premises involved in changing the shipping laws:
- Laws are made by legislators.
- Legislators are elected by citizens (i.e. consumers) but heavily influenced by lobbying and political donations.
- Unless one can match the political clout of the system's beneficiaries who redeploy monopoly profits to defend the status quo, the only way to trump their influence is through citizen/consumer activism.
A Federal interstate shipping law should be the goal
As I have written before in Hypocrisy in wine shipping laws, the best solution is a new federal law that relies upon the government's authority under the Commerce Clause to mandate rules for interstate wine shipping while leaving the rest of the states' regulatory and enforcement systems intact.
How a Federal wine shipping law should work
- Single annual shipping permit - A single Federal process for issuing annual permits to parties licensed in any state by their state regulatory authority (including retailers, wineries, wholesalers, and importers).
- Tax collection - Mandatory state/municipal tax collection on new purchases based on destination zip code with monthly remittances to each state.
- "Dry" area registry - National registry of dry counties and zip codes where inbound shipments would be prohibited.
- Age verification - Age verification required (21 or older) to ship (either via an online service or in person) and to receive a shipment (with signature required).
- Centralized reporting - Federal reporting and recordkeeping standard established requiring the permitholder to file monthly reports (available to all state authorities for tax verification and other purposes) and to maintain all shipment records for a minimum period of three years.
- Regulatory jurisdiction matching activity - Shippers regulated solely by their home state authority for all activities other than shipping (where Federal regulation would apply) and shipment-related taxes (where each state's taxing authority would have jurisdiction).
- Violations - Violations of Federal shipping rules (including the failure to pay associated state taxes) would constitute grounds for revoking all interstate shipping privileges.
Why a Federal law works for everyone
Implementing the above recommendation would solve every objection to change that I have heard articulated. Specifically, it meets the following tests:
- Minimizes administrative overheads due to centralization of permitting and reporting
- Enables access to all 50 states for wine buyers and sellers
- Fosters competition leading to more choice at lower prices
- Ensures tax collection at a time when all states need more money. Even "control states" shouldn't care where the sale is made.
- Protects minors.
- Leaves existing state regulatory infrastructure and oversight responsibilities intact.
- Creates "teeth" for compliance with shipping rules via risk of complete loss of interstate shipping privilege upon violations.
Bottom line: The law I am proposing will encounter fierce opposition from entrenched interests. The only way to make it happen is through a consumer coalition which can make itself heard by the political establishment. Any such organization needs a recognized spokesperson to rise above the noise level and to reduce the magnitude of the lobbying dollars otherwise needed. Robert Parker, Jr. would be an excellent candidate but the cause should be pursued, with or without him.
