HR 5034's day in Congress

The Wine Curmudgeon's feelings about HR 5034 are well known, but since the cyber ether was practically crackling with positrons during the bill's hearing yesterday, one more short post is in order.

There were eight links on the Wine Business News daily roundup this morning, which is where many of us who follow the business look each day to see what's going on. I had two favorites: The news release from The Specialty Wine Retailers Association, which called the bill "radical," and the testimony of U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), who said the bill would deprive family wineries of their constitutional rights.

Note to wine retailers: Radical is abolishing slavery, not abolishing direct shipping. Note to Rep. Thompson: Not letting people vote is depriving them of their constitutional rights, not abolishing direct shipping.

Can the Congress now return to real work? Last time I checked, the federal government didn't have a budget.

Comments

[Tom wark]

Everything is contextual. In 223 congress has only once stripped a single industry of it's Commerce clause rights to be free of state based discriminatory laws: the McCarran Fergusen act for insurance in 1945. Stripping Wine stores of those constitutional rights under HR 5034 would be only the second time. That's a radical departure from our constitutional and commercial traditions.

[Jeff Siegel]

Thanks again for reading and commenting on the blog, Tom. And you're right -- the difference is contextual, Abolishing slavery was a big deal; direct shipping isn't.