Maine & Direct Shipping Education
February 26, 2008 – 8:52 amNo one ever claimed the issues surrounding direct to consumer shipping were not complicated and often difficult to understand. Add politics to the mix and you often have mistaken understandings of the issues at hand as well as very problematic interpretations of what a direct shipping bill does for a state.
Yesterday the Veteran and Legal Affairs Committee of the Maine Legislature heard testimony on LD 1987, a bill that would allow Maine residents to purchase and have shipped to them wine from out-of-state wineries and retailers. The provisions of the bill are:
1. The state will issues shipping permits to out-of-state wineries, importers, distributors and retailers.
2. Wine can only be delivered to a person 21 and older and the package must display the following language: “CONTAINS ALCOHOL: SIGNATURE OF PERSON 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER REQUIRED FOR DELIVERY.”
3. The annual cost of the shippers permit is $100.
4. Shippers must pay Maine taxes and file an annual report on its shipments.
5. Shippers must submit to Maine-initiated audits as well as Maine legal jurisdiction.
It’s a standard direct shipping bill.
Yet, State police Lt. David Bowler was able to say this at the hearing:
“A credit card and a few key strokes is all that would be required for an underage person to acquire alcohol if this bill passes.”
This is of course untrue. The underage person would not only have to have a credit card, but they’d also have to be at home when the wine arrives, have access to identification that demonstrates they are 21 and they’d had to be able to do this either with the consent of their parents or when their parents are not at home. Whether Lt. Bowler was simply mistaken or leaving out the crucial information in his testimony is unknown. What is known is that that he was mistaken.
Then there was the comment of Scott Solman, the owner of Maine Distributors, who said the bill would “give out-of-state companies a competitive advantage over Maine companies (that) abide by the laws and regulations that govern our industry.”
I’m unsure how a retailer who might be 3000 miles from Maine and who must charge shipping to the recipient is somehow at an advantage over Maine companies that sell wine and who are within driving distance for the purchaser. Perhaps Mr. Solman was suggesting that Maine companies will follow the law while out-of-state companies will not. This latter possibility is certainly not the case. Whether Mr. Soloman was simply mistaken or whether he choose not to explain the whole story is unclear. What is clear is that his testimony was mistaken.
Finally, the sponsor of the bill, Lynn Bromley, was mistaken in her assertion that, “in addition to benefiting Maine consumers, [the bill] would expand the out-of-state market for Maine wines. Noting that most states allow their residents to have wine delivered, Bromley said some of those states bar shipments from Maine wineries because of Maine’s shipping ban.”
Senator Bromley is referring to the notion of “reciprocity”, a system that has largely gone out of use in the U.S. and whereby states passed laws allowing other states’ companies to ship their wines as long as those states allowed the other state to ship its wines. Today, no more than 3 states have reciprocity agreements in place.
The state of Maine has attempted many times to pass a Wine Shipping Permit Bill. Whether this one will pass is unknown. What is known is that more than anything else, legislators and interested parties need to be educated on the issue of direct shipping.
One Response to “Maine & Direct Shipping Education”
I just received this note from Maryland Delegate Carolyn Krysiak explaining why HB1260 did not pass.
Thank you for your correspondence. Let me explain why House Bill 1260 has failed to pass.
First, the Baltimore City Liquor Board or any other local board in the State would not have jurisdiction over, or the ability to revoke the license of, out-of-state retailers or wineries. We impose significant consequences upon in-State retailers who sell to minors, but would not have a similar ability to impose these same sanctions upon out of state retailers who ship wine to minors in Maryland. If we cannot closely control the activities of these shippers and discipline them in the same way we do in-State retailers, then it’s my view that we shouldn’t give them the same privileges.
Second, couriers that deliver wine across state lines cannot be properly regulated by the State. A recent Supreme Court decision made clear that whatever policies and procedures we put in place in Maryland to ensure that wine is not delivered to minors cannot be enforced, because they are pre-empted by federal law.
Finally, for wine connoisseurs who seek certain wines that are not currently carried by stores, there is already a way to do that. The wine can be shipped to a local retailer directly from the winery by obtaining a $10 permit from the Comptroller’s Office. While this does
not deliver the product to your doorstep, it still provides access to the wine at minimal inconvenience. And, most importantly, it does not open another means for minors to access alcohol.
I am hoping that we can work out a mechanism to handle these shipments better and in the future we can more fully satisfy your needs.
Delegate Carolyn Krysiak
Room 314 Lowe Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-841-3303
By Marc on Mar 13, 2008