Comments on: Doyle uses veto on Wisconsin budget bill http://shipcompliantblog.com/blog/2007/10/26/doyle-uses-line-item-veto-on-wisconsin-budget-bill/ Untangling the complex world of wine direct shipping and compliance Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:05:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Jeff Carroll - VP of Compliance, ShipCompliant http://shipcompliantblog.com/blog/2007/10/26/doyle-uses-line-item-veto-on-wisconsin-budget-bill/#comment-26394 Jeff Carroll - VP of Compliance, ShipCompliant Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:39:55 +0000 http://shipcompliantblog.com/blog/2007/10/26/doyle-uses-line-item-veto-on-wisconsin-budget-bill/#comment-26394 Fred, yes that means status quo is maintained until new legislation is considered in 2008. Badger consumers will have to wait until then to receive shipments from wineries in states with which WI does not have a reciprocal arrangement. Lyn, I don't think there is anything in the WI statutes that prohibits a WI winery from shipping to a limited/direct state. Generally speaking, with the exception of New York, if a state has adopted a permit system post-Granholm, they allow wineries from any of the 50 states to get a permit. So, WI wineries should be able to ship to non-reciprocal states. Fred, yes that means status quo is maintained until new legislation is considered in 2008. Badger consumers will have to wait until then to receive shipments from wineries in states with which WI does not have a reciprocal arrangement.

Lyn, I don’t think there is anything in the WI statutes that prohibits a WI winery from shipping to a limited/direct state. Generally speaking, with the exception of New York, if a state has adopted a permit system post-Granholm, they allow wineries from any of the 50 states to get a permit. So, WI wineries should be able to ship to non-reciprocal states.

]]> By: Fred S. http://shipcompliantblog.com/blog/2007/10/26/doyle-uses-line-item-veto-on-wisconsin-budget-bill/#comment-26229 Fred S. Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:15:27 +0000 http://shipcompliantblog.com/blog/2007/10/26/doyle-uses-line-item-veto-on-wisconsin-budget-bill/#comment-26229 Lyn, are you saying CA went to a permit system? I read that OR is doing it at the first of the year, but I am not aware of CA doing it. I simply cannot do without my Kosta Browne, Hobbs, Loring, AP Vin, Merry Edwards, etc. Truthfully, I cannot imagine anyone in CA ever placing an order for WI wine, so if the permit system must unfold, let's get it done and in a manner that the small wineries can not just survive, but thrive in. I don't trust Doyle to roll out a separate bill platter that is tasteful to the DTC wine lover at the expense of his donation happy distributor base. The budget line item veto has got to be a short term bone thrown to the WI wineries though I suspect he vetoed it because the local (awesome) small brewery/brewpub base was caught up in the legislation. He won't hide his stripes forever. Lyn, are you saying CA went to a permit system? I read that OR is doing it at the first of the year, but I am not aware of CA doing it. I simply cannot do without my Kosta Browne, Hobbs, Loring, AP Vin, Merry Edwards, etc. Truthfully, I cannot imagine anyone in CA ever placing an order for WI wine, so if the permit system must unfold, let’s get it done and in a manner that the small wineries can not just survive, but thrive in. I don’t trust Doyle to roll out a separate bill platter that is tasteful to the DTC wine lover at the expense of his donation happy distributor base. The budget line item veto has got to be a short term bone thrown to the WI wineries though I suspect he vetoed it because the local (awesome) small brewery/brewpub base was caught up in the legislation. He won’t hide his stripes forever.

]]> By: lyn http://shipcompliantblog.com/blog/2007/10/26/doyle-uses-line-item-veto-on-wisconsin-budget-bill/#comment-26180 lyn Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:09:26 +0000 http://shipcompliantblog.com/blog/2007/10/26/doyle-uses-line-item-veto-on-wisconsin-budget-bill/#comment-26180 This is the definition of reciprocal. Reciprocal states : This category is now shrinking as more states transition to limited direct / permit status. For the time being, this means that only wineries in another reciprocal state can ship into the reciprocal states. For example, a winery in a prohibited state wouldn't be able to ship into a reciprocal state. The Supreme Court indicated this is a problem in May of 2005 - this is why we are moving away from these and towards more limited direct / permit states. Unfortunately Wisconsin wineries can only ship to another reciprocal state, Iowa, Ill, NM and CA, OR, VA, etc with limited/permit states can not ship to Wisconsin. I am just tired of hearing "sections may help address some concerns with sales of alcohol to minors". States need to stop hiding behind that reasoning and get real about what it is really about. It's really about protecting distributors and collecting additional alcohol taxes, i.e. "The Money". Protectionism does not work or is it a constitutional right. It's time wine consumers stand up and fight all legislation regarding shipping wine. We should be able to ship to ourselves if we are at a winery in state or out of state and able to purchase wine from wineries anywhere in the world. This is the definition of reciprocal.
Reciprocal states : This category is now shrinking as more states transition to limited direct / permit status. For the time being, this means that only wineries in another reciprocal state can ship into the reciprocal states. For example, a winery in a prohibited state wouldn’t be able to ship into a reciprocal state. The Supreme Court indicated this is a problem in May of 2005 - this is why we are moving away from these and towards more limited direct / permit states.

Unfortunately Wisconsin wineries can only ship to another reciprocal state, Iowa, Ill, NM and CA, OR, VA, etc with limited/permit states can not ship to Wisconsin.

I am just tired of hearing “sections may help address some concerns with sales of alcohol to minors”. States need to stop hiding behind that reasoning and get real about what it is really about. It’s really about protecting distributors and collecting additional alcohol taxes, i.e. “The Money”. Protectionism does not work or is it a constitutional right.

It’s time wine consumers stand up and fight all legislation regarding shipping wine. We should be able to ship to ourselves if we are at a winery in state or out of state and able to purchase wine from wineries anywhere in the world.

]]> By: Fred S. http://shipcompliantblog.com/blog/2007/10/26/doyle-uses-line-item-veto-on-wisconsin-budget-bill/#comment-26094 Fred S. Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:18:16 +0000 http://shipcompliantblog.com/blog/2007/10/26/doyle-uses-line-item-veto-on-wisconsin-budget-bill/#comment-26094 OK, after going on an emotional roller coaster the last few days, I am still lost. Does anyone know if this means the status quo is maintained (e.g., reciprocity with CA is still in place, with OR to fall at the first of the year)? If so, what does it mean for folks with OR, VA and other state shipments to WI? Help! OK, after going on an emotional roller coaster the last few days, I am still lost. Does anyone know if this means the status quo is maintained (e.g., reciprocity with CA is still in place, with OR to fall at the first of the year)? If so, what does it mean for folks with OR, VA and other state shipments to WI? Help!

]]>