Stone Brewing Co. (Escondido, CA) wants to build a new brewery on the east coast. Where? That depends a lot of state laws regarding alcohol sales.
In hopes of getting the Stone build, the South Carolina Brewer’s Association, and members of the Department of Commerce have pushed to create “The Stone Bill” which would change the laws to allow Stone Brewing Co. to operate as they do in their home in California. It’s passage is currently favorable, which could open up the door for not only Stone, but Deschutes who is also looking to build in the east.
It was only a matter of time before Anheuser-Busch got involved with their legal team, pushing against the passage of “The Stone Bill.” In a letter sent to South Carolina senators, Attorney Amanda K. Wuenscher of Columbia-basedMike Daniel & Associates takes a stand against the bill citing the erosion of the three-tier system, and unfair advantages given to craft breweries. Furthermore, the law firm argues that everyone should abide by the same rules.
Below is a copy of the email, sent to Beer Street Journal earlier today.
From: [emailprotected] [mailto:[emailprotected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:24 AM
Cc: [emailprotected]; Mike Daniel
Subject: H.3512: Please Non-concur with House AmendmentsSenator:
Mike Daniel, Wanda, and I wanted to touch base regarding H.3512, which was
amended in the House yesterday and will be in the Senate this morning for
concurrence or nonoccurrence. While our client, Anheuser-Busch, has no
problem with the original bill regarding the use of coupons in liquor
stores, they do have some serious concerns about one of the amendments added
by the House which is intended to make SC a more amenable environment for
craft brewers, in particular Stone Brewing Company. A-B is certainly not
opposed to brewpubs being in the state, we are completely supportive of
economic development initiatives, and we stand ready to work on a compromise
plan that will address everyone’s needs. However, the particular language
in this amendment and the manner in which the law would be changed would be
detrimental to the current three tier system for alcohol distribution.
Therefore, Anheuser-Busch’s primary concern is that this amendment erodes
the current system that works so well. We have been asked to share the
following information to provide more background on our client’s concerns.Thank you so very much for your consideration, Senator. We respectfully ask
that you non-concur and refer the bill to a conference committee so that we
have a chance to be heard in a committee setting before the General Assembly
takes action.* This amendment erodes the current three tier system for alcohol
distribution. It picks “winners and losers” in the beer marketplace by
singling out a specific entity to which this law would grant a competitive
advantage over other brewers, distributors, and even retailers. There are
specific regulations and requirements that all brewers, wholesalers, and
retailers must comply with under the three tier system. We are happy to
provide you with more specifics regarding these items, but for now, the most
important thing to note is that each step of the system is heavily regulated
and carving out one group the way this amendment proposes to do will create
an uneven playing field and give some brewers a competitive advantage over
others. Anheuser-Busch’s belief is that everyone should play by the same
rules.* The increase in the amount/definition is a primary concern for us
because there are already special laws for brewpubs which exempt them from
certain requirements, and in the case of this amendment, it is of particular
concern because it is taken in conjunction with the other items included in
or omitted from this amendment. For example, there are no limits on the
amount of beer that may be sold for off-premise consumption. In addition,
kegs, bottles, and cans would now be able to be sold to wholesalers with no
limit.* Also, while we understand there is the issue of potential jobs to think about, we are not sure
how a brewpub producing 500,000 barrels a year will employ the 400 people folks seem to be
claiming is the case. At Anheuser-Busch’s Williamsburg brewery, they produce 8.5 million
barrels of beer per year. While this is far more than the five hundred thousand
allowed for brewpubs in the proposed amendment, A-B’s Williamsburg brewery
only employs 72 salaried employees. If you include all of the part time
employees in the count, the total number of employees is still only around
250. Again, that’s 250 total employees to produce 8.5 million barrels per year. We cannot
imagine how 500,000 barrels per year will employ more than
400 people as claimed.* Anheuser-Busch is an advocate for beer period! The expansion of their industry is good for
everyone. As stated above, A-B is certainly not opposed to brewpubs being in the state and they
are completely supportive of economic development initiatives. However, this language is a
radical change to current law and should not be considered until all stakeholders have a chance
to weigh in n the issue. Passing this language via a last minute amendment is just not good
public policy.Amanda K. Wuenscher
MIKE DANIEL & ASSOCIATES, PA
GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS1122 Lady Street, Suite 705
Columbia, South Carolina 29201Office: 803.461.0400
Fax: 803.461.0399
Cell: 803.707.5466mikedanielandassociates.com
