ILNews

Beer wholesalers enlist lawmakers in fight against Monarch

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Statehouse is a common battlefield for factions in Indiana's alcoholic beverage industry, and this session, one group of beer wholesalers is firing shots in multiple directions.

Driven by the Indiana Beverage Alliance, Senate Bill 415 seeks to derail federal court cases brought by the group's opponents–  including Indianapolis-based Monarch Beverage Co. – who claim Indiana's Prohibition-era alcohol laws are unconstitutional.

The bill also contains a long list of rules on how beer companies can do business with wholesalers, a set of provisions meant to remedy the trade group's ongoing quarrel with Anheuser-Busch InBev.

Indiana Beverage Alliance President Marc Carmichael called the bill “my turd in the punch bowl.”

“We've certainly gotten a lot of attention,” Carmichael said.

Republican Sen. Ron Alting, chairman of the Public Policy Committee, is sponsoring the bill.

Indiana's beer wholesalers split into two camps as Monarch tried to change Indiana law so that it could distribute liquor as well as beer. Liquor wholesalers oppose that change, and so do the beer wholesalers represented by the Indiana Beverage Alliance. Both groups fear that it would help create a distribution monopoly.

Having failed to get bills passed over four sessions, Monarch turned last year to federal court with a lawsuit against the Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, saying Indiana's law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The convenience store lobby, the Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, filed a similar lawsuit in May over the fact that its members aren't allowed to sell cold beer.

SB 415 states that if any portion of the Indiana code on alcohol is found to be invalid, the rest shall be interpreted to limit, rather than expand, commerce in that industry.

Monarch CEO Phil Terry said he's opposing the bill, even though he agrees that Indiana's laws are intended to be restrictive. “We don't necessarily disagree with the policy statement they've got in there,” he said. “It's just, I know why they put it in there, to affect our lawsuit.”

The Indiana Beverage Alliance supports liquor distributors who are trying to intervene in Monarch's lawsuit, but Carmichael said SB 415 isn't aimed at one case or trade group.

He said the goal is to prevent deep-pocketed companies from challenging state alcohol laws in court. “It's been a phenomenon around the country over the last several years as various groups have tried to deregulate alcohol to their advantage.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  2. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  3. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

  4. If it were your child that died maybe you'd be more understanding. Most of us don't have graves to visit. My son was killed on a state road and I will be putting up a memorial where he died. It gives us a sense of peace to be at the location he took his last breath. Some people should be more understanding of that.

  5. Can we please take notice of the connection between the declining state of families across the United States and the RISE OF CPS INVOLVEMENT??? They call themselves "advocates" for "children's rights", however, statistics show those children whom are taken from, even NEGLIGENT homes are LESS likely to become successful, independent adults!!! Not to mention the undeniable lack of respect and lack of responsibility of the children being raised today vs the way we were raised 20 years ago, when families still existed. I was born in 1981 and I didn't even ever hear the term "CPS", in fact, I didn't even know they existed until about ten years ago... Now our children have disagreements between friends and they actually THREATEN EACH OTHER WITH, "I'll call CPS" or "I'll have [my parent] (usually singular) call CPS"!!!! And the truth is, no parent is perfect and we all have flaws and make mistakes, but it is RIGHTFULLY OURS - BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT NATION - to be imperfect. Let's take a good look at what kind of parenting those that are stealing our children are doing, what kind of adults are they producing? WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS TO THE CHILDREN THAT HAVE BEEN RIPPED FROM THEIR FAMILY AND THAT CHILD'S SUCCESS - or otherwise - AS AN ADULT.....

ADVERTISEMENT