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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT