ILNews

Crack open a lukewarm one: Indiana's quirky rules about beer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana law allows someone to walk out of a convenience store and crack open a beer purchased there, but it can't be a cold one.

Decades-old rules, closely guarded by elected officials who receive generous donations from the liquor store lobby, strictly manage who can sell "iced or cooled" beer for carryout.

It's a right granted to package liquor stores and restaurants but denied gas stations and convenience stores — that is, until one gas station owner discovered a loophole. He installed seating and served burritos, landing a restaurant classification and the right to sell cold beer.

The maneuver has ignited a fierce legislative battle, with some of the state's most powerful lawmakers scrambling to pass legislation to close the loophole, underscoring the liquor lobby's clout.

"It's crazy," said Jay Ricker, who created the uproar by serving Mexican fare and securing the proper alcohol permits at two of his Ricker's stores. "It points out the absurdity of the current regulations."

Liquor stores say they are protecting what's theirs, with store permits auctioning for as much as $500,000. But their influence extends beyond preserving cold beer rights. They played a major role in torpedoing a 2015 effort to repeal a Prohibition-era ban on Sunday alcohol sales, arguing it would unfairly benefit grocery stores.

An Associated Press review found liquor store interests have spent at least $150,000 on lobbying in recent years while donating more than $750,000 to lawmakers since 2010.

Operators of three prominent liquor stores were also poised to benefit financially from a stringent vaping industry law that lawmakers approved last year, records show. The law, it was later discovered, effectively created a monopoly for a handful of politically connected companies and sparked an FBI investigation.

"Our owners, many multigenerational, are active and engaged in their communities and have personal relationships with their neighbors who happen to be citizen legislators and community leaders," the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers said in a statement to the AP.

Most liquor store contributions went to a handful of key lawmakers, including Republican Sen. Ron Alting, who leads a committee overseeing alcohol matters, GOP House Speaker Brian Bosma and Republican Senate leader David Long. Since 2010, they have collectively received more than $226,000 from liquor store interests, records show.

"This isn't about protecting any lobbying interest, although it's being depicted that way," said Bosma, who voiced concern that Ricker's could also sell hard liquor with their restaurant permits. "This is about who makes decisions about how you sell a controlled substance."

Jim James, who did not respond to a request for comment, is president of Indianapolis-based 21st Amendment liquor stores and has donated $16,000 to Alting in recent years. After trying unsuccessfully since 2011 to get the permit revoked of a competitor with a gourmet wine and cheese store, Alting took up James' cause last month.

Alting made changes to a bill likely making it impossible for the store to renew its permit. The provision was later removed after an outpouring of opposition, but not before Alting singled-out the store, Grapevine Cottage, for using a comparatively inexpensive grocery store permit to sell wine.

"You want to get into business?" Alting said. "Go buy a package liquor store permit."

When asked about liquor store owners' influence on Monday, Alting said he "goofed" by including the provision and argued the perception that "these big powerful lobbyists from the package liquor store" have undue clout is incorrect.

Last summer, Alting was among a handful of lawmakers interviewed by the FBI in connection with an investigation of the state's vaping law.

John McCullough, whose family owns Evansville's Frontier Liquors and has donated more than $31,000 to lawmakers since 2010, owns another company that is among six approved to produce the nicotine-laced "e-liquid" sold in the state. He did not respond to a request for comment.

Another owner, Jon Sinder of Indianapolis' Crown Liquors, filed a lengthy court brief defending the monopoly on behalf of a vaping company with which he had done business. The lawsuit eventually led to much of the law being struck down. Sinder, whose companies have given $53,000 to lawmakers since 2010, declined to comment.

David P. Lorey, an incorporator of the Dearborn Liquor Group which operates Whitey's Liquor stores in Lawrenceburg, was also selected to manufacture through his company Cloudtown, records show. He could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Alting elaborated on his ties to the alcohol industry during a contentious March hearing on a bill Budweiser distributors opposed, arguing they had been shut out of behind-the-scenes negotiations.

"I'm a little offended that the fact that it sounds like I was running a closed-door mafia meeting," Alting said, adding that he "would do nothing to my Budweiser friends that I thought purposely was going to hurt them."

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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT