ILNews

Senator steers clear of beer wholesaler legal battle

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Legislature won't interfere with beer wholesaler Monarch Beverage Co.'s quest in federal court for the right to distribute liquor.

Sen. Ron Alting, R-Lafayette, chairman of the Public Policy Committee, said Wednesday morning that he won't include language sought by Monarch's opponents in any alcoholic beverage bill that he advances in the second half of the session.

“I respect all of our wholesalers,” Alting said.

The Indiana Beverage Alliance, which represents Budweiser distributors, hoped to derail federal court cases by Monarch, the Indiana Petroleum Marketers and the Convenience Store Association with Senate Bill 415, which stated 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.

The lawsuits by Monarch and the convenience stores claim that Indiana's alcohol laws are unconstitutional.

Alting stripped the court-instruction language from the bill, which also deals with how beer makers can do business with Indiana wholesalers. Alting said he delayed a committee vote on SB 415 to give Anheueser-Busch InBev and the Budweiser distributors more time to work out their differences.

Among the Budweiser distributors' complaints is that Anheueser-Busch has flooded their docks with beer they didn't order, while forcing them to pay for it.

“In general, it's not our business,” Alting said. “However, what's a little bit different in this situation is Indiana created the beer wholesalers. They play a very, very important role in the three-tier system [of suppliers, wholesalers and retailers]."

Though SB 415 did not advance in the Senate, Alting said he may still insert language protecting the wholesalers in a House bill destined for his committee. The major beermakers are watching the Legislature's reaction to the industry quarrel, Alting said.

"We will protect our beer wholesalers in Indiana," he said.

Indianapolis-based Monarch and the Indiana Beverage Alliance split over Monarch's attempts to pass legislation that would give it the right to distribute liquor. The other beer wholesalers say they fear Monarch would end up creating a monopoly. Liquor distributors also oppose Monarch's effort.

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. @ President Snow, like they really read these comments or have the GUTS to show what is the right thing to do. They are just worrying about planning the next retirement party, the others JUST DO NOT CARE about what is right. Its the Good Ol'Boys - they do not care about the rights of the mother or child, they just care about their next vote, which, from what I gather, the mother left the state of Indiana because of the domestic violence that was going on through out the marriage, the father had three restraining orders on him from three different women, but yet, the COA judges sent a strong message, go ahead men put your women in place, do what you have to do, you have our backs... I just wish the REAL truth could be told about this situation... Please pray for this child and mother that God will some how make things right and send a miracle from above.

  2. I hear you.... Us Christians are the minority. The LGBTs groups have more rights than the Christians..... How come when we express our faith openly in public we are prosecuted? This justice system do not want to seem "bias" but yet forgets who have voted them into office.

  3. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  4. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  5. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

ADVERTISEMENT