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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT