Fermentation: The Daily Wine Blog

In Wine & Food Presentation the First Rule is "Don't Offend"

In designing a wine label it always rule #1 and sits atop The Guidelines: Don't Offend.

The rule is there because no matter what else the wine is, it is a consumer product meant to be sold and marketed. It turns out that it's pretty easy to adhere to this first rule and still take your label design project in any number of directions that satisfy one's brand development, one's sense of aesthetics and one's ego. 

In addition, this rule applies to numerous other areas beyond product packaging. Another area that first jumps to mind is presentation of a meal or dish or plate at a restaurant. The first rule of plate presentation is surely "Don't Offend".

There are a lot of good reasons for this. Despite the fact that a diner may already have ordered a dish and they pretty much are taking their chances, there is always the possibility that an offensive or otherwise disturbing presentation can result in a "take it back" response. This in turn should, at most restaurants, result in a quick and affirmative response.This is never good for the restaurant.

And of course, in today's world of social media, Yelp, TripAdvisor and the numerous other ways by which diners can haunt a restaurant's future, the rule of "don't offend" becomes particularly important.

And so this was on my mind when I stared down at the strangest looking dessert I've ever encountered that was presented to me at a restaurant that has garnered a great deal of positive attention and kudos not only for the quality of the food but for its overall agreeable and top end service and atmosphere. 

That dessert is pictured at the top of this post.

Without delving deeply into the anatomical or scatological implications of the presentation of this dish, I can say that it took a certain act of will on my part to eventually consume it...which I did.

Up to the point where this dessert was served to me, I considered this a fine meal. Nothing spectacular, but the food was very good, the service very good and they served me a spectacular cocktail prior to the meal concocted with both scotch and bourbon. I was happy.

Then I was offended.

The one thing that I kept asking myself as I stared down at this remarkably sculpted brown log of Johnson was how on earth anyone working in the food service industry could finish with this particular plating, look at what they had done, been satisfied, then had it delivered to a table? I suppose drugs could be involved, but I don't think so. It could be that the sculptor of the brown tube that was laid upon the plate was simply so spatially unaware that he saw no problem with his creation. Who knows?

On the menu the dish was called "Chocolate Creamy Delight". As Kathy and I stared at this thing we immediately came up with other names for it. Our server, who winced as we called them over as though they knew what was coming, called it "unfortunate". They were right.

So, for the sake of driving home the moral of this tale: Don't Offend!

A World of Fine Wine Delivers

I've revisited "The World of Fine Wine" magazine of late and come away still believing that for the wine collector, the connoisseur, the Europhile, the wine investor or for those who crave forceful opinion about wine and the wine world couched in carefully rendered prose, this is perhaps the only publication you need.

Word of Fine Wine is decidedly not a consumer magazine in the vein of The Wine Spectator, Wine Enthusiast or Decanter magazine. Published quarterly, given over to unusually thick and sturdy paper stock, and with an editorial direction that appears to not put up with anything other than comprehensive coverage of the subject, WoFW is much more a "journal". It is also much more expensive: $150 a year for 4 issues.

Looking over Issue #27, published this year, it's clear that there remains a clear bias toward what I'll call an "old world" sensitivity; a preference for wines that reflect a well worn regional characteristic (regardless of their appeal) and the predictable bias against wines that follow the B-E-M (Big Extracted Monsters) model of winemaking associated with California and Robert Parker. In this issue alone none other than Gerald Asher, Michel Bettane, Francis Percival and even Michael Steinberger produce articles that present either laments for the good old days of terroir or explain how the terroiristas are surely taking back winemaking from the adherents of BEM winemaking.

I like the attitude. Of course, I'd probably enjoy an Asher-written lament on the joylessness that has infected the production of toilet paper...he's that good.

The fact is, Editor Neil Becket never fails to round up an extraordinary crew of writers for the quarterly issues of World of Fine Wine. The line-up of writers, while somewhat overwhelmed by Brits, is always impressive. Issue 27 alone delivers up Jasper Morris—MW, Stephen Brook, Rod Phillips, Mike Steinberger, Hugh Johnson, Andrew Jeffords, Tom Stevenson, David Schildknecht, Gerald Asher, and Michel Bettane, and more—all between two very heavy stock covers.

More than anything else, what distinguishes issues of World of Fine Wine is a seriousness that is a step above that delivered by more mainstream wine publications. This quality is almost academic in nature. It's that level of commitment to the subject that is two steps above "enthusiast" and and once step above "geeky". World of Fine Wine seems to exist in a self-made clubby world of devoted oenophiles where the commitment to understanding fully and fully appreciating the character of 40 year old Champagne and the stewed woodcock with which it is best paired ranks in importance with the critical functioning of the fine wine market and how wine investments may work as a conservative hedge against the fluctuating Euro.

I love it.

I can't recommend "World of Fine Wine" enough.

Wine Blogs: Same Old, Same Old

The finalists in the 2010 American Wine Blog Awards were announced today and they include a variety of nominees who are new to the finalist round. Having been involved in these awards for quite some time and having watched the world of wine blogs for longer, I've now come around to the position that wine blogs are indeed members of the "traditional" or mainstream media.

For many, including myself, wine blogs have seemed to live outside this idea of the mainstream media, a world thought to be inhabited by traditional wine magazines, newspapers, larger media conglomerates and those media outlets defined by their commercial interests. On the other hand, blogs, and wine blogs in particular, have been understood as upstart challengers to the American wine media defined by their less encumbered, individualistic and often singular voices.

This is not the best way to understand blogs, nor "traditional" media.

"Traditional" media has always had one defining characteristic: it DISTRIBUTED information in the same way that wine wholesalers distributed news. Wine Blogs do the same thing. Whether they make money or not, are owned and operated by one person in their pajamas or not, whether they are advertising vehicles or not, wine blogs DISTRIBUTE the news; they, like newspaper wine columns or the Wine Enthusiast and other magazines, carry the message that in large part originates with others.

Today, if you are looking for a line to separate media, then look at the divide between "TRADITIONAL" media, which distributes the news, and SOCIAL media, which allows direct communication.

If you are looking for a better analogy, Traditional Media is the Three Tier System while Social Media is Direct To Consumer sales.

This distinction is critical for marketers and consumers to understand.

While wine marketers have always used the traditional media to deliver their message to consumers, today marketers have the additional tool of Social Media to deliver their message personally. Consumers of media and wine need to understand this too. This distinction has implications not only for how marketers ultimately speak to their customers, but also for how consumers appreciate and evaluate the messages they are being asked to consume.

Blogs may have seemed different. After all, the peculiarities of blog publishing allow anyone and everyone to become a distributor of information. This has meant a number of new voices in the wine publishing world, evidenced by the blogs that are highlighted in the American Wine blog Awards. And the very fact that this new publishing medium has seemed to steal the thunder of long time wine media publishers also seemed to set the blog apart from the mainstream.

But when you step back and really take a look at wine blogging world today, it's absolutely clear that blogs are much more aligned with the likes of the New York Times, The Glen Beck Show, The Nightly News, The Wine Spectator and Connoisseurs Guide to California wine than they are with Facebook profiles, Twitter accounts, Yelp pages or Link'd In Profiles.

Wine Blogs really are not part of the new, social media phenomena. They are, instead, easily identified with the world of information distribution.

That said, I urge you to go vote in the 2010 American Wine Blog Awards. Help identify the best voices in this new appendage to the traditional media. Some truly outstanding writers and bloggers are working hard to bring you the wine news, uncover new insights into the world of wine, and bring to light the character of great wine.

Lettie Teague on Optimism, The Wall Street Journal, Wine Writing and the implications of Print Journalist Hair

Lettie Teague ranks not only as one of America's most important wine writers, but as one of its most talented. And it's important to recognize that one does not always imply the other.

After spending many years as the Wine Editor and Executive Wine Editor at Food & Wine Magazine, she was recently appointed to be one of the wine writers at the Wall Street Journal. Lettie has won two James Beard Awards, including the coveted MFK Fisher Distinguished Writing Award. She has worked as a book editor, a publicist and in 2007 her book "Educating Peter" was published. Subtitled "How I Taught a Famous Movie Critic the Difference Between Cabernet and Merlot or How Anybody can become an (Almost) Instant Wine Expert", the book demonstrated that the common "how to" wine book need not be boring or common.

I've always enjoyed Lettie Teague's work. Her writing on wine tends to be wonderfully conversational and witty and she often brings herself into the story in a way that provokes a certain intimacy between her and her readers.

Lettie was kind enough to answer a few questions for FERMENTATION readers.

1. In your book, "Educating Peter", you describe your former boss at Food and Wine Magazine, Dana Cowin, as  "...a perennial optimist; a great believer in people and ideas". Where does Lettie Teague fall in the continuum between great optimist and sorrowful pessimist?
How about on the Optimistic side of Pessimism? I’m always looking for Reasons to Believe –in people, in wine and the importance of good writing.

2. Before you moved into a writing career, you were once a food and wine publicist, like me. You wrote and talked and sold ideas on behalf of your clients. Looking back at that time in your life, is there a cache of lessons you took away from that experience that still serve you well today?
It certainly taught me to appreciate how hard it is to be a good publicist- and what it’s like to be treated less-than-respectfully by journalists. I still remember the ones who barked at me and slammed the phone down (this was back in the days when you called, rather than emailed, journalists) even if I was calling to, say, invite them to a five-course lunch at San Domenico But what I think you mean is how the two professions relate- and certainly I think it’s important for a publicist to write well, to understand (and maybe even read!) the publication they’re pitching- just as it is for freelance writers pitching stories ideas. When I was the Executive Wine Editor,it always amazed me when freelance writers- and/or publicists would call or email me an idea that showed they hadn’t read the magazine at all! But fortunately it’s the good ones- writers, and publicists, that I remember the best.

3. Describe "The State of Wine Writing in America Today, According to Lettie Teague".
That sounds like a seminar you’d probably want to sleep through!  But if I were to give such a talk, it would probably address, among other things, the necessity of telling a good story. I think that’s what people really want when they read about wine (or, for that matter, anything that’s not a market report or a box score.) It’s the story of the person behind the wine, or the place where the wine is made or, what it’s like to sell wine on the streets of New York City- those are the stories I want to tell. I want to educate, of course but I always want to entertain (a bit) as well.

4. It has always been difficult to be a food and wine writer in America. Generally, the pay has never been too good and a good gig was hard to earn. Yet today, I'm having many really outstanding and well-published writers tell me that it has become even more difficult to make a career out of wine and food writing. What's your best advice for working writers who want to start or continue a career in wine and food writing?
I think it’s difficult to be any kind of journalist right now. I feel tremendously fortunate to work for a newspaper- The Wall Street Journal- that is actually expanding- adding talent and pages – growing rather than shrinking. It’s thrilling to be part of this but I realize how uncommon it is at a time when magazines and newspapers are reducing, not adding staff. I guess I’d advise aspiring writers to focus first on coming up with great story ideas – and pitching to smaller regional and city magazines. I’ve been a judge in the City & Regional Magazine competition every year and I don’t necessarily see a lot of wine writing in most of the magazines. It seems like there might be an opportunity there.

5. Any thoughts on wine blogs you'd like to share?
There are some wine blogs that I read regularly (yours!) and some discussion boards I read regularly for wine news and provocative commentary – I’d say I probably read about 15-20 wine blogs on a regular basis (and about as many non-wine blogs). If I had more time, I’d scout around for more if I had the time as I think there is probably some good and/or interesting stuff out there that I’m missing.

6. Eventually the Food Network is going to come for you. When they do, and when they tell you that you can do whatever show on their network that you want, what will it look like?
Alas, Tom, I just don’t think that is going to happen. I have, after all, what can be best described as “print journalist” hair!

7. How are you approaching your work with the Wall Street Journal differently from your work with Food & Wine Magazine?
Well, I know for example that my friend Jim Simons (the founder of Renaissance Capital and a Titan of Industry ) reads my column in The Wall Street Journal- I don’t think he was reading my work in Food & Wine… Obviously there are a lot more businessmen reading the Journal than there probably were Food & Wine (though that it purely speculative on my part.) On the other hand, I don’t think the two audiences are that dissimilar…  both are sophisticated readers with ample disposable income and an interest in wine ranging from casual to quite serious.

Should Everyone Really Be a Wine Critic?

Why should you, the reader, give any credence to what I write on this blog? Why indulge in my version of reality by giving my words the time of day?

I'm not a professional writer? I don't get paid to write this blog. I don't have an editor that I have to satisfy.

I think the reason I have a decent readership is because it's pretty clear I have some sort of expertise in what I choose to write about, which is mainly wine PR, wine marketing, wine politics and the culture of wine. Let me say that again: I have some sort of expertise. Whether I'm entertaining is another question altogether.

This issue of what separates a professional wine writer from a blogger, what separates an amateur from a professional and what authority ought be granted to anyone writing about wine is explored in a fine article by Spencer Bailey in the Columbia Journalism Review entitled, "Everyone's The Wine Expert: Wine Critics and Bloggers, Professional and Amateur Are Mixed Up in the Social Media Web."

Baily observes, "These days, many young, social-media savvy bloggers are fragmenting what was once a lofty territory reserved for mostly stalwart, high-profile publications like Wine Spectator and Wine Enthusiast....A number of amateur bloggers, for instance, now call themselves critics. This is, some argue, a worrisome trend for the winemaking industry itself, if not also for professional wine writing."

These statements are as true as the day is 24 hours. Measure the quality and competency of the wine writing community today, which includes a huge number of bloggers as well as shrinking crew of edited and well established wine writers, and it's impossible not to conclude that the average article about wine is less authoritative and more poorly researched, and therefore less beneficial to truth seekers, than was the average article of 20 years ago. Why is this? Simply because more amateurs with far less accomplishment, knowledge and perspective are writing about wine.

I want you to note something, however. I did not say that today's average wine article is less entertaining. One can entertain an audience of wine drinkers without much wine knowledge, if they are good writers.

Karen MacNeil, who is quoted in Baily's article really hits one of the shiny nails right on its head: “Maybe what blogging will do is undermine the whole idea that this is a subject that is rich and deep and requires some substantive thought and substantive knowledge."

This observation also falls under the heading of "just like there are 24 hours in the day."

There is no question in my mind that the proliferation of self anointed wine scribes will diminish the perception that a deep understanding of wine is possible and even required to be a true writer/educator that delivers value to the readers.

Joe Roberts, who blogs under the 1WineDude moniker makes the case in the article that a deep understanding of wine really isn't necessary to be a good and valuable wine writer: "Readers today have got to feel like the experts connect with them in some way. It’s not just, ‘Oh, this person’s got great credentials because they work for Wine Enthusiast.’"

I think Joe has a point, but I think that point applies to those consumers who want more to be entertained and have a very casual connection to wine, rather than those who want to be obtain knowledge.

Bailey makes the case, too, that this new crew of voice, serves an important purpose: "for too long not enough voices were heard....too much of wine writing was stale, appealing largely to the Baby Boomer crowd."

This rings untrue to me. Today's bloggers have yet to figure out a new way to write about wine. They've only figured out a new way to deliver commentary and criticism...via the blog. There are different, more casual styles, for sure. But in the end, most wine bloggers are merely putting the spit and shine of "publishing" on what is really not much more than the same conversations that wine lovers have been having for many long years before the emergence of the Internet.

Believe me, before the Internet, wine lovers talked about how wrong different wine critics were. They debated the meaning of terroir. They bitched and moaned about access to wine and bad corks. They offered their opinions on how various wine events could be improved. The vast majority of wine bloggers are simply doing the same thing, but in a quasi-publishing environment.

In my mind, the great value of the Internet and the wine blogosphere is that this medium is very likely to give voice to really that rare wine lover who knows his stuff and can communicate that stuff in elegant and insightful prose. It's from the blogosphere where the next Gerald Asher will come from. In fact, it's likely that it is from the blogosphere that that the Wine Spectator, Decanter, Wine Enthusiast and Wine & Spirits will find their next editor.

But these folks will make up the vast minority of bloggers.

I like Bailey's initial conclusion to the article:

"Wine is, after all, a complex drink, and it needs to be analyzed in a complex way, usually by someone with a deep understanding of wine or by someone with credentials, such as a WSET advanced degree. Which means that while passionate amateur drinkers can write about their experiences with a Bordeaux, say, they’d ideally be able to do so with as much authority and understanding as a professional."

Why Play By The (wine shipping) Rules?

I was contacted recently by the owner of one of the most accomplished and successful Direct-to-Consumer wineries; a winery that has been able to secure the vast amount of their annual revenue from direct to consumer marketing and shipping. They asked me a simple question:

"Why should I continue to abide by the rules and regulations of the various states that allow licensed direct to consumer shipping?"

It was a legitimate question.

The fact is, as long as there are wineries that ship into states without paying for a permit, without undertaking and paying for the tasks associated with the required reporting to the states and without remitting required taxes to those states, those wineries that do these things and work via the letter of the law are put under a severe disadvantage. Why should they work under this kind of disadvantage?

With the exception of noting that its the law and that failing to ship wine under the letter of the law is not a legitimate act of civil disobedience, I couldn't come up with a really good reason why this winery owner should continue to act in obedience to the state laws and put their business at a disadvantage in the marketplace.

If you are a winery and you want to ship direct to consumer to, say, the 20 largest wine consuming states, it's going to cost you. It's going to cost you in paying for annual permits. It's going to cost you time and money to comply with the reporting requirements. It's going to cost you to arrange to collect and remit taxes that must be remitted to these states. Meanwhile, the lawbreakers are creating an unbalanced playing field and taking up residence on the light side of the equation.

They can do this because the fact remains that there is very little in the way of enforcement of the direct to consumer shipping statutes that exist in states that allow wineries to ship. Now, it's true that State liquor commissions really are misspending their resources if they are committing too much time and money to policing direct shipping since this method of distribution is one that doesn't lend itself to abuse by heaving imbibers or by under-aged drinkers. Nor is it the source of nuisance that brick and mortar bars and alcohol retailers can be. At least when it's done above board and according to the rules.

The State of New Hampshire, for example, is able to police its direct shipment in an efficient way by keeping good records and working with common carriers to see who is shipping and how current they are on their reporting and remittance of taxes. And they are able to do this without significant expenditures. Direct To Consumer shipping is, in fact, among the safest and easiest regulated distribution avenues.

Still there are wineries that break the rules.

But what my friend the winery owner pointed out, and which is absolutely true, is that if wineries want to be able to ship to every state in the union, what they need to do is demonstrate that this avenue for consumer sales lucrative for the state. And the best way to do that is to have each and every winery that wants to ship into a given state to register, pay for their permit and pay taxes to the state on the wines they ship in.

As winery associations and their allies go state to state asking for direct to consumer shipping privileges, they need to be able to show that this sales channel is a lucrative source of tax revenue that is not merely a case of trading in-state sales for out of state sales, a circumstance it decidedly is not. However, to show this they need to be able to point to other states where shipping rights have been granted and and revenue increased. This happens in significantly impressive ways only when the entire collection of wineries shipping direct do so in accordance with state laws that dictate both reporting and tax collection.

This goes to for wine retailers, who have seen a set of circumstances specific to their political disposition provide them with merely 14 states that allow legal retailer to consumer wine shipping.

I suspect my winery owner's lament was just that and I suspect he'll continue to play by the rules even though it puts him at a commercial disadvantage in the market place. He'll probably be just fine as he's is a remarkable marketer who knows the consumer mind and how consumers operate and because he provides exceptional customer service, the bedrock requirement of any good direct to consumer marketer.

But his (likely) rhetorical question remains a good one: If all are not going to, why should he play by the rules?

Napa Valley Dodges the Dreaded Wedding Bullet

Napa Valley dodged a bullet this week. Were it not for the brave representatives of the people on the Board of Supervisors who resisted the call to allow dirty commercialism to infest this bucolic agricultural paradise, it's quite likely the beautiful grapes you see carpeting the Valley would soon be replaced by wedding chapels and limos filled with with off-the-rack tuxedo-wearing marauders. Worse yet, had the board of supervisors not voted to keep weddings out of Napa Valley wineries, this most unique Valley of simple farmers would see themselves endure the fate of their Sonoma Valley peers—a horror I witnessed personally.

At issue on Tuesdays in the halls of government was whether the Board of Supervisors should heed the call of a rabble rousing, commerce-pushing, job-hungry bunch of crass commercialists and amend the Winery Definition Ordinance to allow wineries to host weddings. The vine-killing, soul-destroying practice that is weddings near vineyards has been outlawed in Napa Valley for many years, forcing those people with their starry-eyed fly-over country bumpkin families, bursting purses, and their bubble-drinking guests to go over the hill and spread rice among the vineyards of Sonoma Valley.

By a vote of 3-2, the Napa Board of Supervisors sided with the forces of heaven and saved this valley from seeing its agricultural character destroyed by the wedding.

I, as a newly arrived Napa resident who spent too many painful years in Sonoma Valley where the call of jobs, economic diversity and tax revenue long ago spoiled that poor region, am joyful that Napa Valley and its much more beautiful people will not have to be exposed to the jobs, economic diversity  and tax revenue that has infested the other side of the hill.

This is farsighted public policy making on the part of our representatives. Denied by those who called upon the Supervisors to let them host gown-clad riff raff, employ florists, sell wine to unappreciating, palate-deficient out-of-towners all for the sake of jobs and income, is the simple fact that allowing such ceremonies to occur at what are supposed to be just production facilities would forever destroy the Napa agricultural preserve.

The "wedding-crew" asked how this could be? They wanted to know just how it was that opening a winery to 150 people would lead to the destruction of our agricultural nirvana, our beautiful and unspoiled ag heritage. I bet they would like to know!!!

All I can say is just look at Sonoma Valley and what has happened to that poor, wannabe "wine region" to get an idea of what happens when wineries are allowed to host weddings. I witnessed it first hand.

In the first place, you just don't see Sonoma Valley's Highway 12 and Arnold Drive lined the kind of beautiful and architecturally stunning masterpieces that you see here in Napa, created by simple, well-traveled farmers that that just want a stimulating environment in which to make wine. Over there, where weddings are allowed, the average winery tends to be a simple barn-shaped, un-adorned structure that one can hardly pick out from the surrounding oaks, grasslands and vineyard. Is THAT what you want over here??

And don't let those seemingly beautiful Sonoma Valley vineyards, meandering backroads, and unclogged byways fool you. It hides a dirty, secret underbelly that is the result of...weddings. If you look closely, you'll see the filthy residue left over from weddings that is the impact of low and medium wage "jobs" created by Sonoma's trade in weddings. You'll notice a well established patina of good will, painted across the Sonoma Valley by the wedding crowd that just uses Sonoma Valley, then just leaves their well wishes and gratefulness littered all over.  And while vineyards appear to continue to expand and Sonoma Valley wines appear to please palates, the fact is that the weddings they host in their wineries taint their wines with the ugly aroma of pedestrian and wider appeal.

This is the future Napa Valley's Board of Supervisors saw and resisted: jobs, economic activity, tax revenue, good will and wider exposure of wines among a potentially pedestrian crowd. No one in their right mind wants that.

As a former Sonoman who has see the faux happiness, ugly jobs and unseemly economic activity that weddings at wineries can lead to, I say leave it over the hill. Keep Napa the beautiful, unspoiled agricultural haven that does not bend to commercialism, tourists demands and the ugly consequences of brides and grooms.

The American Wine Consumer Union

Over the course of the past month or so I've been involved in helping generate opposition to H.R 5034, a bill promoted by alcohol wholesalers that paves the way for states to pass discriminatory legislation that would harm wineries, retailers and consumer access to wine. My involvement has been on behalf of the Specialty Wine Retailers Association, an organization of wine retailers, wine clubs and auction houses across the country that work to open more states for retailer to consumer shipping and for which I serve as executive director.

In the course of working to gather opposition to H.R. 5034 one thing has become remarkably clear:

American wine lovers are in desperate need of a "Consumer Union".

To date, more than 11,000 wine lovers from across the country have gravitated to the STOPH5034Facebook page where they have indicated their opposition to this bill. They have left 1000s of comments. They have read articles posted on the facebook page. They have urged their fellow wine loves to contact their representatives.

While this organizing effort is impressive and represents the first instance I'm aware of where wine lovers have used social media for political purposes, their efforts stop with gathering around a FACEBOOK page. But what if they belonged to a well run, benefits-based and politically active organization founded to represent the interests of wine consumers while also providing them with social and educational opportunities? What if this American Wine Consumer Union used their dues to support professional political representation in the form of lobbyists. What if this representative of the American Wine Consumer Union could go to Washington or Sacramento or Tallahassee or Springfield or Albany and say they represent 20,000 wine lovers? Or 50,000? Or More.

While "Free The Grapes" has done a remarkable job gathering wine lovers around letter writing campaigns to help open state for producer to consumer shipping legislation, the organization's fundamental mission is to open states to Producer to consumer shipping rights. My hope is that they continue to act in this manner, particularly in their work to oppose H.R. 5034, which has resulted in over 20,000 letters sent from their website to representatives in DC.

However, a more consumer-centric organization is needed I believe that can compliment and extend the work of Free the Grapes. A Wine Consumer Union is needed.

Wine consumers, for example, would surely and enthusiastically support efforts to open up more states to allow consumers to receive wine direct from wine shop, wine importers, auction houses and even support efforts to liberalize the way Internet-based marketing agents act on behalf of producers and importers and retailers to make wine more accessible on the Internet. They would do this because wine lovers know the key to their happiness is the ability to have access to all the wines in the American marketplace and the Internet is the path to that state of Happiness.

But I imagine that the Wine Consumer Union would provide more than just a voice for wine lovers where that voice has not existed before. I imagine a Wine Consumer Union would provide educational opportunities, social networking hubs, access to wine vacations, wine accessories, wine tastings, wine clubs and other wine-related items that have been specifically created for a union of wine lovers that might number in the many thousands.

Over the next few weeks I'll be exploring this issue. I'll be looking for the best model for the creation of an American Wine Consumer Union. And I'm wondering what others think of the idea of an active, vibrant, engaged union of wine lovers from across the country. I wonder if the time has come.

A Frontal Assault on Granholm v. Heald

In 2010, when the efficient and robust interstate movement of goods has become so central to the economy of the United States and to the profitability of nearly every industry, should states be given constitutional protection for laws that intend to restrict interstate commerce?

Put another way and with H.R 5034 in mind, should Congress insert itself into an inter-industry disagreement over the meaning of a changing marketplace for wine by giving proponents of state-based discrimination the tools to eviscerate from 21st Amendment jurisprudence the critical principle of equality of access to markets that has so consistently been defended by the Courts?

This is what's at stake in considering H.R 5034.

Stated in a more base and political way, should congress put the future of the American wine marketplace  in the hands of an enormously powerful special interest who has, for the past 20 years, worked feverishly to restrict consumer access only to those wines sold by the very special interests in question: middlemen wholesalers?

I would argue that no matter how you slice it, any and all support for H.R. 5034 leads to the consequences laid out above. Furthermore, I believe it is clear that any argument in support of H.R. 5034 fail to address the realities of the current regulatory environment for alcohol, which, if anything, has seen an enhancement over the past 20 years as consumer access to wine has increased with the dismantling of discriminatory consumer and market access laws.

HR 5034 is a frontal assault on the principle laid out in Granholm v. Heald that "in all but the narrowest circumstances, state laws violate the Commerce Clause if they mandate “differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter.”

HR 5034 turns this principle on its head so that a future rendering of the meaning of the Commerce Clause as it relates to the 21st Amendment would, in an HR 5034-world, read like this:

"Differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burden the latter shall in all cases be allowed as they relate to state-based alcohol laws."

H.R.5034 is, then, a stunning and complete reversal of the principles and teachings of the Granholm v. Heald Supreme Court ruling that emphasized this:

"The 21st Amendment did not give States the authority to pass nonuniform laws in order to discriminate against out-of-state goods, a privilege they had not enjoyed at any earlier time."

Under H.R 5034, Congress would remove state alcohol laws from the orbit of the Commerce Clause in a way that the Supreme Court specifically determined it was critical should not occur

Despite the alcohol wholesalers' hysterical claim of a legal morass that has resulted from lawsuits challenging state alcohol laws in 25 states, it is impossible to point to a single result from any of these lawsuits that has made it any more difficult, let alone impossible, for state alcohol regulatory bodies to monitor the distribution and sale of alcohol in their states. In fact, the primary result of these lawsuits has been increased regulation of the direct shipment of wine, increased collection of tax revenue on the sales of wine and a more orderly market for wine in each and every state that has enacted new laws and regulations based on the lawsuits in 25 states.

Neither alcohol wholesalers, alcohol regulators or state attorneys general can point to any any significant problems of minors obtaining alcohol, the maintenance of a disorderly market, or problems with collection of tax revenue that have resulted form the lawsuits in 25 states. 

The claims of states falling headlong into alcohol deregulation and market chaos are nothing but a chimera.

And yet based on this creation of the alcohol wholesalers imagination, Congress is being asked to fundamentally undue a fair and carefully crafted test for determining if a state alcohol law is constitutional and put in its place a new standard for determining if a law, no matter how discriminatory or anti-consumer, can stand up to judicial scrutiny: no standard; all discriminatory state alcohol laws are valid as long as the law simply states, without proof, that it is necessary.

Wholesalers claim that H.R. 5034 protects the principle of non-discrimination that is explained in the Granholm v. Heald Supreme Court ruling and that no direct shipping law is effected by H.R. 5034. But this is a radical attempt at deception. And there is a simple way to demonstrate this:

Ask those that support H.R. 5034 if a state could have any expectation of seeing a discriminatory law that bans shipping by out-of-state wineries upheld if challenged. When they are forced to tell the truth by answering "yes," ask them how. When they respond with, "By simply citing the perceived need for this law to defend the three tier system from attack and to stop minors form obtaining alcohol via direct shipment," ask them if it matters that there may be less discriminatory ways to achieve these goals. If proponents of H.R 5034 responds with anything other than, "It doesn't matter since the law would still be constitutionally valid according the H.R. 5034," they will be lying.

As the American economy shifts in fundamental ways to one that is sustained by fulfilled consumer expectations that they can obtain goods via direct shipment, is now the time for Congress to invite a radical departure from the principles of equal access to goods and markets?

As the American wine market continues to adapt to fundamental conditions specific to the 21st century, is now the time to cement in place control of the market by mandated middlemen invented in the 1930s to respond to problems of the 1910s that no longer exist?

Money, Campaigns and The Effort to Pass H.R. 5034

The saying goes, "You dance with the one that brung ya." Applied to politics, this generally means an elected official supports the causes of those that supported him. These days, "support" means campaign contributions.

But I'm not convinced that the specter of an elected official doing the bidding of his contributors is the most insidious thing about the the ethical moshpit that is the current system of campaign finance, nor do I think campaign contributions equate to support for the contributor's issues.

Most insidious is that an elected official is far more likely, even obligated, to listen to the arguments, claims and urgings of a campaign contributor, while those who haven't given money don't' get the time of day. Elected officials rely on a history of campaign contributions to triage the numerous requests by stakeholders to talk to their elected official and layout their reasons for asking for the official's support or opposition on and issue or even just for the chance to educate them.

This is why congresspeople are always willing to listen when the likes of Goldman Sachs, The National Rifle Association, The National Auto Dealers Association, The American Federation of Teachers, the Teamsters and the National Beer Wholesalers Association come a'knocking.

During the 2008 and 2010 (it's not over yet) election cycles the National Beer Wholesalers Association has given more than $4.7 million to national elected officials and their election committees, and the have done so evenhandedly between the parties.

This, more than anything else, explains why H.R 5034, a bill that is meant to lay the groundwork for politically-connected wholesalers across the country to run the table on state-based protectionist legislation that disregards the interests of every other element of the industry and consumers in particular, was ever able to be introduced into congress. After $4.7 million, elected officials listen to you. And to hear the wholesalers tell it, you'd think state alcohol laws and regulations were about to crumble under the weight of foolish lawsuits. And that's exactly what elected officials have heard. And that's why they are taking the National Beer Wholesalers Associations seriously when they request a change in the law that will make their power at the state level unchallengeable.

Below is the list of Congressional representatives who have drunken the wholesaler's Kool-aid sponsored H.R. 5034. How the wholesalers were ever actually able to serve up this Kool-aid is generally explained by the money figure attached to each of their names. This is the amount of campaign contributions that each received from the National Beer Wholesalers Associations over the past four years.

CO-SPONSORS OF H.R. 5034, PARTY, STATE, FUNDS RECEIVED
FROM NATIONAL BEER WHOLESALERS FROM 2007 TO 2010

Rep Andrews, Robert E. [D-NJ-1]..........$5,000
Rep Barrow, John [D-GA-12]..........$16,5000
Rep Bishop, Timothy H.  [D-NY-1]..........$17,500
Rep Braley, Bruce [D-AI-1]..........$12,5000
Rep Bright, Bobby [D-AL-2]..........$10,000
Rep Carney, Christopher [D-PA-10]..........$15,000
Rep Chaffetz, Jason  [R-UT-3]..........$5,000
Rep Childers, Travis [D-MS-1]..........$10,000
Rep Coble, Howard [R-NC-6]..........$17,5000
Rep Cuellar, Henry [D-TX-28]..........$7,500
Rep Davis, Lincoln [D-TN-4]..........$12,5000
Rep Delahunt, Bill [D-MA]..........$10,000
Rep Dingall, John [D-MI-15]..........$12,500
Rep Donnelly, Joe  [D-IN-2]..........$12,500
Rep Dreihaus, Steve [D-OH-1]..........$5,000
Rep Filner, Bob [D-CA-51]..........$1,000
Rep Foster, Bill [D-IL-14]..........$7,500
Rep Greene, Gene [D-TX-29]..........$15,000
Rep Hare, Phil [D-IL-17]..........14,000
Rep Hastings, Alcee [D-FL-23]..........$0.00
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [D-TX-15]..........$10,000
Rep Hodes, Paul [D-NH-2]..........$7,500
Rep Holt, Rush [D-NJ-12]..........$3,500
Rep Jackson, Jesse Jr. [D-IL-2]..........$7,500
Rep Jones, Walter [R-NC-3]..........$7500
Rep Kildee, Dale [D-MI-5]..........$6,000
Rep Kind, Ron [D-WI-3]..........$15,000
Rep Kratovil, Frank, Jr. [D-MD-1]..........$10,5000
Rep LoBiondo, Frank [R-NJ-2]..........$2,500
Rep Lummis, Cynthia [R-WY]..........$10,000
Rep Mack, Connie [R-FL-14]..........$8,500
Rep McHenry, Patrick [R-NC-10]..........17,5000
Rep McMahon, Michael [D-NY-13]..........$10,000
Rep Mica, John [R-FL-7]..........$12,5000
Rep Mitchell, Harry  [D-AZ-5]..........$10,000
Rep Murphy, Patrick [D-PA-8]..........$15,000
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [R-TX-19] ...........$10,000
Rep Nye, Glenn [D-VA-2]..........$5,000
Rep Ortiz, Soloman [D-TX-27]..........$2,500
Rep Pascrell, Bill NJ-8] ..........$10,000
Rep Pastor, Ed [D-AZ-4]...........$6,000
Rep Poe, Ted [R-TX-2]...........$6,500
Rep Putman, Adam  [R-FL-12]..........$10,000
Rep Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5]..........$5,000
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [D-TX-16].........$5,000
Rep Rooney, Thomas  [R-FL-16] ..........$7,500
Rep. Ryan, Tim [D-OH-17] ..........$15,000
Rep Schauer, Mark [D-MI-7] ..........$8,000
Rep Scott, David [D-GA-13] ..........$5,000
Rep Shuler, Heath  [D-NC-11]..........$15,000
Rep. Shuster, Bill [PA-9]..........$12,500
Rep. Stearns, Cliff  [R-FL-6]..........$2,500
Rep Sutton, Betty [D-OH-13]...........$7,500
Rep Thompson, Bernie [D-MS-2] ...........$15,000
Rep Thornberry, Mac  [R-TX-13]..........$2,500
Rep Towns, Edolphus [D-NY-10]...........$15,000
Rep. Westmoreland, Lynn [R-GA-3]...........$15,000
Rep Wilson, Charlie [D-OH-6]..........$15,000
Rep. Wilson Joe [SC-2]..........$15,000               

--------------------------------------------------------
To Learn More about H.R. 5034...
1. Visit http://www.stophr5034.org
2. Join the "STOPHR5034" Facebook Page