March 30, 2008|By Bradley Olson and Gadi Dechter | Bradley Olson and Gadi Dechter,Sun reporters
Maryland's powerful liquor lobby is on track to achieve virtually all of its legislative priorities during this General Assembly session - despite opposition from the attorney general, the comptroller, public health advocates and hundreds of consumers.
Legislators shot down Internet wine sales, which are legal in most of the country. They are poised to expand the definition of beer to include such items as Jack Daniel's Country Cocktail, allowing wider distribution and lower taxes for such drinks. When they crafted a bill to outlaw slot machine-like devices, they left out the kind that proliferates in Baltimore bars. And despite the state's budget problems, they are likely to leave the liquor tax rate right where it has been since 1955.
Such decisions have a big impact on Marylanders, who can't join a wine-of-the-month club or, in most cases, pick up a six-pack at the grocery store because of industry lobbying to maintain a strict set of regulations. The result: limited competition and limited choice, consumer advocates say.
"It's enormously frustrating," Del. William A. Bronrott, a Montgomery County Democrat who supports raising alcohol taxes, said of the industry's power. "We're talking pure greed versus the public interest."
Legislators who have supported positions backed by the liquor lobby say they decide each issue on its merits. But critics say it is no coincidence that the industry is among the most openhanded political donors, contributing nearly $3 million in the past decade.
"When you're dealing with this issue, particularly in Annapolis - which has created state-protected, regulated monopolies - you have a very long list of state legislators who will go to any length to protect that system," said Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, a libertarian-oriented think tank. "Ultimately the end loser is the consumer because they're not given the benefits of a fair and free marketplace."
Liquor industry officials disagree. They say Maryland's regulations are needed to ensure proper tax collection, to protect jobs and to prevent sales to minors. Allowing wine sales over the Internet, for example, might provide easier access for teens. And state regulation of flavored drinks such as the Jack Daniel's cocktail should follow established federal rules, they say.
Still, it's clear that those positions are backed by plenty of money. Since 2002, alcohol interests have paid lobbyists about $2 million.
And more than 80 percent of state legislators have received campaign contributions from the liquor lobby, records show. In the past decade, liquor license holders, wholesalers, distributors, manufacturers and their political action committees have contributed an average of nearly $350,000 annually to hundreds of candidates. Donations range from as little as $100 to the state maximum: $4,000 per candidate per election cycle, according to a Sun analysis of data on alcohol-related interest groups and more than 7,000 liquor license holders.
To put that in context, watchdog groups decrying the energy industry's influence over Maryland's 1999 utility deregulation plan said this year that industry donations to state candidates and committees totaled $1 million since 1998.
In the same period, alcohol interests gave about $2.8 million to preserve the current system of regulation.
Many legislators say the money does not give the liquor lobby undue influence. Even Bronrott says donations might ease access to legislators but do not guarantee favorable votes.
Del. Mary Ann Love, who chairs the House subcommittee that deals with alcohol regulation, said her positions are not influenced by the $15,000 in donations she has received from the industry over the past decade. "I take money from a lot of people," said Love, an Anne Arundel Democrat. "My positions aren't going to change."
Industry's might
The industry's strength has been displayed on several seemingly disparate issues during the General Assembly session.
Early this month, panel after panel of wine lovers pleaded with state senators to allow consumers to buy their favorite merlot and pinot noir online, as is allowed in 34 other states, including Pennsylvania, and in Washington, D.C.
Although Gov. Martin O'Malley has collected more from the liquor lobby than any Maryland politician in office - more than $230,000, mainly from seven years as Baltimore mayor - he was inclined to support the wine bill, said spokesman Rick Abbruzzese.
But just as the bill's sponsor, Sen. Jamie Raskin of Montgomery County, was exhorting a Senate committee to "free the grapes," a House panel voted down the measure, 17-3, effectively killing it.
