Edhat Reader
By Stephen Pepe of Lompoc, CA
The Wine Preserve wants consumers to pay 1% on all winer purchases in Santa Barbara County to fund the winery’s (some of which are owned by billionaires) Marketing and Lobbying Program. What could be wrong with that? Lots!
The SB Vintners Association only has about 30% of the county wineries as members. Most members are the large wineries, several of which are owned by billionaires. The Vintners are asking the Board of Supervisors (BOS) to approve the Vintners’ Wine Preserve which will force consumers who buy wine, merchandise etc., from SB wineries to pay an additional 1% of their wine purchases for the winery’s marketing and lobbying. This payment is forced by the government – the BOS. The consumer who is footing this bill has no say about the speech – marketing and lobbying – for which these funds will be used.
Who is pushing the Wine Preserve? It is the large wineries who want to market their SB County wines nationally. There is something rich about forcing your customers to pay for the advertising of your wine which they are buying.
The Wine Berserkers is an online community composed of those in the wine business and wine-centric consumers. Earlier this year a thread was started about the Wine Preserve. The initial responses, especially from consumers, were quite critical and damning.
One of the Vintners’ staff jumped on the thread to promote the Wine Preserve and touted its success elsewhere – especially citing Temecula. He got shredded. The incoming was so bad he dropped out of the thread. One of the small SB winery owners, who is often a cheerleader for SB County wines on Wine Berserkers, and who is well liked by Berserker folks, picked up the cudgel and tried to defend the Wine Preserve. Again, the incoming was unanimously negative.
After doing his best this advocate raised the white flag and said he would reimburse his customers the 1% fee.
If you want to see these exchanges please go here. Warning: viewer discretion is advised some of the incoming is painful to read.
Are there any other problems with The Wine Preserve? Yes, lots!
The First Amendment protects freedom of expression which is not only the right to speak but the right not to be forced to support speech with which you disagree. The consumer who is paying the 1% fee for the Wine Preserve’s marketing and lobbying has no say in how and where those funds are spent.
The First Amendment also protects Freedom of Association. The Wine Preserve, enforced by the BOS, will compel the small Mom and Pop wineries to be members and force their customers to pay the 1%. Why wouldn’t the Mom and Pop wineries want to force their customers to pay the 1% for advertising and lobbying since “a rising tide lifts all boats?” It is only the large wineries’ yachts that need lifting. Most of the Mom and Pop’ rowboats are fine; they are kept afloat by the locals who buy their wine. They don’t need to advertise nationally since their customers are locals. This is why most Mom and Pop wineries do not belong to the Vintners.
The Vintners claim the wineries will decide whether to implement the 1% fee by a vote in the democratic tradition – what is wrong with that? The vote is weighted and determined by the sales tax paid by the wineries. The Vintners’ claim this vote-weighting is fair because the large wineries would pay most of the 1%. If that were true, I would agree with the Vintners, but it is not the large wineries’ that are paying the money, it is the consumers and they have no vote. There are about 250-300 wineries in the county. The 20 or so large wineries will decide this issue because of the weighted voting. And folks are complaining about the Electoral College!
These First Amendment violations are not unique to the Wine Preserve. The California State Bar requires all attorneys to pay an annual membership fee. I plead guilty to being one for over 50 years. Towards the end of the last century the State Bar used these funds to support programs not related to the practice of law – like banning nuclear war and saving whales. A pesky lawyer sued and the US Supreme Court held 9-0 the State Bar could not use members’ dues for non-law related matters.
There are similar cases involving unions. After the union wins an election and negotiates a union contract with a union shop clause all employees have to join the union and pay union dues or be fired. Some employees claimed they did not want to be a union member and have their dues support political candidates they opposed. Those bothersome employees again! In a series of cases, the US Supreme Court said the First Amendment’s Freedom of Association prohibited unions from forcing employees to be members of the union. Also, that the First Amendment Freedom of Speech required the union to have a two tiered dues structure and provide a lower dues for non-union members which excluded the dues money used for the union’s political activities – like making contributions to political candidates.
The Vintners correctly state the Wine Preserve is the same as the fees hotels charge to support their marketing, so how can the Wine Preserve be illegal? The answer is simple; no pesky lawyer has sued the hotels – yet.
There is no question the wine industry is hurting. After the COVID bump wine sales for the last three years have declined and inventories are rising. Also, people are drinking less and alcohol-free drinks are booming. However, the solution is not to have the customer pay for the advertising of the wine they are buying.
The Wine Preserve should be voluntary, not compelled by the BOS. The large winery owners should use their own money to market and lobby, not the consumers’ 1% add-on since they have no vote. Didn’t we fight a revolution over no taxation without representation?
LOL NO! The wineries need to adjust their very own budget accordingly. Just like every other business, they need to come up with funding for their own goals and endeavors.
Why would all of us pay for their marketing? Then we would have to pay for all businesses marketing in SB County, to keep it fair to every si gle other business here. Consumers support local businesses by purchasing their products if they deem them a good value. The consumer decides this, nobody else.
This is the craziest nonsensical idea I have heard and read about in a very long time. And these days there are plenty of those around. Absolutely not, no can nor will do. Wineries, you are not being treated like a toddler, but an adult so grow up. Take care of your own funds or close your doors if you are not profitable enough.
Local government and voters just raised sales tax in Santa Barbara so I guess they figured they would jump on the bandwagon wagon!
How about the wineries that want more money for marketing raise the price of their wines?
The Board of Supervisors should listen to the many, many local winemakers here that are not backed by billionaires. If these 1% owners want to market their wines, do it on their own dime and not on the back of consumers. They will already get big tax cuts on our backs with the new corrupt administration.