Wine wholesalers could be bypassed under proposed bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana-based farm wineries could sell their products directly to retailers and dealers instead of going through a third party under a bill debated Wednesday in the House Public Policy Committee.

House Bill 1387 would allow wineries to distribute up to 5,000 gallons of wine to grocery stores, restaurants, bars and other establishments.

The state passed the Farm Winery Act in 1971, which allowed wineries to sell on their premises and directly to retailers. But, in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can’t let one group of wineries sell directly to retailers without letting all of them do so. So, the following year, the General Assembly created a micro wine wholesalers permit that made wineries have to go through a third party to sell their wine.

Now the committee would like to overturn the law, doing away with wholesalers.

The “micro wholesaler program in reality has proven to be ineffective for small wineries to use and very expensive to set up,” said the bill’s author, Rep Mark Messmer, R-Jasper.

“The 2006 changes were extremely adverse to the Indiana wine industry, and the General Assembly should adopt some degree of self- distribution for farm wineries by being sensitive to not negatively impacting the distributors of wine in the state,” Messmer said.

Lisa Hays, from the Governmental Affairs Counsel for Indiana Winery and Vineyard Association, argued that the 2006 bill did nothing to guarantee a wholesaler.

Marc Carmichael, from the Indiana Beverage Alliance, said wholesalers have an obligation to help wineries sell their product. It doesn’t matter if wholesalers lose money. He said he does not agree with the bill’s solution.

“This bill fills the economic gap. It affords the opportunity to small breweries to get the products to the people,” Hays said.

The committee decided not to vote on the bill Wednesday, citing a need for further discussion.


  • Wow
    A business being allowed to sell their product to a customer... imagine that.
  • Put your money where your wine-drinking mouth is
    Now if only area restaurants that tout "local produce," "farm-to-table" practices would help promote local wine into their food pairings... nah, that would upset their wine distributors.

Post a comment to this story

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 IBJ 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

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing