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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.