Residency restriction for liquor distributors should go

Indiana liquor distributors are small and some of their counterparts outside the state are huge, so it’s understandable
why the locals are desperate to preserve an old statute banning out-of-state competitors.

But let’s be real. Protectionist measures like
this one should have been axed decades ago. They make about as much sense as township government.

IBJ reported last week that one of
those big out-of-state players is suing the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission and the commission’s
recent chairman, Dave Health, to gain access to the market.

The plaintiff, Southern Wine & Spirits of Indiana Inc., is part of a Miami company that distributes
liquor in 30 states and accounts for 20 percent of the booze consumed in the nation.

Southern Wine looked to the courts after state
regulators rebuffed its request in October due to Indiana’s requirement that liquor distributors be owned
by Indiana residents. Southern was granted a request to distribute wine, because the residency restrictions
on wine and beer were dropped several years ago.

The statute was adopted after the Depression in order to better track liquor providers. Back then,
it was harder to conduct background checks ensuring the owners of such firms were above board.

It’s easy to forget the benefits of open markets
in an era when government has failed in its oversight of Wall Street firms, financial markets and food
safety. But those advantages are significant: Competition results in consumers’ paying less and receiving
more choices and better quality.

Competition also forces suppliers to cut costs, which reduces waste. Not to mention the inherent fairness of offering all
comers a fair shot at the American Dream.

These benefits were so apparent that beer distributors saw the writing on the wall and asked several years ago that the statute
governing their corner of the industry be changed.

Beer distributors took the position after an out-of-state person bought a local beer distributorship
but had to remain a minority owner for five years to establish residency and meet the requirements of
the law.

The legal obstacle
was "silly," Marc Carmichael, president of the Indiana Beverage Alliance, told IBJ.

However, the stakes are higher for liquor distributors
than for beer distributors. Liquor brands seldom lock themselves into distribution agreements, meaning
they would be free to shift to Southern Wine or other competitors and cut ties to such local distributors
as National Wine & Spirits Inc. Beer brands, on the other hand, tend to sign exclusive contracts.

We doubt the state will be able to come up with
compelling reasons to justify keeping the status quo. Protecting Hoosier-owned firms from the potential
pitfalls of competition isn’t enough.

Indiana University law professor J. Alexander Tanford thinks the statute will fall. Federal courts almost never support residency
requirements for doing business: "This seems open and shut to me," he said.

Let’s hope the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana agrees.

___

To comment
on this editorial, write to [email protected]

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: IBJ is now using a new comment system. Your Disqus account will no longer work on the IBJ site. Instead, you can leave a comment on stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Past comments are not currently showing up on stories, but they will be added in the coming weeks. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets in {{ count_down }} days.