Anheuser-Busch begins Push Against Stone Bill

I believe the bill includes language that explicitly prevents brewers of a certain size (which AB and Heineken would definitely fall into) from opening such establishments. That said, I can see the bill potentially creating some controversy among new "craft" production breweries. To use just one example: a good friend of mine has owned and operated a brewpub in town for 20 years now. Given the recent boom in production facilities, he made the decision very recently to purchase equipment (a 30 BBL system) with the intent of opening a separate production brewery. He's now 5 figures in, and if the bill passes he may have only had to have made a much less significant investment in his brewpub in order to begin kegging and distributing his beers.

 

Sorry to hear about what is happening there. Brought to mind this article about the State of Michigan, Founders and our local Community College. Combining thoughts from the two articles my takeaway is that the 85 workers that will be created/trained through Founders and Grand Rapids Community College could probably operate 1 AB facility and figure out a way to not just put piss in the cans!

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/05/founders_gets_500000_through_s.html

 

While this is great in theory, I think trying to effect change in this manner is difficult when talking about the craft beer industry because there is no party affiliation that will determine how any politician will vote. In Michigan, we just had a bill voted down that would've allowed breweries to sell beer at farmers markets. There was no real reason given as to why; it seemed to me that the wheels simply weren't greased enough. I'd be surprised if this bill goes anywhere due to InBev's deep pockets.

 

This is how it works in SC: Breweries have a higher production cap and can distribute off-premises, but they cannot cook and serve their own food on site and can only serve a limited amount (48 ounces) per person per day. Brewpubs have a lower production cap and can't distribute off-premises, but they can serve their own food as well as an unlimited amount of beer per person per day.

When the bill becomes law - among all the benefits it gives to brewpubs - breweries could then begin serving food if they wanted to, which would mean they would benefit from the increased production cap as well as the unlimited on-premises consumption, in turn meaning they'd sell more beer and make more money. If AB wanted to come in and benefit from the bill, they'd have to open a restaurant or brewpub to go along with their production. The law is not being changed because of Stone - they're not mentioned anywhere in the bill - but as a way for the state to seem more attractive to them or any other large brewery that wanted to open a satellite operation in SC and run brewpub-like establishment while acting as a major booster for current businesses.

FWIW, all of the breweries and the SC Brewers Association is completely behind the bill because it opens more avenues and possibilities for them they didn't have before. It's not as if this is being done against their will.

 

Didn't bother to read all of the prior posts to see if someone else said this but it's all up to which company "donates" more money to any of the legislators who are on the fence. Face it - in our government money talks.

 

considering i live in the state and also understand my area is ran by a inbev distro that raises prices on good beer and gives discounts for the inbev crap. craft beer would explode in Greenville, Charleston and anywhere ppl like good beer with this passing. stone probably wont come here. who cares. now breweries can actually do whatever they want serve what they want!!

 

As an AB employee, I'm calling bullshit on this.

As for the Stone bill, my personal (as in not representing AB with this statement) opinion is that the 3-tier system is archaic and terrible and anything that simplifies the process is good.

 

We are in complete agreement on this.

 

http://drinkblogrepeat.com/2014/05/...e-meets-schedules-vote-for-tuesday/#more-3437
"Next week could be the end of the so-called Stone Bill’s saga after a group of state senators and representatives met Wednesday to iron out the details of the legislation.
Conference committee meetings are not public, but according to Wesley Donehue, there were eight lobbyists representing the SC Beer Wholesalers Association and Anheuser-Busch – which has mounted its own campaign against the bill – in the room. Craft brewers were not alone, though, as lobbyist Sara Hazzard – who helped get the Stone Bill added as an amendment in the first place – was present, as well as officials from RJ Rockers representing the SC Brewers Association. Again, no word yet on what if any influence either side had on the legislation."

Like the poster on the linked site asked, why are lobbyists allowed but not the public?

Did A-B fight pop-the-cap too?

 

How dare you attempt to tell somebody what criteria should dictate how/if they vote?

 

If memory serves me, yes they did. If you are talking about AB fighting pop the cap. Good to see the Palmetto State's Legislature is honoring the democratic process the Founding Fathers set up by letting as little sunshine in as possible...

To be honest having lived there 93-95, I was a little shocked on how far they came soon after. I assume, they like their neighbors to north are much changed since then. Wish some of those folks would move over this way & help vote out some of these fools keeping the weird beer laws in check here.

 

Agreed. Some elections do come down to one issue. Everyone's vote is theirs. Be it Guns, World Politics, Beer, or whatever it is your right to decide

 

Are not the craft brewers lobbying as well? There is no truely free market when one part of the industry can lobby for an advantage over the other. This cuts both ways.

 

I agree most bills are not hastily written but many are written from one perspective and with little input from all interested stakeholders. Beware of any Bill whose sponsors say it is "must pass," is "fair," and has "no unintended consequences."

 

Yikes. He has as much of a right to voice his opinion about how wrong he believes your stance is as you do to actually vote in a completely misguided way...

 

Yes. I know of one A-B distributor that openly opposed Pop the Cap.

 

He's telling somebody what to do with their vote. Not his damn call...

 

I vaguely remember some of that BS rhetoric they were trying to sell. Suddenly they seemed to be all worried about the children ( which is usually the first place people go when the facts are against them ).

 

I know. I do not like to sound as some sort of curmudgeon and all bitchy, but the money that these lobbies and contributors allow is truly obscene. They seem to be able to step away from their actions and act as if they know about this beer revolution. That these big companies remain clueless is encouraging.