Anheuser-Busch begins Push Against Stone Bill

Agreed, If I was running one of the BMCers I would've either bought more up & comers or just poured my vast resources into beating the them at their game as far as carving out market share. All three made decent product in the early/mid 90s, but were never committed to them ( Elk Mountain, Miller reserve, ect. )

 

I don't doubt for one minute that craft beer interests are represented in the lobbying arena (albeit on a drastically smaller scale). It's almost always impossible to make a " good vs. bad" determination in the world of business, as there are too many shades of gray. However, in scenarios where the "big guy's" efforts consist of rigging the game to restrict the growth of competition, I feel comfortable taking the other side. I have no illusions that the craft beer world is comprised only of honorable and wholesome characters. But the simple fact is that the laws and regulations in many states limiting craft beer's potential are absurd, corrupt, and flat out despicable.

 

Actually, he wasn't. He was offering his opinion on the merits of somebody's decision making process regarding their vote.

 

I agree. But he's framing his rebuttal in such a way that apparently one issue voters must be fools. Beer is important to many of us. Spending much time in the south, I will tell you, it matters. Easy for people to make general statements when they don't know the landscape...

 

I will reiterate my point. If the most important thing to you, in an election, is a point about beer you are way off base. There are far more important things to worry about in every district, city, county and state. Plain and simple.

 

Not if your livelihood depends on it, or it is just that important to you. None of this change would've happened in the South without impassioned advocates, & yes the votes mattered. Around here, everyone agrees on 90% of the issues, it's the other 10%, mud slinging & beauty contest that makes up the difference.

Politics is local/Tip O'Neil

 

To be clear, I doubt any of us are voting for ****** or stalin just because they are on the good beer ticket/platform. Give us some flipping credit...

 

And now we know the true secret to the rise of the third reich...ran on a pro beer platform.

 

Those damned Bavarians never get true credit. Nothing like Aecht Schlenkerla happens in Russia.

 

I've been in politics for a long time, so I can translate the "creates/saves jobs" argument into plain English. Simply, it means "I want to create special legislation that will give me a market advantage over my competitors or kill legislation that will put a halt to my market advantage." I'm not saying who's right or wrong in this particular case, but the "jobs" argument is BS either way.

In this case, I am selfishly rooting for A-B to win as it will decrease the chances of Stone locating in South Carolina and thereby make Bethlehem, PA a more relatively attractive site.

 

While AB hires 72 people to run their monolithic brewery...Stone hires over 500 people to run their brewery, restaurant, sales team, store and distribution center just in Escondido! So yes, Stone would be creating quite a few new jobs where ever they decide to put up shop. Besides, even if AB had a "store and taproom" at their brewery it would still blow. Free Budlight...no thanks.

 

Do you think AB will put up the same stink in PA if it comes to it? PA beer laws are soo antiquated...it would take a miracle for something to change there (btw, I like PA!)

 

Just as an FYI, the only reason AB was opposed to part of the Stone bill is because it took a step towards creating one rule set for craft brewers and a different rule set for bigger brewers, based on barrelage. If they simply took the barrel limits out of the bill there would be no opposition. It's rational for AB to oppose a bill that gives a competitor a legislated advantage (you may not like it, but it's rational).

 

Removing the barrel cap opens the door for an even bigger D vs. G setting, which is what happened pre prohibition. A-B's brewpub is nickel beer & a micro can't compete.

Today is vote day - any news?

 

Based on my own time in the political arena, if someone from AB said "hello" I would ask a trusted 3rd party to verify what they said. I appreciate that @Peter_Wolfe is loyal to his employer, but I consider his employers to be utterly untrustworthy snakes in the grass based on my own experiences with them.

 

Do you have any idea what the "Stone Bill' is? Im guessing not because it mostly certainly isnt hastily written legislation for the benefit of one company. In fact its the exact opposite. The good folks at the SCBA have been working on legislation and helping to expand the craft brewing industry in the state for years. This is the culmination of all their hard work, and honestly probably the realization of a dream for many people involved in the project. Also, the people at Stone had nothing to do with formulating this legislation. So I call your unfounded response a "meh".

 

I think it's cute that you actually believe that. So where did the 500,000 barrel number come from? Isn't that too big to protect smaller breweries from being pushed out by larger ones who want to monopolize the brewpub game?

 

In what way?

 

That you think industry groups representing out-of-state mid-size breweries had nothing to do with crafting the legislation or getting it passed. Or that it passed because of hard work of craft brewers and not because of the economic benefit of allowing Stone to open a brewpub in the state attached to a large brewery.

If you want to help small brewers and independent brewpub owners, then cap it at 10,000 or 20,000 barrels/year, and maybe allow a brewer an exemption that has been doing business in the state for a certain period of time. You don't set the cap at 500,000 barrels/year and then pretend this was written with the little guy in mind.

 

I didnt say getting it passed. Stone was used as the symbol for the potential economic growth and job opportunities that could come from a brewery of that size opening another site on the east coast. I have no doubt that had a huge impact on the decision for the politician to pass the bill into law. Thus, why it has been called the Stone Bill. That being said, I go back to my original sentiment that your statement that it is for the benefit of a single brewery is completely unfounded. Stone doesnt need this bill to pass. They dont need to come to SC, and theres still a good chance they wont. Local brewpubs and small breweries needed this bill to allow for their expansions.