Marin Institute

Lobbyists don’t need to hide behind curtains—we’ve seen how their machinations can kill bills in broad daylight--but the industry reps who testified in Washington State recently against a bill to ban alcoholic energy drinks such as JOOSE, Liquid Charge, and Four Loko can only called the Wizards of Odd for the statements they made in defense of their companies’ dangerous products.

Here’s a sampling of the most memorable quotes overheard at the hearing, courteous of Marin Institute's Research and Policy Director Michele Simon, who, along with the chief of police at Washington State University and others, testified in favor of the bill:

“It's no different than having a glass of wine, a dessert, and a cappuccino. - Lobbyist for Charge Beverages, maker of Liquid Charge.”

“It's like having a beer and a Pepsi. - Lobbyist for United Brands, maker of JOOSE.”

And the lobbyists in attendance also claimed there was really no problem with these beverages and that they don't market to youth. Right.

Photo from JOOSE's Facebook page

And in a show of true irony, some lobbyists seemed concerned that the bill would not apply to mixing in bars (such as Red Bull and vodka). As if they really care about that.

As a result of the scare tactics by industry, the bill was tabled, while the products remain on store shelves, with industry profits – along with the risk to youth – intact.

But lobbyists still have battles ahead with new ban bills in California and New York. And Marin Institute will be out in full force supporting these bills and all efforts to rid states of these dangerous products. For more resources, visit our campaign page.

Think Super Bowl beer ads are funny and entertaining? Think again, because once again Anheuser Busch-InBev recklessly poured gas on the catastrophic fire of underage drinking in this country by exposing the young viewers of Super Bowl 44 to more ads for beer than any other product.

The world's biggest brewer spent roughly $20 million to buy nine ads for Bud Light, Michelob Ultra, and Select 55 during the Super Bowl. An estimated 20-30 million underage youth were watching.

We saw nothing new in the tired but tried and true playbook of stupid, insipid, sophomoric, humorous situations used to lure kids to the holy grail of alcoholic amber liquid. Cute animals (baby Clydesdale and cow), popular music, and pretty young women, utterly mindless herd mentality, and the pathetic sell-out of a true sports hero led the crap-pack this year.

Clearly, the Brazilian investment bankers running the Belgian-based AB-InBev beer behemoth have no intentions of altering their irresponsible corporate behavior. Why should they? According to a Journal of Health Communication study done a few years back, youth 10-17 years old prefer beer ads with humor, music, and animal characters, and are more likely to say such commercials make them want to buy the beer advertised.

AB-InBev Super Bowl ads are burning beer brands into vulnerable, developing brains. Funny, ha, ha...but oh so deadly. Every year 5,000 underage youth die from alcohol-related harm. The country spends $60 billion annually to clean up the mess of underage alcohol-related car crashes, sexual violence, suicide, disease, and educational and job failure.

AB-InBev Super Bowl ads during this so-called "family friendly" TV sporting event are inappropriate. They are sacrificing our youth on the altar of “beer business as usual.” There is nothing funny or entertaining about that.

Constellation Brands, whose growth as a power player in the alcohol industry recently earned it a spot on Marin Institute’s website as one of the world's top alcohol-producing companies, can now add political influence to its list of accomplishments, thanks to a $25,000 contribution to the re-election campaign of New York State Governor David Paterson.

Why tie this particular contribution – a relatively paltry sum to pay when Constellation had $4.7 billion in annual sales last year – to political influence? It’s all in the timing.

Constellation, which prides itself on its reputation as the world’s largest wine producer (by volume), contributed said 25K just one week before Governor Paterson announced his 2010/2011 budget, which included a proposal to allow wine to be sold in New York’s 19,000 grocery stores. Current law only allows wine to be sold in the 2,700 liquor stores in the state.

Of course, denials of any impropriety were swiftly released. From Richie Fife, spokesperson for Paterson's re-election campaign: "There is absolutely no connection to the Constellation contribution and the governor's support for wine in grocery stores.”  From Constellation’s spokesperson Cheryl Gossin: “The contribution is not in any way connected to the wine in grocery stores proposal.”

Right. Blair Horner, legislative director for New York Public Interest Research Group, sums it up best: “Generally speaking, major businesses don't give campaign contributions out of the goodness of their hearts. They believe it will have influence and they don't give unless they think it will work.”

After all, why only sell your wine in 2,700 stores when you can sell it in 19,000 stores?

New York may have a large budget shortfall to contend with again this year, and changing this law could potentially add more revenue in the form of sales tax for the state. But after Constellation gets what its influence will buy, the state will still be on its own to foot the bills on alcohol harm, to fund alcohol treatment programs, and to find revenue anywhere else but in alcohol tax increases.

In this prolonged down economy, most states are looking at any and every idea that might produce revenue to cover budget shortfalls. In many control states, or alcohol beverage control states as they are sometimes called, the recession has led to a wave of sometimes heated discussions in state legislatures over whether to privatize the sale of alcohol in order to generate more revenue for the states.

However, two recent articles have offered opinions to support the alternate argument: that control states should not give up their control:

From the News & Observer: North Carolina - A Moral Duty to Keep Our Liquor System

From the Idaho Report: Idaho - State Liquor Director Opposes Privatizing Stores

As long as states continue to struggle to make their budgets, privatization will remain a hot topic of debate in control states. Marin Institute will continue to monitor this trend and track legislative activity on privatization as it unfolds.