Bob Ross wrote:Might be an interesting article here, Robin.
I touched on the broader topic of the widespread move to "cork'n'carry" in this recent article
, Bob, and probably won't return to it for this point. It would be a great alcohol-politics article for someone, though, tracing the forces for and against it and the competing interests that have to be resolved. It's interesting that it passed so quickly in so many states, including some (like Kentucky) that generally need some incentive to pass bills regarded as "pro-alcohol." It was generally done without a lot of notice, too. Either it's a massive coincidence, or else a very sophisticated strategic plan by ... whom? The funny thing is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of money in it, but it's certainly arguable that both restaurateurs and the wine distribution/retail chain benefit from it.
I didn't check the legislative history but note that the bill was passed by both houses over a letter opposing the bill by the Governor.
Which raises similar questions for our unknown investigative reporter: Who's on the other side? MADD Mothers would be likely to knee-jerk against it, and anti-alcohol forces in general. But what caught the guv's attention? Mitt Romney is a Mormon, but I don't have the impression that he's the kind of social conservative who bases policy on religion.
The company that makes the bags in question, Wine Doggy Bags, Inc. at http://www.winedoggybag.com/
reports sales surged after the Massachusetts law was enacted. The president says Cork and Carry is permitted in 40 US states, with 15 requiring the use of a bag of this sort.
Interesting link, Bob. Maybe I'll do another article after all, but I don't quite have a grasp on the angle I'd want to take.