A comment that struck me from class yesterday was the ABC deputy chief saying that the ABC doesn't really take a position on policy, unless Governor Brown tells them they have a position. They are merely agents of the state, enforcing the rules on the books. This got me thinking about where Gov. Brown stood on alcohol regulation.
It looks like Gov. Brown has been willing to sign into law bills that liberalize the alcohol industry somewhat. For example, he has signed a bill allowing barbershops and salons to offer limited quantities of alcohol without a liquor license, and another allowing wineries to offer wine tastings at farmers' markets (news links below).
We discussed yesterday that the only way to change the BPC is through the legislative process or ballot proposal, so it would be on the voters to push for that change from their representatives. But I think that underestimates the power of the ABC's prosecutorial discretion, the idea that the agency can choose when and how to enforce the BPC. The example offered in class was that the agency, unwisely, failed to exercise that discretion when it went after the non-profit one-day wine event in Sacramento. Gov. Brown could also institutionalize it to some extent by saying it is the policy of his administration not to pursue violations of certain laws. This is what President Obama did in the early stages of gay marriage liberalization when he said that his administration would no longer enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. When that bill came under Supreme Court scrutiny, President Obama went so far as to have the Solicitor General, whose job it is to argue the government's case in front of the Supreme Court, argue in favor of the petitioner's claim that DOMA was unconstitutional. Of course, there are tremendous political risks involved in anything like that for Gov. Brown, and alcohol regulation doesn't carry the same moral imperative to act as advancing gay rights. It will be interesting to see, though, whether alcohol regulation is on his agenda for the next two years before he is term-limited out again.
http://abc7news.com/business/bill-may-allow-beauty-salons-to-serve-alcohol-without-permit/712449/
http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-governor-brown-signs-off-on-wine-tastings-at-farmers-markets-20140710-story.html
Thanks for looking into Governor Brown's stance on alcohol regulation. It's interesting to see that he is largely in support of liberalizing regulation. That seems to tie in well with our discussion yesterday that the ABC is largely focused on keeping alcohol away from minors and drunks and that even agents don't understand all the tied-house laws. That being said, it makes me wonder about the dangers of liberalization if it's done in an ad hoc, rather than intentional way. How well can Governor Brown and the ABC intentionally shape a liquor industry that they desire, rather than create one accidentally as a result of a number of seemingly unrelated choices?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily's point that small ad hoc decisions about what to enforce and what not to enforce does not seem like it will end up creating the "orderly marketplace" that Laurie kept saying was one objective nor shape the liquor industry in an intentional way. However, I would take the point a step further and argue that no matter what the regulation is and how it tries to shape the industry, the industry will evolve to concentrate power in whatever areas it can: in the early 1900s that power was concentrated with brewers and tied-house laws sought to limit that power; today, the three tier system has concentrated that power in the hands of distributors. It seems to me that what is most critical is to have legal and regulatory frameworks that can evolve with the industry in a way that allows regulators to "enforce" laws based on the basic principles that we think will lead to an orderly marketplace and keep alcohol away from minors and drunks rather than enforce laws that were meant to limit power that no longer exists.
ReplyDelete