SC

SC Liquor Bill: “On The Rocks”

SPECIAL INTEREST LEGISLATION FACES UNCERTAIN FUTURE || By FITSNEWS ||  A liquor law “reform bill” exposed by this website as nothing more than a special interest handout (one benefiting some especially bad actors) is … wait for it … “on the rocks,” according to lawmakers. And that’s a good thing … Several…

SPECIAL INTEREST LEGISLATION FACES UNCERTAIN FUTURE

|| By FITSNEWS ||  A liquor law “reform bill” exposed by this website as nothing more than a special interest handout (one benefiting some especially bad actors) is … wait for it … “on the rocks,” according to lawmakers.

And that’s a good thing …

Several lawmakers who reached out to us weeks ago in defense of the legislation now tell FITS they are “uncommitted.”  Meanwhile the bill faces an uphill battle in the S.C. House of Representatives – despite the deep pockets of its supporters.

In fact it has yet to receive a hearing before a House judiciary subcommittee.  And even if it does, it faces an uncertain future.

“It’s on the rocks,” one lawmaker told us. “Big time.”

Lawmakers who spoke with FITS say in addition to the information already uncovered, they’re concerned by our pending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the S.C. Department of Revenue (SCDOR) – and what this document might uncover.

“We’ve always known about – and tolerated – a certain level of coziness between the industry and the agency,” one lawmaker said, referring to SCDOR’s close ties to Baylen Moore, a lobbyist for one of the out-of-state vendors pushing this bill.  “But no one likes reading about it.  And no one likes being linked to it.”

Assuming the bill – H. 3375 – does receive a subcommittee hearing, our sources say it’s unlikely to receive a favorable reading.  Which makes its passage out of the full committee all the more difficult.

And that’s before our FOIA drops …

One lawmaker disputed our impact on the process, though – saying lawmakers were paying only “passing interest” to the special interest drama associated with the legislation.

“Don’t get a big head,” one Democratic lawmaker told us.  “(FITS) narrative isn’t what’s driving this.”

So what is?  According to the Democratic lawmaker, opponents of the liquor “reform” legislation have made a compelling case that its passage would result in lost jobs – and lost revenues to the state.

“No one cares about ideology or who’s getting paid by who,” the lawmaker said. “They care about jobs and revenue.  If you’re holding those two cards, you’ve got a winning hand to play in the legislature no matter what the other side throws at you.”

Anyway, count on FITS to continue following this legislation …

***

Related posts

SC

Hampton County Financial Mismanagement Prompts Investigations, Allegations

Callie Lyons
SC

South Carolina Beach Water Monitoring Set To Begin …

FITSNews
SC

Former TV Anchor, ‘Friends Of The Hunley’ Leader Popped For DUI

Will Folks

8 comments

Pot stirred, not shaken March 23, 2015 at 2:40 pm

Just those two cards? Sounds like the dealer behind this bill will just shuffle the deck and try their new hand next round.

Reply
TroubleBaby March 23, 2015 at 3:06 pm

““Don’t get a big head,” one Democratic lawmaker told us.”

Too late for that.

*rimshot*

“Oh, you meant the bigger one.”

*rimshot & cymbal*

Reply
Sour Grapes March 23, 2015 at 6:01 pm

I don’t even know why we worry about liquor laws, when we have so many DUI/DWI laws on the books. Seriously, a couple drinks with food is enough to get you a DUI/DWI, if driving and pulled over for whatever reason (usu. have nothing to do with alcohol intake based on what I hear).

I have never had either- DUI/DWI, but I personally think, while no one needs to drive drunk, the limits as they currently exist: don’t ever go to a restaurant and drink, much less a bar (which I don’t go to).

I understand that young foolish people make mistakes, but the bar is set so low (or high depending on perspective), that anyone who has a drink, or two, is prone to get a monster of a ticket. If there is even the “smell” of alcohol, which any good officer can claim as probable cause, whether it exists or not.

We have an issue in my area where they are attempting to open a moonshine distillery, maybe beer? Heck, I really don’t keep up with it that much, but due to proximity of church, it is an outrage.

Property Rights?

Reply
ELCID March 23, 2015 at 6:27 pm

They should have thought about revenue loss before they got rid of the Mini-Bottle Law.

So Far, the State has lost Millions of Dollars in lost revenue compared to when we had the law. Further, the drinks are not as good, and its had no effect on the DUI situation it was supposed to solve. All it was, is a handout to the restaurant association and a rip off of The State of SC and our citizens who like a fair drink when they get hit with a $10 bill for one mixed drink.

Reply
No fair March 23, 2015 at 8:38 pm

I concur. That was shit. You always knew you were getting a good drink. Now you probably get stiffed instead of a stif drink.

Reply
Slartibartfast March 23, 2015 at 11:14 pm

And the li’l’ bottles are so cute!

Reply
Slartibartfast March 23, 2015 at 11:13 pm

“No one cares about ideology or who’s getting paid by who,” the lawmaker said.

BY WHOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, galldangit!

Reply
Ed March 24, 2015 at 8:29 am

All the states that have laws like this–limited # liquor licenses that go up for bid to the highest bidder-are rife with corruption in the industry. I don’t know why no one in SC decided to look at all that goes on in those states with liquor licenses and decided that it wasn’t for us a long time ago.

Oh wait– $$$$

Reply

Leave a Comment