The Santa Barbara Vintners Association only has about 30 percent of the county wineries as members. Most members are the large wineries, several of which are owned by billionaires. The Vintners Association is asking the Board of Supervisors to approve the Vintners’ Wine Preserve which will force consumers who buy wine, merchandise etc. from S.B. wineries to pay an additional one percent of their wine purchases for the wineries’ marketing and lobbying. This payment is forced by the government — the county supervisors. The consumer who is footing this bill has no say about the speech — marketing and lobbying — for which these funds will be used.
Who is pushing the Wine Preserve? It is the large wineries who want to market their S.B. County wines nationally. There is something rich about forcing your customers to pay for the advertising of your wine that they are buying.
The Wine Berserkers is an online community composed of those in the wine business and wine-centric consumers. Earlier this year a thread was started about the Wine Preserve. The initial responses, especially from consumers, were quite critical and damning. One of the Vintners Association staff jumped on the thread to promote the Wine Preserve and touted its success elsewhere — especially citing Temecula. He got shredded. The incoming was so bad he dropped out of the thread. One of the small S.B. winery owners, who is often a cheerleader for SB County wines on Wine Berserkers, and who is well liked by Berserker folks, picked up the cudgel and tried to defend the Wine Preserve. Again, the incoming was unanimously negative. After doing his best this advocate raised the white flag and said he would reimburse his customers the one percent fee.
If you want to see these exchanges please go to https://www.wineberserkers.com/t/wine-bids-merged-thread-everything-concerning-the-bids-program-in-california/316650?=stephen_pepe. Warning: viewer discretion is advised some of the incoming is painful to read.
Are there any other problems with The Wine Preserve? Yes lots!
The First Amendment protects freedom of expression which is not only the right to speak but the right not to be forced to support speech with which you disagree. The consumer who is paying the one percent fee for the Wine Preserve’s marketing and lobbying has no say in how and where those funds are spent.
The First Amendment also protects Freedom of Association. The Wine Preserve, enforced by the Board of Supervisors, will compel the small mom-and-pop wineries to be members and force their customers to pay the one percent. Why wouldn’t the mom-and-pop wineries want to force their customers to pay the one percent for advertising and lobbying since “a rising tide lifts all boats.” It is only the large wineries’ yachts that need lifting. Most of the mom-and-pop rowboats are fine; they are kept afloat by the locals who buy their wine. They don’t need to advertise nationally since their customers are locals. This is why most mom-and-pop wineries do not belong to the Vintners.
The Vintners claim the wineries will decide whether to implement the one percent fee by a vote in the democratic tradition — what is wrong with that? The vote is weighted and determined by the sales tax paid by the wineries. The Vintners Association claims this vote-weighting is fair because the large wineries would pay most of the one percent. If that were true, I would agree with the Vintners, but it is not the large wineries that are paying the money, it is the consumers and they have no vote. There are about 250-300 wineries in the county. The 20 or so large wineries will decide this issue because of the weighted voting. And folks are complaining about the Electoral College!
These First Amendment violations are not unique to the Wine Preserve. The California State Bar requires all attorneys to pay an annual membership fee. I plead guilty to being one for over 50 years. Toward the end of the last century the State Bar used these funds to support programs not related to the practice of law — like banning nuclear war and saving whales. A pesky lawyer sued and the U.S. Supreme Court held 9-0 the State Bar could not use members’ dues for non-law related matters.
There are similar cases involving unions. After the union wins an election and negotiates a union contract with a union shop clause all employees have to join the union and pay union dues or be fired. Some employees claimed they did not want to be a union member and have their dues support political candidates they opposed. Those bothersome employees again! In a series of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court said the First Amendment’s Freedom of Association prohibited unions from forcing employees to be members of the union. Also, that the First Amendment Freedom of Speech required the union to have a two-tiered dues structure and provide a lower dues for non-union members which excluded the dues money used for the union’s political activities — like making contributions to political candidates.
The Vintners Association correctly states the Wine Preserve is the same as the fees hotels charge to support their marketing, so how can the Wine Preserve be illegal? The answer is simple; no pesky lawyer has sued the hotels — yet.
There is no question the wine industry is hurting. After the COVID bump, wine sales for the last three years have declined and inventories are rising. Also, people are drinking less and alcohol-free drinks are booming. However, the solution is not to have the customer pay for the advertising of the wine they are buying.
The Wine Preserve should be voluntary, not compelled by the Board of Supervisors. The large winery owners should use their own money to market and lobby, not the consumers’ one percent add-on since they have no vote. Didn’t we fight a revolution over no taxation without representation?