Amicus Curiae Brief — Baude v. Heath (No. 08-1004)

MAR 1 1 2009

No. 08-1004

a ee ———T_SUrnecme COURT, US.

OFFICE OF THE C] ERK

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

PATRICK L. BAUDE, et al.,

Petitioners,

vs

DAVID L. HEATH, Chairman of the Indiana Alcohol

& Tobacco Commission, and WINE SPIRITS

WHOLESALERS OF INDIANA,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF INDIANA WINEGROWERS

GUILD, INC., WINEAMERICA, INC., ILLINOIS GRAPE

GROWERS & VINTNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

AND WISCONSIN WINERY ASSOCIATION, INC.

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

JON LARAMORE

Counsel of Record

HarMony A. Mapres

BAKER & DANIELS I.ILP

300 N. MERIDIAN S7., Surre 2700

INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204

317-237-0300

Counsel for Amtct Curtae

March 11. 2009

Becker Gallaticr Cocinuats, Org Washinton, D ¢ BOO RGD SOO]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

py OE 6 ae. te sg yO - i

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI ....... I

COR PREMUIMREU TL oc te eevee ara .. 4

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................. 7

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ... 9

I. This case presents an important Commerce

a an 9

Il. Indiana’s “face-to-face” rule serves nc legitimate

local purpose that cannot be adequately served

by reasonable alternatives. ............... 10

A. Thirty years of history show that the “face-

to-face” requirement iS unnecessary to

prevent underage consumption.......... 10

B. There are reasonable alternatives to the

“face-to-face” requirement. ............. |

CONCLUSION ; ahem le L4

APPENDIX

Appendix A: Information about Arnie: Curta la

i

TABLE OF AUTHORITES

CASES

Baude v. Heath,

No. 1:05-cev-0735-J DT-TAB, 2007 WL 2479587

(S.D. Ind., Asem, Gees ee. 2-3, 4

Baude v. Heath,

538 F.3d GOB (7th te ca. wc ewe. 7

Cherry Hill Vineyards, LLC v. Lilly,

553 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2008) ........... 4, 8, 9

Granholm v. Heald.

544 U.S. 460 Ges s..... passim

H.P. Hood & Sons, Ine. v. Du Mond,

336 U.S. 525 (eee ee, . 9

New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach,

486 U.S. 268 (1968). --.... ae | .. &

STATUTES

Ind. Code § 7.1-8-2-7(5) 3

Ind. Code § 7.1-3-12-5 . i ae 2

Ind. Code § 7.1-3-22-"a74).... ~» 4

Ind (Code

Ind. Code § 7.1-3-12-51avd) S

11

ind. Code § 7. 1-096-S ob oe ew eee 13

ind. Code § 7.3-3-18-6 . 2.0.6. ccs cedevunsages 13

bevel. Soto S 7. -5-26-8 oe es sw wee 13

Ind. Code § 7.1-3-26-6(4) ..................05- 7

ind, Cote Do. b90 eet rk er we ee eee 4

indi, Code $ 7.1-3-2G-OUIMA) 2... i ccc eee ese 4

ind. Code § 7.1-3-26-8020B) ..........0 0500s 14

Ind. Code § 7.1-3-26-9(2)\(D) ................. 13

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 243.155(2)(g) ............ 7

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 244.165(2) .............. 8

Mich. Comp. Laws § 136.1203(3)(d) amended by

2008 Mich. Pub. Act 474 (eff. Mar. 31, 2009) . 138

OTHER

James L. Butler & John J. Butler, Indiana Wine:

A fiistory (QOGTS. oko ss ec el eed lees a ee 2,9

Fed. Trade Comm'n, Possible Anticom petitive Barriers

to E-Commerce: Wine (2008) ....... 6, L414, 12. be

Arthur EF. Foulkes. Hoosier Winertes. Wholesalers

Locked in Legal, Legislative Battle, Terre Haute

Tribune-Star, Mar. 3, 2007

hY

R. Corbin Houchins. Notes on Wine Distribution

Se i on ONC ce te ne

WEBSITES

NWS Wine Brands, http://www.uwscorp.com/IN-

Wines.asp (last visited Mar. 5, 2009) ........

WineAmerica, inc., Data on Wineries,

http://www.wineamerica.org/newsroom/wine%

20data%20center/2008% 20 W ineries% 20 by% 20

RNR Se hr oa Oh vate utara eee ie ee ee

Wineries of Indiana, http://www/indianawines.org/

wineries (last visited Mar. 9, 2009) ..........

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI

This litigation profoundly affects the interests of all

American wineries.’ Indeed, Indiana’s “face-to-face”

requirement for shipping wine affects in-state and out-

of-state wineries far more than it affects the wine-

connoisseur Petitioners or the State and wholesale:

Respondents. The “face-to-face” requirement

challenged here merely inconveniences connoisseurs

and may bear remotely on the State’s tax revenue or

the wholesalers’ bottom line. But it transforms the

business models and bottom lines of some wineries —

undoubtedly harming wineries outside Indiana more

severely than in-state wineries.

Amici are state and national associations of

wineries that desire access to national markets for

their products. More specific information about each

amicus 1s provided in the Appendix.

STATEMENT

1. As detailed below, Indiana’s wineries were

permitted to freely ship wine to their customers for

more than 30 years, during which there was not one

single report that wine shipped by an Indtana winery

was the source of unlawful consumption by underage

As required by Rule 37.6,amiece state that their counsel (listed on

the signature page) authored this briefin whole, and neither ther

counsel nor any party made any monetary contribution intended

to fund the preparation or submission of the brief, The parties

have consented to the filing of this bret, and the letters ofconsent

are on file with the Clerk. Counsel of record for all partie

received motice at least 10 davs betore the due date of avrrre

ys

persons. No complaint was filed with the Indiana

Alcoholic Beverage Commission (now Alcohol and

Tobacco Commission) or any local law enforcement

agency claiming wine shipped from an Indiana winery

was unlawfully consumed by underage persons.

The argument that the “face-to-face” requirement

at issue in this litigation is necessary to deter potential

underage drinkers from obtaining wine thus has no

historical support and is mere speculation. For more

than 30 years, during which no “face-to-face”

requirement was in force, there was not.a single report

of underage drinkers obtaining wine in this manner.

2. Indiana’s modern wine industry began in 1971,

when the first permit was issued for a winery under an

earlier version of the current statutory scheme. James

L. Butler & John J. Butler, ndiana Wine: A History

141 (2001). Indiana had been a leader in winemaking

in the early days of the Republic, but the industry took

decades to revive after being shut down during

Prohibition. Jd. at 63-79.

The 1971 law gave Inaiana wineries special status,

essentially exempting them from the three-tier system

governing the rest of the industry. Because Indiana

wineries were unconsti ained by the three-tier system,

they could (1) manufacture wine, (2) sell wine as

wholesalers to retail stores and restaurants, and (3)

sell directly to consumers on person and by direct

shipping. Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1°2-5 (2002)

Phe statute did not expheitly permit Indiana wineres to ship

i

them Wine to customer , VUL Many winern. (

Te o Without

mterference by State aleohol reculator Baude vo Tleath, No

Thus, Indiana wineries were allowed to fulfill the

functions of all segments of the three-tier system

manufacturing, ~ holesaling, and retailing. Wineries

were the only segment of the alcoholic bevcrage

industry given this special status by Indiana law.’

Under this system, Indiana wineries proliferated, from

just two in the early 1970s to nearly 40 today. Butler

& Butler, supra, at 142.4

3. Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), caused

the Indiana General Assembly to strip from Indiana’s

wineries many of the selling methods they had

previously enjoyed. The 2006 changes removed

Indiana wineries’ authority to wholesale their own

wine. Ind. Code § 7.1-3-12-5(a\5) (as amended 2006).

For the first time, Indiana wineries were prohibited

from selling their wine to restaurants, liquor stores, or

other retail outlets unless they could find a wholesaler

to sell it for them. 7d.

The 2006 legislation «iso restricted Indiana

wineries’ right to ship wine directly to consumers

1:05-cv-0735-)J DT-TAB, 2007 WL 2479587, at *4.¢6S.D. Ind., Aug

,

29,2007) ("Despite this regulatory framework, Indiana allowed in

state wineries to ship wines directly to their customers.”). Ne

party lias disputed this finding

Mlore recent! e Indiana General Assembly has granted some

ofthese pris to micro-brewers of beer. See Ind. Code § 7.1-3

a ORD eracteq oi

The official website of the [Indiana Wine Grape Council, a state

upported organization intended to enhance viticulture and the

marketing of Indiana wine, listed 36 Indiana winertes open to thie

pudlre. Si Ind Wine Grape Council, Winemes of Indiana

4

This law requires wineries to obtain a special permit

and imposed the “face-to-face” requirement at issue in

this case. Ind. Code §§ 7.1-3-26-7, 7.1-3-26-9(1)(A)

(2006). Under the 2006 changes, Indiana wineries

were still permitted to manufacture wine and to sell it

by the glass and by the bottle from the tasting rooms

most wineries operated, but they lost many

advantages they previously possessed. Ind. Code § 7.1-

3-12-5(a)(1), (3)(2006). Constricted sales opportunities

and increased regulatory burdens led to the demise of

at least one Indiana winery — Terre Vin in Rockville.°

All of the 2006 changes benefited wholesalers by

explicitly barring both in-state and out-of-state

wineries from selling directly to retailers. The 2006

changes also assisted wholesalers by prohibiting out-

of-state wineries with wholesaling privileges under

their state laws (including all wineries in California,

Oregon and Washington) from shipping to Indiana

customers — a provision that was invalidated by the

District Court and the Seventh Circuit and is not at

issue in this Court. As the District Court noted, “[t]he

wholesale prohibition is not aimed so much at

protecting Indiana's wineries as it 1s at guarding the

bank accounts of Indiana’s wholesalers.” 2007 WL

2479587, at *17. The wholesalers lobbied for the

legislation restricting wineries’ prior rights to sell at

wholesale and to ship to consumers

Arthur BE. Foulkes, Jlooster Winertes. Wholesalers Locked tn

Leval, Legislative Battle, Terre Haute Tribune Star, Mar. 3, 2007,

atvallubleat www tribstar comvlocallocal story O62T73710C New

!

legislation passed in Indiranapohs last vear was ‘almost 100

pre reent of the reason the WIR@CKY clo: ed

i)

4. ‘The “face-to-face” provision obviously burdens

out-of-state wineries far more than it burdens Indiana

wineries. An in-person visit by an Indiana consumer

to an out-of-state winery, especially popular West

Coast wineries, is less convenient and more expensive

than a visit to an Indiana winery (or local wine

festival, where a consumer may have “face-to-face”

visits with multiple wineries).

Indiana’s “face-to-face” requirement is only one

among many barriers to unfettered interstate

commerce in wine. Since 1975, the number of wineries

in the United States has grown by a factor of ten, from

600 to nearly 6,000.° The vast majority of these

wineries are small, farm-based, family-run

enterprises. A typical winery occupies 20 acres and

produces 4,000 cases of wine annually; more than 70%

of American wineries produce fewer than 10,000 cases

per year. Most wines are “hand sold” through direct

contact between a person familiar with the wine and

the buyer.

Recently, interest has grown in individuahistie,

hand crafted wines over commodity type wines — but

shipping restrictions diminish availability of these

wines. Interest has increased in reserve wines (made

from particular vineyard blocks where the soil

produces better grapes), wines based on variations of

winemaking technique (unfiltered, unfined, or carbonic

maceration, for example), various blends (such as

“Meritage”™), and fruit wines. Wine is not fungible in

© |

WineAmerica, [re ,Dataon Winerte htty WWW Wile ahierica

OTVP/NeWSrOoomM wihe ladata‘ MOcenter/VOOS), POW neries 1)

by oState pat

6

part because of “terroir,” a French term referring to the

aromas and tastes specific to wines of a particular

area. Terroir depends on the characteristics of a

particular vineyard—the interaction of climate, sun

exposure, grape variety, water, soil, and local

winemaking techniques.

Wholesale distribution is no panacea. Few wineries

are large enough to have contracts with wholesalers to

sell their wines in other states; the volume of wine

they produce is too small to interest wholesalers.’ This

problem is exacerbated by dwindling numbers of

wholesalers arising from consolidation in_ the

distribution tier of the three-tier system. Granholm,

544 U.S. at 467; Fed. Trade Comm’n, Possible

Anticompetitive Barriers to E-Commerce: Wine

6 (2003).° Even wineries that are able to distribute

out-of-state through wholesalers are disadvantaged by

the high costs of distribution, cutting their margins to

the bone. Typically, a winery nets less than half the

price of a bottle of wine sold through a wholesaler,

especially if the Winery 18 responsible for its own

marketing costs

Although burdened by myriad restrictions, shipping

is” the only practical method available for small

wineries to distribute their product nationally and

often the only method for larger wineries to distribute

bor example, Dyatienal Wine & ypoirats Which markets itself a

lndiana larvest wine distributor wells wine from only 69

Wiherie See N \W ‘ Wine Ia) Bake. } (tp I rpoecon '

Wine j pada T \ ited? View ‘ (jaye

V)ie | tucdy i ' i] ‘ {t< ‘ ‘ i)

7

specialized wines. Most states liberalized wine

distribution statutes to enhance the economic benefits

associated with wine production, including direct

employment and tourism, often in depressed rural

areas. But the post-Granholm trend is in the opposite

direction. Currently, 38 states with 86% of the

country’s population permit some form of interstate

direct shipping of wine — but states’ shipping laws and

regulations vary widely, making compliance nearly

impossible, especially for small wineries.” For

example, some states restrict the amount of wine that

may be shipped to a customer in a year, but the limits

difter from state to state; some require in-person visits

of varying frequencies; and reporting and licensing

requirements are inconsistent as well. This patchwork

of regulations impedes interstate commerce in wine.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This Court should grant the petition because the

Seventh Circuit's decision in this case, Baude v. Ileath,

538 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2008), conflicts directly with

the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Cherry [Jill Vineyards,

LLC v. Lilly, 553 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2008), on a

question of significant importance. The Indiana

statute at issue in this case requires a consumer to

make one “face-to-face” visit to a winery before the

winery may ship wine to the consumer. Ind. Code

§ 7.1-8-26-60-4). Before Cherry Hill) Vinevards,

Kentucky's statute required a “tace-to face’ visit before

each shipment. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 248.155(2 (2),

"R Corbin Houchins, Notes on Wore Distribuécon (Dee 4, 2008),

avadlahleathttp /shipeompliant com/blog/document library dist

notes current pat

8

244.165(2), invalidated by Cherry Hill Vineyards, 553

F.3d at 435.

Rather than repeat Petitioners’ arguments, amici

limit their arguments to: (1) the importance of the

issue in this case; and (2) from the wineries’ unique

perspective, the regulation at issue in this case does

not “advance|] a legitimate local purpose that cannot

be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory

alternatives.” New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486

U.S. 269, 278 (1988).

Specifically, because there is no evidence that wine

shipment in Indiana was connected to underage

consumption of alcohol during the 30 years it was

allowed, the State’s rationale that the “face-to-face”

requirement reduces underage drinking is not a

legitimate local purpose. Moreover, even if it were

legitimate, the State has other, less restrictive means

of hmiting underage consumption including a

requirement (already on the books) that proofofaye be

provided at the time the wine is delivered.

Amict fully support Petitioners’ argument that

Indiana’s statute requiring a face-to-face visit at the

winery before wine may be shipped to a customer

violates the Commerce Clause in practical effect by

placing a greater burden on transactions across state

lines than on intrastate transactions. Granholm, 544

U.S. at 487. As the Sixth Circuit put it, the “in-person

requirement makes it, economically and logistically

infeasible for most customers to purchase wine from

out of state small farm wineries.” Cherry fill

Vinevards, 553 F.3d at 433

2

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

I. This case presents an important Commerce

Clause question.

If this Court does not resolve the conflict between

this case and Cherry Hill Vineyards, the question of

what burdens may be placed on interstate shipment of

alcoholic beverages will remain unanswered, the

patchwork of state regulations will grow more

disparate, and burdens on interstate commerce will

escalate. As Justice Jackson wrote:

Our system, fostered by the Commerce Clause,

is that every farmer and every craftsman shall

be encouraged to produce by the certainty that

he will have free access to every market in the

Nation, that no home embargoes will withhold

his exports, and no foreign state will by customs

duties or regulations exclude them. Likewise,

every consumer may look to the free competition

from every producing area in the Nation to

protect him from exploitation by any. Such was

the vision of the Founders; such has been the

doctrine of this Court which has given it reality.

H.P. Hood & Sons. Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 5225, 539

(1949)

UIntil this Court resolves the scope of restrictions

that States may place upon out-of-state wineries,

schemes to restrict wine sales will continue. These

efforts wall be stoked by wholesalers, which (as the

district court pornted out) are motivated to ensure that

all wine be distributed through wholesalers, no matter

where the wine is manufactured. Before Granholrn,

10

wholesalers were willing to tolerate deviation from the

three-tier system by small, local wineries. But when

Granholm required uniform rules for in-state and out-

of-state wineries, wholesalers contrived restrictions

that appeared facially neutral but had the practical

eifect of disproportionately burdening interstate

commerce, as this case shows.

Resolving the question in this case will assist in

calming the regulatory waters roiled by Granholm.

II. Indiana’s “face-to-face” rule serves no

legitimate local purpose that cannot be

adequately served by reasonable alternatives.

A. Thirty years of history show that the “face-

to-face” requirement is unnecessary to

prevent underage consumption.

The factual record is clear that there was no

evidence whatsoever in Indiana that wine shipment

which occurred for 30 years before the “face-to-face”

requirement was enacted — was used by underage

persons to obtain alcohol. Thus, no factual ambiguity

in this case interferes with the Court’s ability to

cleanly decide the constitutionality of the “face-to-face”

requirement

The primary rationale advanced by the State and

Indiana’s wine wholesalers for the “face to face”

requirement thus lacks any basis in fact or in this

record. The State and the wholesalers argue that the

“face-to-face” requirement 1s necessary to prevent

underage persons from obtaining and consuming wine

by shipment But nothing in the experience of

il

Indiana’s law enforcement agencies or its wineries

supports this position.

The lack of evidence of underage consumption from

wine shipment comports with common sense.

Potential underage drinkers would have to engage in

substantial planning to order wine in advance, obtain

false identification that would pass muster in the on-

line or telephone transaction and at the point of

delivery, pay the additional costs that accompany

shipping, and receive the wine in time for planned

consumption. This kind of advance planning is

inconsistent with the spur-of-the-moment nature of

underage drinking. It is far easier tor a prospective

underage consumer to use a false identification card to

obtain alcohol at a package store or to employ an adult

to procure alcohol.

The record in this case establishes that fear of

underage drinking arising from wine shipping is pure

speculation, lacking factual basis. Indiana’s

regulatory agency, the Alcohol and _ ‘Tobacco

Commission, produced no example of underage

drinking arising from wine shipping.

Amict’s position on this topic is consistent with the

authoritative report of the Federal Trade Commission,

cited in Granholm, 544 U.S. at 490-91, which

supported Internet sales of wine to broaden consumers’

choices and reduce costs. The FTC found that “[i]n

general, . . . state officials report that they have

experienced few, ifany, problems with interstate direct

shipment of wine to minors.” ed. ‘Trade Comm'n,

supra, at 31. None of the eleven states responding to

the FTC's survey could cite any specific instance of

wine shipment to minors. /d. at 32-33. For example,

12

Colorado indicated that “we do not have any specifics

of shippers shipping di:ctly to minors,” and California

officials testified that, “for at least 20 years there was

never a problem that was brought to our attention

with regard to sales to minors... .” Jd. at 32.

As this Court said in Granholm, there is “little

evidence that the purchase of wine over the Internet

by minors is a problem.” Granholm, 544 U.S. at 490.

Minors prefer to consume “beer, wine coolers, and hard

liquor” rather than wine. Id. (citing Fed. Trade

Comm'n, supra, at 12). They “have more direct means”

than shipment to obtain illicit alcohol, and obtaining

wine by shipment is “an imperfect avenue of obtaining

alcohol for minors who... want instant gratification.”

Id. (internal quotation omitted). Granholm

invalidated discriminatory state regulations in part

because there was no clear evidence that the

regulations prevented any real harm, such as

underage consumption.

B. There are reasonable alternatives to the

“face-to-face” requirement.

“ven if there were evidence that underage drinking

arose from wine shipping, there is no justification for

Indiana’s imposition of the “face-to-face” requirement

because alternative, less-restrictive means are

available to address underage drinking that might

arise from wine shipment. Granholm also noted the

availability of alternative, less restrictive means to

guard against underage consumption. Granholm, 544

U.S. at 490-91. These could include a requirement for

providing identification upon delivery. 7d. at 491.

They could include licensing of carriers. Fed. ‘Trade

13

Comm’n, supra, at 29-30."° Some states also have

chosen to use on-line age verification services, which

are now commercially available. See, e.g., Mich. Comp.

Laws § 436.1203(3)(d), arnended by 2008 Mich. Pub.

Act 474 (eff. Mar. 31, 2009). But this Court need not

address on-line verification because Indiana already

has in place alternative means of age verification that

are less burdensome on tnterstate commerce.

Indiana’s wine statutes already contain multiple

reasonable alternatives to the “face-to-face”

requirement. Indiana’s statute requires wine shippers

to obtain a special ticense subjecting them to the

state’s full regulatory authority. Ind. Code § 7.1-3-26-

5; see Granholm, 544 U.S. at 492 (explaining that

wineries have incentives to obey state laws because

violations subject them to losing state and federal

licenses). Indiana also requires delivery services that

transport shipped wine to obtain licenses: to get a

license, a delivery serv:?.. must show its “reliability

and responsibility,” mu. »ost a bond, and must file

with the state descriptions of the vehicles it uses to

make deliveries. Ind. Code §§ 7.1-3-18-1, 7.1-3-18-5,

7.1-3-18-6.

Furthermore, Indiana law requires that wineries

use only licensed delivery services, and upon delivery

the carrier must obtain proof that the person accepting

the delivery is at least 21 years old. Ind. Code § 7.1-3-

26-9(2)(D). Each container also must be labeled, and

“New Hampshire, for example, requires an adult signature at

the time of delivery, permanently revokes the direct shipping

permit of anyone who ships wine to minors, and declares him

puilty of a class B felony.” Fed. Trade Comm'n, supra, at 34

(footnote omitted)

14

the label must state prominently that only someone 21

or older can receive the delivery. /d. at (B).

Indiana has not shown that the identification-upon-

delivery system is any less reliable than the challenged

face-to-face requirement. ‘The two transactions are

fundamentally the same. In each case, an employee of

a licensed entity (a winery or a carrier) is required to

obtain proof that the person who will receive or is

receiving wine is at least 21. Both of these

transactions also are fundamentally the same as those

that occur in restaurants or liquor stores, where

employees of licensed entities check proof of age. None

of these methods is foolproof, but there is no evidence

that the identification-upon-delivery method already

in Indiana law is less effective than these other

methods.

CONCLUSION

‘This Court should grant the petition for writ of

certiorari.

15

Respectfully submitted,

Jon Laramore

Counsel of Record

Harmony A. Mappes

BAKER & DANIELS LLP

300 N. Meridian St., Suite 2700

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317-237-0300

Counsel for Amici Curtae

Indiana Winegrowers Guild, Inc.

WineAmerica, Inc.

Illinois Grape Growers &

Vintners Association, Inc.

Wisconsin Winery Association, Inc.

APPENDIX

la

APPENDIX A

The Indiana Winegrowers Guild is the statewide

trade association of Indiana's wineries. It is a not-for-

profit corporation organized under Indiana law, and it

is tax exempt under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal

Revenue Code. The Guild represents the interests of

Indiana wineries in the Indiana General Assembly,

and it participated as amicus curiae in the district

court and Seventh Circuit proceedings in this matter.

WineAmerica, Inc., represents the interests of

American wineries and promotes the advancement of

the wine industry. It has more than 800 member

wineries in 48 states and is the only wine trade

association with a national membership.

WineAmerica opposes protectionist state laws that

prevent its members from selling their wine directly to

consumers across the country.

The lLllinois Grape Growers and _ Vintners

Association, Inc. is a _ not-for-profit organization

dedicated to developing the viticulture and enology

interests of Illinois through information exchange and

cooperation among Illinois grape producers and

vintners. Seventy Illinois wineries and 450 vineyards

create a direct economic impact. of more than $253

million annually and place Illinois consistently among

the top 12 wine-producing states.

The Wisconsin Winery Association, Inc. has 34

member wineries, all of which are family-owned and

2a

family-run enterprises and many of which use

Wisconsin-grown agricultural ingredients. The

Association's membership has doubled in the last two

years. By selling the majority of their product on-

premises, these wineries have become destinations,

bringing tourism dollars into the state. With the

recent growth in membership and the small size of

most of the member wineries, the Association has

focused its efforts most recently on production and

promotion issues.