Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TNGA GOPers Pushing Non-referendum Bill Permiting New Liquor Distilleries Statewide

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » Tennessee Donate to DU
 
doeriver Donating Member (677 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-15-09 08:36 PM
Original message
TNGA GOPers Pushing Non-referendum Bill Permiting New Liquor Distilleries Statewide
House Distills Confusion, Postpones Distilleries
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/humphrey/2009/05/house-distills-confusion-postp.html

A Senate-passed bill that would clear the legal path for more liquor distilleries to operate in Tennessee stalled in the House Thursday amid considerable confusion.

The bill (SB1955) cleared the Senate on a 19-5 vote last week. But on the House floor Thursday, sponsor Rep. Joe Carr, R-Murfreesboro, had to deal with several amendments.

As it passed the Senate, the bill would allow distilleries in any county or city that has approved liquor-by-the-drink sales except Hamblen County, which was exempted by Senate amendment.

Carr did not oppose efforts by some representatives to exclude their counties from the bill on the House. Those exempted included Hamilton, Hardeman, Sumner, Washington and Wilson.

He also did not object to an amendment that would require new distilleries to comply with zoning rules that prohibit sale of alcoholic beverages near schools, churches or other facilities.

But Carr did object to an amendment offered by fellow a Rutherford County resident, Democratic Rep. Kent Coleman of Murfreesboro, that would require that voters approve the location of distilleries in their county by referendum.

Despite the sponsor's opposition, the amendment was adopted on 53-41 vote.

Rep. Brian Kelsey, R-Germantown, then observed that the Coleman amendment apparently also had the effect of wiping out all the exemptions for counties -- except Washington, which was exempted by a vote that came after passage of the Coleman amendment.



Rep. Matthew Hill, R-Jonesborough
District 7 — Part of Washington County


In the case of Washington, meanwhile, the exemption amendment offered by Rep. Matthew Hill, R-Jonesborough, apparently had the effect of exempting Washington from the referendum requirement, but not the general bill authorizing distilleries.

House Clerk Burney Durham agreed that Kelsey's interpretation appeared to be accurate, as best as he could tell without seeking legal advice.

"This is confusion," said Rep. Mark Maddox, D-Dresden. "We need clarification on where we are."
Further action was then postponed until Wednesday.

Posted by Tom Humphrey on May 14, 2009 at 7:23 PM


*SB 1955 by *Ketron ( HB 1720 by *Carr , Tidwell, Fitzhugh)
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1955

Alcoholic Beverages - As introduced, provides that manufacturing of intoxicating liquors is allowed in counties that have approved retail package sales and liquor-by-the-drink sales through voter referendum; requires manufacturer to obtain appropriate licenses. - Amends TCA Section 57-2-103

HB1720
00396072
-1-
SENATE BILL 1955
By Ketron
HOUSE BILL 1720
By Carr
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/HB1720.pdf

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 57-2-103, relative to methods of authorizing the
manufacture of intoxicating liquors.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 57-2-103, is amended by adding the following subsections (d) and (e):

(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) through (c) above, in any county where both retail package liquor sales and liquor-by-the-drink have been approved through voter referendum within the county, it shall be lawful to manufacture intoxicating liquors and/or intoxicating drinks within the boundaries of such county.

(e) Any manufacturer’s license issued pursuant to subsection (c) or (d) above shall comply with the provisions of § 57-3-202.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
doeriver Donating Member (677 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-05-09 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. KNS: Ground zero for whiskey: Law allows production of distilled spirits in state
Ground zero for whiskey: Law allows production of distilled spirits in state
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jul/05/ground-zero-whiskey-law-allows-production-distille/#comments
Cynthia Yeldell, news@knoxvillebiz.com
Sunday, July 5, 2009

Entrepreneurs across Tennessee are chomping at the bit for the chance to get into the whiskey-making business.

A new state law that allows legal production of whiskey and other distilled spirits has investors ready to pump millions of dollars into new distilleries that can capitalize on Tennessee's reputation for moonshining and creating whiskey.

Several entrepreneurs are interested in opening legal distilleries in East Tennessee counties, according to Nashville developer Jim Massey, who plans to open a distillery in Nashville and possibly start a side business helping other distillers with the startup process.

Blount County tourist destination Blackberry Farm also is looking into the possibility of opening a distillery, according to state Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, who sponsored the legislation in the Senate.


Senator Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro
District 13 — Lincoln, Marshall, Maury, and part of Rutherford Counties


District Address:
12 Jefferson Square
805 South Church Street
Murfreesboro, TN 37130

Nashville Address:
301 6th Avenue North
Suite 13 Legislative Plaza
Nashville, TN 37243
Phone (615) 741-6853
Fax (615) 741-7200
sen.bill.ketron@capitol.tn.gov

A Blackberry Farm spokeswoman said the upscale Walland inn has no distillery plan in place now.

"We produce small-production, artisan and regionally inspired products. While we currently have no plans for such production mentioned in the legislation, we are pleased to hear that more opportunity exists for future products," said Sarah Elder Chabot, marketing manager for Blackberry Farm.

Prior to the law, production of distilled spirits was only legal in Moore, Coffee and Lincoln counties where distillers Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey, George Dickel Whisky and Prichards' Rum operate.

Under the new law, about 44 counties are now eligible for distilleries. Manufacturers will be allowed in any county where both retail package sales of liquor and liquor-by-the-drink sales have been locally approved.

Some 10 counties, including Cocke - with its reputation for moonshining - opted out of the legislation. Knox County hasn't had any discussions of opting out, according to Knox County Commission Chairman Thomas "Tank" Strickland.

State lawmakers say opening new distilleries does not increase access to alcohol because any spirits produced will have to go through the three-tier distribution network of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers before reaching the consumer.

"It's not a distillery bill; it's a jobs bill. The fact that they disdistill spirits is really irrelevant in my mind," said Rep. Joe Carr, R-Lascassas, House sponsor of the bill.


Rep. Joe Carr, R-Lascassas
District 48 — Part of Rutherford County


District Address:
3750 Overall Road
Lascassas, TN 37085

Nashville Address:
301 6th Avenue North
Suite 205 War Memorial Bldg.
Nashville TN 37243
Phone: (615) 741-2180
rep.joe.carr@capitol.tn.gov

Carr said that not only will distilleries create jobs, but they also will generate money for the state's agricultural industry by purchasing local products.

Since liquor, like cigarettes, is considered a sin tax, there will be tax revenue from the new spirit producers, he noted.

According to the state, more than $32 million in tax revenue was collected from suppliers of distilled spirits in 2008, and additional taxes were paid by wholesalers.

"The only difference between moonshine and (legal whiskey) is ours is taxed and theirs is not," Ketron said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
doeriver Donating Member (677 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-05-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Is U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander behind 2009 TNGA GOPer distillery law?
Edited on Sun Jul-05-09 03:42 PM by doeriver
The Buying of the President 1996 - Lamar Alexander
The Center for Public Integrity

http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/archives/1996/46/

If anything distinguishes Lamar Alexander’s career as a public official, it is how much that career has benefited Lamar Alexander. After his re-election as governor of Tennessee in 1982 and the inaugural festivities in Nashville in 1983, several thousand dollars remained unspent from the campaign. Governor Lamar Alexander, with more than a little help from his friends, turned those leftover campaign funds and contributions of $5,000 and less made after the election into a personal fund for himself and his wife, Leslee, better known as Honey. According to Tennessee election records, from 1983 through March 1989, Alexander and/or his wife spent $313,012 from the “Alexander Committee” on travel (to everywhere from China to Super Bowl XVI in Pontiac, Michigan), consulting, gifts, and other personal matters. Having a personal fund created by contributions from private sources is not illegal in Tennessee. In fact, even though Alexander had just won his second term and could not run again, money kept pouring into the campaign treasury. “There are times when the governor has expenses and he doesn’t want the state to pay for it,” Susan Simmons, Alexander’s finance director for the 1982 campaign, said. “His close friends don’t want him to assume that financial burden.”

When Alexander was leaving office in January 1987, four of Alexander’s biggest campaign contributors — Jim Haslam, the owner of Pilot Oil Company; Amon Carter Evans, the former owner of the The (Nashville) Tennessean; E. Bronson Ingram, the chairman of Ingram Industries, Inc.; and W. Lucas Simmons, a partner of J.C. Bradford & Company — signed and sent a letter to 150 business executives, soliciting $1,000 contributions to the Alexander Committee. The mailing, which thoughtfully included self-addressed, stamped envelopes, asked that the money be forwarded by January 17, 1987, the day Alexander would leave the governor’s mansion. Throughout the seven-year life of the fund, expenditures were not dated or regularly accounted for. On March 15, 1989, for example, Jim Lattimore, Alexander’s campaign treasurer, filed a statement with the Tennessee Election Commission covering the preceding two years, and in the cover letter he wrote, “(I}t recently occurred to me that his political campaign , The Alexander Committee, still has an obligation to file a Campaign Financial Disclosure Form.”

The now-defunct Alexander Committee illuminates the puzzling paradoxes of this Republican presidential candidate: an earnest, innovative public servant who has reaped a small fortune because of the people he has met along the way; an intelligent man who has seen the ugliest American political scandals up close and yet seems unconcerned about the appearance of conflicts of interest; a red-and-black flannel-shirted “populist,” famous for walking hundreds of miles amid ordinary voters, who is actually a millionaire, personally and politically closest to society’s wealthiest interests.

...

While Alexander was governor, he and Honey Alexander personally displayed an uncanny knack for reaping almost outlandish returns on very minimal investments, to the net effect of acquiring substantial wealth during his public service. Numerous news organizations have reported on it, and in 1991 the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee for weeks delayed Alexander’s confirmation to become George Bush’s secretary of education because of questions surrounding Alexander’s financial activities. Alexander has continuously denied any impropriety, saying, “I have spent about 20 years going out of my way to make sure that if anyone is going to offer me favorable treatment, I wouldn’t take it.” To put it bluntly, the facts don’t support that statement.

In 1981, while governor, Alexander and six other investors, including Alexander’s close friend and mentor Howard Baker, who was the Senate majority leader at the time, each paid $1 for the option to buy The Knoxville Journal for $15 million. After Charles Smith, the owner of the newspaper, died, his heirs gave Alexander and the other investors the option to buy it. The new partners decided not to exercise their option to buy, and they instead began searching for a buyer and found one: Gannett Company, Inc., which agreed to pay $15 million for 94.8 percent of the newspaper’s stock. Alexander walked away with Gannett options and stock worth $620,000. According to Alexander, “I held onto the stock longer than anybody else and between 1981 and 1987, when I sold it, it had dramatically increased and I made a very good profit.”

Most investors, of course, do not net $620,000 from $1, or have the opportunity or information to reap such rich rewards. Precisely who invited Governor Alexander to participate in the transaction has never been revealed. His glib explanation for the entire episode, as recounted by The Wall Street Journal, was not particularly illuminating: “We all had the same idea at the same time. The Knoxville Journal is a great asset, a newspaper we all admired, and all of us dreamed of owning a little piece of it one day.”



U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander

His little piece of Blackberry Farm, a resort-conference center on the southern edge of the Smoky Mountains, became something of a nightmare. Alexander bought a one-third interest in the lodge for $9,516 from Sandy Beall in 1976, resold it to Beall in 1977 when he became governor, then bought it back from Beall in 1987 when he left office. But what Alexander did not relinquish control of during his governorship were some 991 acres of potential development land, upon which Blackberry Farm was situated. The acreage was owned by Alexander and five friends, including major campaign contributors Beall and Jim Haslam. In January 1986, Governor Alexander proposed opening up an interstate highway, part of what’s known as the Pellissippi Parkway, that would intersect the Blackberry Farm land. When The Tennessean exposed the conflict, Governor Alexander said it was “preposterous” to link the state road program with his ownership of the land, which he insisted would not be developed commercially.

Interestingly, it has never been reported that Alexander called John Siegenthaler, the newspaper’s publisher, before the investigative story appeared. “He called me and said the story would be unfair to him and . . . he asked me to hold the story,” Siegenthaler told the Center for Public Integrity. “I said I couldn’t do that.” Siegenthaler told Governor Alexander that from what he had seen, the situation “does suggest that this is self-serving.” Alexander ended the conversation angry and frustrated, Siegenthaler recalled. Within hours of the exposé appearing on the front page, Alexander halted the state road program, saying, “If there was a question yesterday about that part of the Pellissippi Parkway, there cannot be one today because there is now no proposal from me to build it.”

Alexander got into another jam over Blackberry Farm a few years later, when it was discovered that as president of the University of Tennessee he had steered university business to the inn. Following a state audit, the Tennessee comptroller of the treasury revealed that Alexander had informed senior university officials that he had “disposed” of his financial interest. Subsequently, according to a special report completed by the comptroller of the treasury in 1992: “The university held 14 functions costing $64,626.49 at Blackberry Farm. Only after the president left his position at the university and various facts about Blackberry Farm had been publicly disclosed, did university officials learn that he had apparently transferred Blackberry Farm stock he owned into a trust for the benefit of his wife.”

Alexander claimed that he had been advised by university lawyers and the state attorney general that a conflict of interest would be avoided if he merely transferred his interest to his wife...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Mar 12th 2025, 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Tennessee Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC