Big alcohol vs. affordable weddings
Timothy P. Carney
Video Embed
Any time you see the words “bipartisan overhaul creating new regulations,” you know that some well-connected lobbyists just scored a major win.
Also, you can be sure that the little guy lost out. In the case of Wisconsin’s new liquor law, the little guy includes small rural event venues, “wedding barns,” in the local parlance. The other losers are the young Wisconsinites who would like to get married without paying a fortune.
OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT BLOCKS ABORTION RESTRICTIONS
Over the summer, the state assembly in Madison passed what the Associated Press called a “massive overhaul to the laws affecting the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol with broad bipartisan support.” The state Senate followed suit in mid-November.
Among other regulations, the bill would limit wedding barns to six events per year unless they got a Class B liquor license — in some cases, these cost $10,000 or more. The bill would also create a state agency to police liquor laws.
Some lawmakers claimed these regulations were about safety. Others were more frank. As the Associated Press reported, “Democratic Rep. Tod Ohnstad … said it attempts to level the playing field for banquet halls, taverns.”
And so now, the reader can guess who wrote the bill: the bigger businesses that don’t appreciate lower-cost competitors. Wedding barns save costs by buying their alcohol wholesale, serving it at no cost to guests, and hiring licensed bartenders.
“This is about shutting down the competition,” bill opponent Steve Nass said. “Government is deciding today the winners and losers in this industry.”
But again, the wedding barns aren’t the only losers here. Young couples also suffer.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Weddings now cost more than $30,000 on average. Some commentators argue that the cost of weddings is helping drive down marriage rates, and young folks do cite these costs as a reason to delay nuptials.
We have reached crisis-level lows in marriage rates and birthrates, and so one might think that policymakers would be trying to remove all barriers to family formation. That clearly ranks lower, though, than benefiting well-connected companies with protective regulation.