Flash player is required to view weather conditions. Download

site web  

I figured it was a relatively sleepy little news item posted on our wine Web page Uncorked last week titled "Governor vetoes 'wine-at-home' legislation."

But the blog entry touched a nerve or two, began fermenting, and took off.

Declaring that his action was "in the public interest," Gov. Ted Strickland announced June 24 that he had vetoed legislation that the governor suggested would have eased state oversight of "wine-at-home" parties in which wine companies solicit sales through parties in private homes. Customers who order wines at one of these tasting parties have the wines shipped directly to them, usually by wineries in California. Such shipments can be legal.

Before he signed House Bill 562, the "Capital Appropriations and Budget Corrections Bill," into law, Strickland used his line-item veto to throw out or alter certain sections — including one that pertained to wine-at-home parties.

The governor said he wanted to make sure state law was clear that these kinds of wine-at-home parties are subject to state regulation and oversight by the appropriate law-enforcement and taxing authorities, although he also expressed "willingness to work with affected companies and identify the necessary permits and changes to business practices that would allow them to continue to operate in Ohio."

An Uncorked reader who identified herself at "Consultant Mom" had this to say about Strickland's veto:

"I am a stay-at-home mom and started my own business as a wine consultant. ... It was a great way for me to do business outside of the house while my husband could be at home with the kids in the evening, and make some money marketing a fun, hot product. In times of economic hardship, it seems the state of Ohio is doing what they can to put people out of business."

An Ohio winemaker named Linda said alcohol is served as these parties "by unlicensed persons on unlicensed premises. Ohio wineries aren't even allowed to do this," and added, "As a winemaker in Ohio, I resent folks like you picking my pocket."

That charge was vigorously denied by multiple readers, including "Wine lover," who wrote: "The companies in question have gotten permission from the state, and each state they do business in. They have conformed to every state law that regulates the business, including paying all Ohio taxes."

Reader Gordo said the "only public interest that I can see as being served by this line-item veto is the interest of the State of Ohio in getting the monies that the permits will generate."

One thing's for sure: Ohio's outdated wine laws are complex and confusing — and whenever legislators begin to mess with them, the laws seem to just get more complex and confusing. Stay tuned on this one.

Contact this reporter at (937) 225-2258 or mfisher@DaytonDailyNews.com.