加州工艺蒸馏酒直配服务将于12月31日到期。[1] 该政策源于2020年州长纽瑟姆的行政命令，随后通过临时法案获得延期六年。[1] 众议员Josh Hoover曾试图通过AB 2211法案将直配条款永久化，但未获成功。[1]
支持该政策的加州蒸馏酒协会在游说方面处于明显劣势。[1] 该协会今年仅花费5.4万美元用于游说，过去十年内仅向政治人物捐赠三次，总额仅为1558美元。[1] 相比之下，反对方势力阵容庞大，包括加州葡萄酒产业、国际卡车司机兄弟会和大型酒类批发商。[1] 这些反对方今年游说支出超过100万美元，过往累计向加州政治人物捐款至少1100万美元。[1]
反对方的资金优势在州立法机构领导层身上体现明显。加州众议院议长Robert Rivas和参议院主席Monique Limón分别从反对方获得至少10.8万美元和3.3万美元的捐款。[1] 掌管酒类委员会的参议员Susan Rubio和众议员Blanca Rubio分别收到反对方至少6.5万美元和12.9万美元的捐款。[1] 反对方声称直配危害消费者保护和公平竞争，[1] 但这一政策的终止也引发批评，指其反映了大金钱如何在幕后影响加州立法过程。[1]
California's direct-to-consumer craft distilled spirits delivery service is set to expire on December 31st after industry opposition successfully blocked legislative efforts to make the program permanent [1]. The delivery authorization, initially implemented through an executive order by Governor Newsom during the pandemic in 2020, was subsequently extended through temporary legislation for six years [1].
The coalition opposing the program's continuation includes California's wine industry, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and major alcohol wholesalers and distributors [1]. These opponents have substantially outspent supporters in lobbying efforts, spending over $1 million this year alone and directing at least $11 million in campaign contributions to California politicians over time [1]. By contrast, the California Distilled Spirits Council, which backs the delivery service, spent only $54,000 on lobbying this year and has made just three donations totaling $1,558 over the past decade [1].
Assemblymember Josh Hoover attempted to secure the program's future through AB 2211, which would have added permanent direct-delivery provisions, but the effort proved unsuccessful [1]. Key legislative leaders who chair alcohol-related committees have received substantial contributions from the opposing side: State Senator Susan Rubio and Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio received at least $65,000 and $129,000 respectively, while Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Monique Limón received at least $108,000 and $33,000 respectively [1]. Opponents argue that direct delivery undermines consumer protections and fair competition, though critics contend the outcome demonstrates how significant financial influence shapes California's legislative processes [1].