October 12, 2011 in Business, Region

Costco gives nearly $10 million for liquor initiative

Associated Press

Tags:Costcoinitiative campaignliquor control

OLYMPIA — Costco has given nearly $10 million to support an initiative campaign that would privatize Washington’s liquor distribution and sales.

New finance reports filed with the state Public Disclosure Commission show Costco giving an additional $2.8 million to the cause last week, bringing their total to over $9.6 million.

This is the second year in a row that Costco has spent millions on a liquor privatization initiative. Last year’s measure failed, but supporters are returning to the ballot this November with a plan that includes new restrictions as well as revenues for government.

An opposition group has raised more than $7 million this year, largely from the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America.

Ballots for the election are due to be sent out at the end of next week.

62 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

Hunterman on October 12 at 12:54 p.m.
Cosco must plan on making millions if this passes. It is not hard to imagine from reading about things like this how corporations and big money consider buying off politicians a good investment. We vote, then they buy them off. They influence our vote with deceptive advertising and make millions. And those millions have to come from somewhere-us.
WE ARE THE 99%!
gotriddabush on October 12 at 12:57 p.m.
Any republicans against this are hypocrites to the 10th degree!
Ed Byrnes on October 12 at 1:25 p.m.
Thank you SR for adding this transparency. Alcohol is pretty dangerous stuff so I am for the state regulating it very heavily.
Ed
Dazzeetrader11 on October 12 at 1:29 p.m.
gotridda…..which you didn’t……..but what would pubs be against? And why? I understand Ed’s point but not yours.
johnclarke on October 12 at 1:48 p.m.
With the lack of any scientific data proving that privatizing liquor sales creates problems like more underage drinking or more drunk driving, I am totally in favor of this measure.
MrNatural on October 12 at 2:01 p.m.
Yeah I’ve watched those BS ads funded by Costya…Glad to see they are concerned about the health and welfare of our communities…NOT!
Personally I was darn glad for state liquor stores and the control they provided to keep my son and other underage kids from getting hard liquor…my son…now 22 and stationed overseas is voting no on this crap out of plain common sense and recent experience

Vote No on the Cost-Communities booze initiative
IHike4Fun on October 12 at 2:03 p.m.
With the lack of any scientific data proving that privatizing liquor sales will not create problems like more underage drinking or more drunk driving, I am totally against of this measure.
Loudin on October 12 at 2:20 p.m.
Costco ought to be careful…there’s a backlash brewing, in the same vein as Walmart. People are starting to wonder why Costco has to be involved in so many different ventures and how those ventures impact local small businesses. Prescription drugs, optometry, photography, insurance, banking, travel, automotive, groceries, general merchandising…and now liquor too? How much is enough, Costco? And why don’t your aggressive marketing tactics receive the same critical commentary from our community that Walmart does?
Make no doubt about this: Their funding of this proposition has nothing to do with driver safety or underage drinking…this is all about profits. And even though voters have previously told Costco to take a hike, they’ll keep throwing money at this because it’s another lucrative revenue stream for their CEO and shareholders…public good (or not) be damned.
BTW: If you don’t like Costco dumping so much money into political causes or you just dislike the thought of liquor privatization, then don’t shop there. Costco is only going to listen when you stop giving them your money…
Hunterman on October 12 at 2:28 p.m.
So ya can buy it one place or another, what’s the difference? Kids can get illegal drugs if they want, so where liquor is sold doesn’t matter, if that’s what you are worried about. The only difference is who makes the money off it. And the companies who spend the most for or against this are the ones who stand to make the most profit. It’s a money game, dig?
huskerinwa on October 12 at 2:35 p.m.
There is no difference in alcohol related incidents in states that don’t have state run liquor. In fact with the way it’s structured, there will be more money to support enforcement & programs with #1183.
Don’t you wonder why the liquor companies are paying to fight it?? They would have to compete & won’t make as much money as they do now… they could give a crap about your health & welfare… they MAKE BOOZE!!
So prices will come down & more money will be available for prevention…. Seems like a no brainer.
kennyhuston on October 12 at 2:38 p.m.
@ Hunterman - You summed it all up with your last sentence!!!
misjustice on October 12 at 2:55 p.m.
I’m votin’ NO, again!
Where’s my tax cut?
Ed Byrnes on October 12 at 2:58 p.m.
A big part of the reason why teens have easier access to illegal substances compared to alcohol is because alcohol is regulated by the state.
Ed
johnclarke on October 12 at 3:07 p.m.
Ed - huh? Got any facts or data to back that up?
Listen, I grew up in a state regulated just like Washington. I never had any problem getting my hands on liquor. Luckily I didn’t like it so whatever. I like it now, and I have a hard time getting it because it takes a special trip to a special store that has short hours and is closed on holidays. Also I get sick of driving to Idaho to pay like 40% less for the exact same product.
valleyman on October 12 at 3:09 p.m.
Any and all of you who think it’s hard for teens to get alcohol now are delusional at best…
This will add money to enforcement programs. As to your point Ed, the reason more people don’t get their hands on alcohol is because retailers are required to CARD… This is not changing and more money will be dumped into training to ensure better enforcement of the check id program.
Liberalism at its finest - the government can do it better and we aren’t going to vote to take anything away from the government now are we?
johnclarke on October 12 at 3:13 p.m.
Loudin yes what a backlash….I don’t see any protesters at Costco just people waiting to get in. I buy my prescriptions there because they don’t overcharge. Oh and by the way, the quality of their food products (meat and fish) simply crushes the local grocery store.
Loudin on October 12 at 3:20 p.m.
John,
Costco doesn’t charge you as much as other companies do for your prescriptions because they can force supply companies to sell to them for less than they do to smaller pharmacists. And when all the local pharmacists are gone, then Costco will raise the prices you pay for your prescriptions. Same goes for food, same goes for general merchandise, same goes for every venture they’re involved in.
Maybe you’re in denial, maybe you don’t have any civic pride, but Costco is Walmart. And both of them honestly don’t give a damn about you as a person…so stop being so naive.
No wonder this country is going down the tubes. It’s not Liberal vs. Conservative, it’s low prices vs. community. Silly, silly people…
Loudin
misjustice on October 12 at 3:22 p.m.
Well, Ozzie, what ever; we each get a vote. You mark your ballot as you see fit, and I will do the same!
I could have said some partisan stuff about how this push to privatize liquor sales is another example of Conservatism at its finest - thinkin’ big bidness can do every thing better - and we aren’t going to miss a chance to hand one more thing over to the corporate masters, now are we?
But I didn’t…
; )
I am votin’ NO, again.
johnclarke on October 12 at 3:35 p.m.
This topic is about Liquor sales, but ok Loudin I’ll bite. Exactly which “smaller pharmacists” are you refering to? Walgreens? Rite Aid?
Look, the days of compounding drugs are somewhat behind us. If I can save $20 on a product that someone is counting into a bottle, I’m in. I see no reason to simply hand my hard earned money to the Walgreen’s chain (with like 7,000 stores) for some illusion of sticking it to the man.
Good. Hate Costco. That is one less person in between me and a $1.50 polish dog and soda (with free refills).
Lewis on October 12 at 3:37 p.m.
I am all for it i don’t drink so i don’t see why state employee salaries and benefits, need to be paid out to folks selling alcohol. .
garyc on October 12 at 3:40 p.m.
Don’t expect prices to go down. The current state markup would be replaced with higher taxes.
Don’t expect drinking — underage or otherwise — to go up. That hasn’t been the case elsewhere. In fact, we already have higher drinking rates than some privatized states, like Arizona.
mkries2 on October 12 at 3:45 p.m.
If they don’t pass this law, they should at least make the government liquor stores stay open later. It’s annoying not being able to buy liquor after 8 or 9, especially if you have to work late.
MrNatural on October 12 at 3:51 p.m.
…if this stupid notion by some loathsome reason passes I hope you all enjoy the lick’r signage that will blight this town…
Billy the Bottle sez: Drink Responsively! (hic)
No…a thousand times…no!
jddavis on October 12 at 3:52 p.m.
If the State is doing such a wonderful job of keeping alcohol out of the hands of minors, why is there underage drinking problems? Saying that private businesses would make the problem worse is just BS. The State shouldn’t be in the business of selling ANYTHING!
Loudin—I pay the same $5 co-pay for my prescriptions at Costco as I do at Wal-greens, Rite Aid, or any other place. If they bill a lesser amount to my insurance company, that is a good thing right?
JC mentioned going to Idaho to save money on alcohol; I know many people who do this.
As far as comments that companies such as Costco “not caring” about me…SO WHAT! I go there and other places to get the most for MY money, not for a hug and a warm blanket.
Loudin on October 12 at 3:57 p.m.
Ah John…
Let me guess: You’re on Medicare, right? So the $20 you save on that prescription…probably a prescription that treats a malady caused by a lifetime of eating poorly (i.e., your gut bomb hot dog)…is good for you, but the rest of us are still stuck picking up the Medicare tab via our paychecks? Might I add, Costco is getting paid via Medicare via us…so their tentacles are in that too.
Right?
Geeze, people are so simple these days. “I want mine, I want it now, I want it it cheaply and I don’t want anyone else to get theirs.” Is that you, buddy? Because there are a lot of people out there like that right now…and that’s contributing significantly to why we’re failing as a nation.
Loudin
PS: Enjoy the hot dog…as I’m pretty sure your main concern is “John” and the 10-15 years ahead of you. Your kids and grandkids…eh, that doesn’t matter, they’re on the periphery. As long as you save your $20 when you get your subsidized pills, it’s all good…right?
johnclarke on October 12 at 4:08 p.m.
No, duh I am not on Medicare you hoser! However, I am on a medical plan, which I earn. You give me nothing pal, except grief on this forum.
Isn’t in the slightest bit annoying to you that you can go to 5 different locations and get 5 different prices for 30 pills?
Regardless, you are howling at the moon my friend. Costco is a fairly well run company that takes pretty good care of their employees. I have literally watched people grow old working there, and that tells you something - they must like it.
BTW, I am generally buying prime grade tenderloin and copper river salmon at Costco. There is nothing wrong with wanting QUALITY at a fair price. Although I am sure a highly educated man of the world like yourself prefers Winco.
cdspokesreader on October 12 at 4:25 p.m.
I realize this is an informal poll, but when I had to accompany my son to the required substance abuse classes when he got caught smoking cigarettes, the kids were asked how long it took to get the following things - Smokes, Pot, Pills, Booze. They could get their hands on everything but the booze within about 1/2 an hour. Getting the booze took longer unless someone had a drunk grandma or parent who wouldn’t notice a bottle dissapearing but they could usually get it within a few hours. Point is that kids will find a way to get what they want somehow - our job as parents is to teach them it’s not a great idea.
I think a the point about the repubs being hypocrites if they vote against this is that they are alway screaming about government over-regulation so they should be happy the state isn’t running a liquor business. It’s up to the cops to regulate under-age drinking…. or the laws of nature like when they drive a car into a tree.
And I’m sure our local tea party sweetheart Susie could tell you that Costco deserves to make millions off these sales since they are our betters and as corporations will always do the right thing to take care of the little people.
One last thing…. think of the jobs creation this could bring.
New cemetary workers, ambulance drivers, hospital workers…
Loudin on October 12 at 4:34 p.m.
Ah but John, you could buy that Copper River salmon and prime grade tenderloin at a local butcher, like Eggers Meats. The money would stay local and you’d be supporting a Spokane small business and their employees (one of whom might be a neighbor or maybe even your kid).
Alas, that’s your problem: You don’t care about Spokane. You only care about John…and how much stuff John can get for the least amount of money. That’s why guys like you shop at Walmart and Costco.
What a patriotic American you must be.
Loudin
gonzomo on October 12 at 4:38 p.m.
Have any of the commenters ever lived in CA or AZ (or any of the 30+ states that let privat business sell booze)? There is NO REASON that the State should be in the wholesale and retail liqour business. I have to drive (or ride my bike) past two safeways to go to the government liquor store that has a poor quality of whiskey. And most teenagers aren’t getting drunk on 30 dollar bottles of booze. They are drinking Sparks and Four Loko and all the other garbage that is sold at every corner store in town
This initiative would also allow for direct sale of wine from wineries (now I see why 90% of the opposition money has come from wine wholesalers). That by itself would benefit Spokane and all the little wineries we have in town.
jddavis on October 12 at 4:40 p.m.
What is the real problem here, Costco and others will make money off alcohol sales and the State won’t? Is the creation of competition between retailers worse than the State having a monopoly?
Personally, if there were both private businesses and the State selling alcohol (at the same price) I would patronize the private businesses.
The_Seer on October 12 at 4:40 p.m.
Many of the “state” liquor stores are actually owned/operated by local business people.
This is the new world of U.S. policy making under the Roberts Supreme Court. Corporations are people just like you and I. Money equals free speech, the more money you have, the more your speech gets heard.
I abhor initiative style governance. It is not democracy, but mobocracy and allows our elected officials to shirk their governing responsibilities more than they already do. The only ballot initiative I will ever support and vote for is one that would rid Washington of this base form of policy making.
The_Seer on October 12 at 4:49 p.m.
gonzomo: I purchase bottles of wine at local wineries frequently. I’m confused why you would state they currently are prohibited from making such sales? The same is true for local microbreweries that can offer “dock sales.” Northern Lights Brewing Company will sell you kegs or even fill containers you bring from home. Wine wholesalers are fighting this initiative because it will diminish shelf space for their products in supermarkets, which would do much more harm to local wineries than the imagined obstacle you constructed out of whole cloth. Stores aren’t going to build new space to accommodate the display of spirits so other products will lose shelf space and that usually means smaller, locally produced items suffer because they don’t have the pull in stores like Anheuser Busch and Gallo, et.al.
Pat O'Leary on October 12 at 5:37 p.m.
loudmouth…you are a piece of work.
crazyivan44 on October 12 at 5:46 p.m.
John I’m 100% with you, Costco takes exceptional care of it’s employees and their quality absolutely cannot be beat for the price. But of course anyone that has any insurance, whether it is private insurance or Medicare, is fodder for the self-righteous martyrs looking for an outlet! Who would have thought a cheap hot dog and drink combo would spark such a reaction? Sheesh!
I’m excited at the chance of being able to buy liquor from a private source and not from a state government. The prices are ridiculous compared to other states and I don’t feel the price of booze should be exploited. I’ve never seen conclusive report that proves privatized liquor sales causes any increase in underage drinking and/or alcohol abuse and impaired driving. Just more scare tactics. But that part of it is just my two cents!
misjustice on October 12 at 5:54 p.m.
I’m voting yes. I grew up in a state that booze was not sold by the government but by private companies. No difference in how minors get their booze or a rise in DUI’s. It’s all political anyway.
detroitdude on October 12 at 5:58 p.m.
I also grew up where liquor sales were private and not regulated by the state. If kids want to get alcohol, they will find a way to get alcohol. Having a state regulated store will not curb or prevent that from happening. The downside is a loss of revenue to the state, but I’m sure there are tons of business owners who would love to obtain a liquor license and boost their own profits locally, and in some way returning a portion of it to the local economy.
DHF on October 12 at 6:14 p.m.
I worked 39 years for the State and they have no business being in the liquor business. I live very close to Idaho and buy it there because it is a lot cheaper. Or I have friends who live in Nevada or Arizona who can keep me supplied at a fraction of what it costs in Wa. I am voting yes
misjustice on October 12 at 6:20 p.m.
You’re correct, GrammaAgain, it is political; and lots of money from outside the state has been poured into this effort to enable the corporate masters to over ride our state laws.
Money = political speech = political outcomes pushed by corporations, errr “people”, that don’t even live here.
Where’s my tax cut?
crazyivan44 on October 12 at 6:50 p.m.
misjustice I wholeheartedly agree…as much as I want this to pass in WA so it will hopefully carry momentum to do the same in ID…this is a decision that should be exclusive to the citizens of the state that it concerns, and none from outside influence.
As much as I enjoy the benefits of Costco I do not approve of the spending of so much money to get this to pass for their own gain, even though it will in turn mean much cheaper liquor prices…hopefully. Despite the advertising on both sides I hope that those voting will truly make up their own minds when deciding what is right for where they live.
catfuzz on October 12 at 7:30 p.m.
I’m pretty much against the government running anything. That said, I support the state regulating liquor sales. It’s not a critical item for anyone. If you want it, buy when the store is open. If it’s that important to you that you need more access than you have now, get some help. In MY world, there would be no alcohol or recreational drugs. Costco makes enough money fooling everyone into thinking they have wholesale prices. They don’t need to get their hooks into hard liquor.
terryalan on October 12 at 7:39 p.m.
Why is this particular issue special with regard to out of state money funding a particular initiative? You think Costco just invented the concept?
Really?
misjustice, I generally agree with you but
“it is political; and lots of money from outside the state has been poured into this effort to enable the corporate masters to over ride our state laws. ”
Did you just wake up from a coma? This IS our system..
I don’t like it over much either but you seem to imply that this is something new…
terryalan on October 12 at 7:40 p.m.
geeze catfuzz….judgmental much?
terryalan on October 12 at 7:42 p.m.
Man there are some seriously smug sanctimonious self righteous posters in here…
In MY world such people would be shot on sight.
D Statler on October 12 at 7:44 p.m.
I wonder if we could get Costco to hire all the layed off state liquor sales persons as part of this legislation?
terryalan on October 12 at 7:52 p.m.
Depends on what Costco pays their cashiers…the wage range for WA state Liquor Store Clerks is
11.35 11.59 11.89 12.42 12.71 13.02 13.62 13.94 14.26 14.17 14.48 14.84
Starting hourly wage…$11.35. I wish people would do some research before running on about those fabulous state jobs….
12 years and you might make 30 grand a year full time
misjustice on October 12 at 7:53 p.m.
No, terry, I did not just wake up from a coma; I was responding to GrammaAgain’s comment.
Over stating the obvious, I guess.
Where’s my tax cut?
jddavis on October 12 at 7:59 p.m.
Gee Undooly, if the state was in the business of selling gasoline and milk, think of how many more jobs would be created!
Seer @ 4:49—you are correct on the shelf space issue. The products that sell in highest volumes generally get the shelf space. What this means for the wine distributors is that they will have to become more efficient on their stocking of retail stores. I am confident stores will find the space to carry sufficient quantities of wine to meet demand.
If I want to stop in a store and buy a bottle of shirazz, that bottle of smooth Kentucky burbon a few feet away wont keep me from my purpose of being there.
Pigrobin on October 12 at 8:19 p.m.
I guess it’s what you’re used to but don’t most of you think that a state run liquor store is a throw back to the days of yore? Something tells me the state will do just fine without this albatross around its neck.
johnclarke on October 12 at 8:37 p.m.
Loudin, there is room for small owned business and large, big box stores are well. Otherwise, we should stop frequenting Rosauers, Safeway, Walgreen etc. Costco employs many people who spend their paychecks here, and those employees get medical insurance. Eggers’ Meats benefits the owners. Besides I am not driving all over town buying this and that.
Also, I trust the USDA choice/prime program at Costco, not to say Eggers does not sell quality product. My point is you make no sense. This is about liquor sales and State owned stores are not exactly small neighborhood stores owned by ma and pa.
Although I am not in favor of corporate dollars in ballot issues, I am also not in favor of stupid situations like state liquor stores.
PlanB on October 12 at 9:07 p.m.
FYI all state run liquor stores are now open until 9:00 pm and 10:00 on friday and saturday.
I don’t see why the state should be in the booze distribution business, but this bill just moves that function to private enterprise. Ever shopped at Costco? Great if you want the one type of item they offer, otherwise you are screwed. Oh, and they no longer are the price leaders on anything. And one more thing: this will put my local, family owned and run booze store out of business because it is not big enough. Think Costco or Safeway will have as big of selection as most liquor stores? Think again. Really think this will lower cost to the consumer? A: Why and B: Prove it. Ain’t gonna happen.
Less choice, no cost advantage, benefits only large business. This bill is a joke on consumers. If it passes, I guess I’ll have to go to Idaho for all my booze.
SpokyDaBear on October 12 at 10:02 p.m.
They are not privatizing it. They are elimination the government’s socialize control of it.
valleyman on October 12 at 10:09 p.m.
To hear some of your complaining about Costco being able to have lower prices because of volume buying that will drive smaller retailers under and then let Costco jack up the prices is total crap.
We haven’t seen it from Walmart, we haven’t seen it from Target, and we haven’t seen it from Winco or Costco… Volume buying isn’t going to stop because a few, smaller, over-priced places go under. This is capitalism, and it is how it is meant to function. Places like Eggers are niche markets and won’t go away because that’s where some people go to get special items they don’t find at larger stores. Niche markets are where the little guy finds success, not trying to be the be-all-end-all like the larger stores.
Wineries and breweries are still going to be able to sell their merchandise just as they do now; on that end nothing will change.
Oh, and misjustice, on the note of out-of-state spending on this initiative, why is it that 96% of funds for the “No on 1183” side have come from the liquor distributor lobby based out of WA DC??? Guess it only matters if it’s the side you oppose right?
Crusty1 on October 12 at 10:38 p.m.
Costco: Didn’t I read where you are raising everyone’s membership fee $5.00 or more this year? Then you can give $10 million dollars and you STILL want to raise my fee to shop with YOU? Your customer service sucks too! Probably won’t renew then if you have that much money to throw around but want to raise fee’s!!
SpokyDaBear on October 12 at 10:51 p.m.
Crusty1.. that’s BofA… not costco. you &$%@….
mdriftmeyer on October 13 at 5:36 a.m.
Alcohol Rate Taxes for All States:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=349
There is a tax passed onto the consume plus the sales tax that goes to the State.
Anyone who thinks Hard Alcohol is going to decrease is ludicrous.
More to the point, the Law requires all such facilities to put into effect video surveillance systems.
That cost at every facility wanting to qualify for the private hard liquor store resale license will pass on all the regulation costs and costs of being certified with the state, county and municipality in the area of their store will pass on those costs to the consumer.
Then there is the insurance costs that will be increased to the establishments.
IN SHORT: COSTCO HAS FACTORED ALL THESE COSTS IN AND AS THEY ALREADY HAVE SURVEILLANCE AND OTHER REGULATORY COSTS ACCRUED INTO THEIR SYSTEM THEY ARE DRIVING THIS EFFORT TO REAP THE PROFITS.
Sorry, but you will ultimately see less establishments than you currently have with State Liquor Stores.
Not enough vendors will want to carry them.
You will see more vagrancy around outlets pimping for alcohol and an increase in total arrests.
That cost alone will be put back onto the PUBLIC in terms of taxes to pay for the personnel needed to process more conviction.
COSTCO DOESN’T CARE.
Sorry, but economically on the State, County and Municipality goes up while Costco profits.
Vote No.
mdriftmeyer on October 13 at 5:37 a.m.
Yes, Costco’s membership fees are going up. They will not absorb any of the costs if they can avoid it.
Pigrobin on October 13 at 6:19 a.m.
mdriftmeyer: you should change your screen name to “Crystal Ball” since you seem to have the future all pegged. Posting without facts to scare the people, you’re kidding, right!! Get a grip!!
valleyman on October 13 at 8:17 a.m.
It’s the way if the left… Scare people to do what they want at the ballot box…
misjustice on October 16 at 8:42 p.m.
Ozzie, metaphorically shoot those that oppose you, or scare them with miltaristic tactics, it’s the way of the regressive cops.
Just like you, I am entitled to my opinion and my vote; if you don’t like it, so what? Suck it up, Ozman.
Elkay on October 16 at 9:42 p.m.
How dare Costco, Walmart, Safeway and all the other private companies want to make a profit, stay in business, offer competition, employ people, and contribute taxes. Diabolical.
I’m voting for this measure.
CougarGold on October 18 at 11:22 a.m.
This is a cut and paste from a different thread but worthy of re-posting here:
While I would normally tend to support privatization of certain services that the private sector can provide, I am against this initiative. Two reasons: First, I don’t favor ‘people’s initiatives’ and prefer representative government. Second, as noted below, when people’s initiatives are improperly written, there are unintended consequences (actually intended, in this case) that lead to unlevel results.
Costco is spending all the money in support of this initiative with specific market purposes behind their writing and support. I would prefer to see the legislature deal with this (although they won’t, hence the initiative *sigh*) and come to a resolution that’s more fair for all sellers.
Smaller grocery stores and chains plus independent distributors are harmed by the distributor tax that’s imposed by this initiative. Costco, Walmart and other big box retailers gain a huge advantage as they self-distribute and avoid the 10% distribution tax. That point causes great harm to the smaller retailers (Rosauers for example) and causes an unlevel playing field. I don’t think that’s a good approach to true privatization as the initiative weights the winners and losers by statutory mandate. Here is the policy statement from the Washington Food Industry Association:
http://www.wa-food-ind.org/images/I-1183_2011_Liquor_Privatization_Position_Statement.pdf
There’s a reason Costco wrote this initiative and is spending all the money on support. They’ve written it in such a way as to move competitive favor their direction. They stand to capture a lot of market share and not just in liquor sales. You go to Costco to buy cheaper liquor and pick up the groceries while you’re there. Buying habits change and the smalls get wiped out.
If you’re a supporter of big-box and don’t feel ‘buying local’ is important, then by all means support I-1183. However, at least recognize who and what’s behind it and the potential results. It’s not true free-market competition and for that reason, I oppose this lopsided initiative.
DickAdams on October 26 at 11:18 a.m.
If you think Gregoire and her ilk do a good job handling the business of selling booze, vote no. Not me. My observation, along with most Americans today, is they don`t trust the government. Gregoire loves to tax you sinners who have an occasional cocktail, or worse yet, have a cigarette as that is a one way ticket to hel. I`M VOTING “YES” to stop the state from handling something better handled by the private sector. Put that in your pipe and smoke it (pick up your ticket on the way out).