Beer Barons Strike Again

Dressed up as a favor to consumers, which it is not, a beer monopoly bill sailed through the California Senate on a 46-19 vote the other day and now awaits action by the Assembly.

The controversy has pitted lobbying giants against each other--including the beer distributors, whose interest is obvious, and the supermarkets, champions of preserving what little competition is left in the hope of better prices.

Assemblyman Jim Costa (D-Fresno), the author of the bill, inflated support with a sunset provision under which the bill will die in five years if an industry-sponsored survey shows that it has resulted in price increases. Come now. In five years prices will be academic. The monopolies will be in place. That is too transparent to merit serious comment.

To make matters worse, this assault on competition and antitrust legislation is being matched in Congress by legislation that would exempt beer distribution monopolies nationwide from antitrust action, just as some soft-drink bottlers already are. Again it is advertised as a plan for the protection of consumers.

Fortunately for consumers, there are some champions standing in the way of both legislative assaults on the free marketplace. Gov. George Deukmejian has used his veto in the past to kill similar outrages. And key committee chairmen in Congress, including Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) and Rep. Peter W. Rodino Jr. (D-N.J.), are resisting pressures to exempt beer distributors from antitrust laws.

The antitrust exemptions that have been made in the past, including those freeing the insurance industry to do just about anything that it likes, are not a legitimate excuse to grant more exemptions. On the contrary, they stand as very good reasons why there should be no more, and why those already on the books should be removed.