Clinton Jawbones Liquor Manufacturers

Saying that he was “greatly disappointed” by the liquor industry’s decision to end a voluntary ban on broadcast advertising last year, President Clinton called on the industry Tuesday to retain the ban and asked the Federal Communications Commission to explore ways to keep liquor ads off television.

“Liquor has no business with kids and kids should have no business with liquor,” the president said. “Liquor ads on television would provide a message of encouragement to drink that young people simply don’t need. Nothing good can come of it.”

In fact, little such advertising has appeared and many broadcasters will not accept it. But Clinton maintained that regulatory pressure is needed to prevent a problem in the future. “We’re trying to nip it in the bud,” he said. “We’re trying to make it a dog that does not bark, if you will.”

The White House declaration, which prompted protests from the distilled spirits industry and broadcasters, was the latest in an ongoing series of moves by the administration to highlight issues of child safety and health, including tobacco and gang violence. It also represented another in a series of attempts by Clinton to use the White House bully pulpit to appeal to families with children.

It was last November that the distilled spirits industry announced it was ending a self-imposed ban on television advertising that had been in effect since 1948. The ban has applied to radio since 1936.

“My message to the liquor industry is simple,” Clinton said. “For 50 years you have kept the ban. It was the responsible thing to do. For the sake of our parents and our young people, please continue to keep that ban. Barring that . . . we will do what we must do to support our parents, to help them do their job.”

In a letter to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, Clinton urged the commission to explore the effects of the liquor industry’s announcement and to consider possible responses. Major networks and cable companies have refused to accept ads for liquor--products such as Scotch, gin and vodka--but Joseph E. Seagram, which manufactures Chivas Regal whiskey, last year began running ads on TV stations in New Hampshire and Texas.

“Too many of our young people are dying in car crashes and too many young people are starting to drink at an early age, leading to alcohol and other substance abuse problems,” the president said in the letter, adding that he “would appreciate your help and the help of the commission” in determining a response to the industry’s decision.

In response to Clinton’s remarks, the liquor industry argued that it was wrong to single out one type of alcohol for regulatory scrutiny, given the massive amounts of beer advertising on the airwaves, and to consider one type of alcoholic beverage as more serious than another.

“To single out one form of alcohol--be it distilled spirits, beer or wine--sends a confusing and wrong message that some forms of alcohol are ‘softer,’ ” said Fred A. Meister, president of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. “The fact is that there is no drink of moderation, only the practice.”

“If the administration has particular concerns about alcohol advertising, the distillers would be pleased to participate in a meeting that includes brewers, vintners and the broadcasters,” Meister said.

The beer industry spent $626 million on television advertising in 1995, while the spirits industry spent $227.6 million on all types of advertising, according to figures cited by the council.

Tuesday’s pronouncement was not Clinton’s first on the issue of liquor advertising on TV. After the Distilled Spirits Council announced the end of its voluntary ban in November, Clinton used his weekly radio address to ask broadcasters to keep such advertising off the air.

Clinton stopped short of demanding a new federal restriction Tuesday, calling instead for the FCC to explore its options. “At a minimum, there should be no backsliding,” he said. “There is something to be said for not making matters worse.”