🔒Liquor retailers right on policy, wrong on breaking law

Two liquor retailers in Connecticut tried to publicly violate state law in recent weeks by skirting the state's longtime minimum pricing rules, deciding instead to sell some of their alcoholic beverages at cost.

The move was part of an all-out legal and public relations battle some liquor retailers are waging to overturn an archaic state law that legislators have been unwilling to modify in the face of tough lobbying from mom-and-pop liquor stores.

We agree that Connecticut's minimum pricing laws must go. However, we can't support the willful breaking of laws to make a political point, at least not in this case. In a country where the rule of law reigns supreme, companies can't take it upon themselves to violate state or federal statutes simply because they feel those rules are unfair. Such actions create a dangerous precedent as well as an uneven playing field for those who abide by the rules.

Maryland-based Total Wine & More touched off this controversy when it announced Aug. 23 that it was suing Connecticut in federal court over the state's mandatory minimum pricing laws, alleging they are anti-competitive and violate the federal Sherman Antitrust Act. Total Wine also decided to start selling certain liquors below cost. Days later, Stamford-based BevMax pledged to do the same.

The law, which has been on the books in various forms for decades, artificially sets liquor prices by prohibiting retailers from selling a bottle of alcohol below cost. The cost is equal to the wholesale bottle price plus shipping and delivery charges.

In the 21st century, it's tough to argue in favor of Connecticut's liquor laws. We've said before minimum pricing is anti-competitive and smacks in the face of free-market capitalism. It does little more than increase the cost of alcohol and protect small package stores by ensuring they can keep their prices more competitive with larger retailers.

Challenging the law in court is a smart move and a proper avenue to try to reverse wrong-minded public policy. Even if the legal argument doesn't hold up in court, it still publicly raises the issue's profile, potentially winning Total Wine & More and other like-minded retailers greater support. That, hopefully, translates into more pressure on legislators to eliminate minimum pricing laws, something Gov. Dannel P. Malloy — who has consistently sought to relax liquor laws with some success — encouraged last legislative session.

But pushing the fight a step further by willfully violating the law was wrong and we applaud the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) for stepping in. As of press time Sept. 1, Total Wine was forced to stop all illegal sales and was fined $37,500 by DCP.

We'd be the first to admit that Connecticut's regulatory environment is overzealous in many respects, including when it comes to minimum pricing, but reforms must be enacted through the legal or legislative process, not vigilante disregard of the law.

Many businesses don't like the high local property taxes they are forced to pay — would we be OK with some choosing to skirt their tax obligations in protest? That would create an unfair environment for companies that play by the rules.

Over the last year or so — as the state's business climate has continued to lag in many national studies — the business community has ramped up its lobbying efforts at the state Capitol to play a more active role in shaping public policy.

That is the proper response to reverse laws deemed unfair.