The Last Call: How Big Money Is Crushing California's Craft Spirit Dream

The Facts: A Lifeline Set to Expire

In the bleak early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order providing a critical lifeline to small businesses. Among the beneficiaries were the state’s craft distilleries, who were suddenly permitted to ship their spirits directly to consumers—a privilege long enjoyed by California’s wineries. This emergency measure was a success, allowing family-run operations to survive and connect with customers during lockdowns. Recognizing its value, the California Legislature subsequently passed temporary laws, most recently set to expire on December 31, 2024, that continued to allow distilleries producing under 150,000 gallons annually to engage in direct-to-consumer (DTC) shipping.

Assemblymember Josh Hoover (R-Folsom) has been the legislative champion for this sector, attempting to make the temporary provision permanent. His current vehicle, Assembly Bill 2211, which expands tasting room opportunities for distillers, was seen as a potential host for a DTC amendment. Despite the bill advancing through committees without a single formal “no” vote recorded in the CalMatters database, the DTC provision has been systematically blocked. The reason is not a matter of public record or open debate, but rather the result of intense, behind-the-scenes lobbying by a powerful coalition.

The Context: The Opposition and Their Influence

The opposition is a formidable alliance of established interests: major corporate alcohol wholesalers and distributors (represented by groups like the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America), the California wine industry (through the Wine Institute), and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. According to lobbying reports, these groups have spent over $1 million in 2024 alone to influence the California government. Their political donations paint an even starker picture: since 2000, they have contributed at least $11 million to state politicians from both parties, including over $738,000 since the start of the current legislative session in 2025.

The craft distillers, by stark contrast, reported $54,000 in lobbying spending this year and have made only a handful of nominal donations to lawmakers over the past decade. The imbalance in resources is not just significant; it is determinative. Key committee chairs with the power to allow Hoover’s amendment—Senator Susan Rubio and Assemblymember Blanca Rubio—have received a combined $194,000 from these opposing groups. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas has received at least $108,000 from them. These politicians, when contacted by CalMatters, offered non-committal statements or declined to comment, while the DTC provision languishes.

The stated objections from the opposition are multifaceted. The Teamsters argue for “meaningful guardrails,” insisting shipments should go through established carriers with employee drivers (like UPS) for liability and safety reasons, though federal law prevents California from mandating union labor. The wine industry, led by Wine Institute CEO Steve Gross, argues for “parity,” asserting that if small distillers get DTC rights, large liquor companies must also get them—a condition craft distillers cannot meet. The wholesalers claim DTC was always intended as temporary pandemic relief and that alternatives like DoorDash exist, though they notably list DoorDash as a member.

Cris Steller, acting executive director of the California Distillers Association and owner of a family distillery, encapsulates the small business despair: “I don’t want to keep putting money into a program that’s going to get yanked.” With the legislative session ending August 31 and leadership showing no inclination to intervene, the January 1 expiration appears inevitable.

Opinion: A Betrayal of Democratic Principles and Economic Freedom

This is not a simple policy dispute about alcohol delivery. This is a crystalline case study in the corrupting influence of concentrated power on a democratic system. It lays bare the mechanics of how legislation is truly made in Sacramento: not in open committee hearings where the merits of supporting small business and consumer choice are debated, but in shadowy negotiations where access is auctioned to the highest bidder. The death of the craft distillers’ DTC provision is a silent killing. As the article notes, politicians benefit when proposals “die quietly because they don’t have to explain their decisions to voters.” This is the antithesis of accountable governance.

The arguments from the opposition are, at best, disingenuous and, at worst, a cynical smokescreen for anti-competitive behavior. The Teamsters’ concern for “guardrails” rings hollow when the existing temporary program has operated for six years without cited major incident. The wine industry’s plea for “parity” is a profound distortion of fairness. California wineries—from the smallest boutique vineyard to the Gallo behemoth—have enjoyed DTC shipping rights for decades. To now hold small distillers hostage unless massive, multinational liquor corporations are given the same privilege is not a demand for equality; it is a tactic to ensure the bill’s failure. It is using the might of one entrenched industry to block the emergence of another.

The wholesalers’ claim that this is merely the planned sunset of a pandemic program ignores the demonstrated economic and social value the program has created. Their suggestion that DoorDash is an adequate replacement is insulting; it simply redirects consumer dollars through another corporate intermediary, stripping the distiller of direct customer relationship and a greater share of the profit. This is about protecting a lucrative, three-tier distribution system that acts as a costly compulsory middleman.

What we are witnessing is the use of state power to enact protectionism for incumbents. It is economic suppression dressed in the language of safety and fairness. The millions in lobbying and campaign donations are an investment, and the return is a legislated monopoly on access to market. They are paying to have the government outlaw their competition. This is a direct assault on the entrepreneurial spirit and the American ideal of a level playing field.

From a principled standpoint, committed to democracy, liberty, and the rule of law, this episode is infuriating and heartbreaking. It shows how institutions meant to serve the public good can be co-opted by narrow, wealthy interests. The rule of law is degraded when laws are crafted not for the common welfare, but for the benefit of those who fund campaigns. The freedom to engage in enterprise, to build a family business, and to offer a product directly to a willing consumer is being curtailed not by market forces, but by political manipulation.

The individuals involved, from the distillers like Cris Steller fighting for survival to legislators like Josh Hoover trying to champion them, are characters in a larger drama about the soul of our democracy. The silence of Speaker Rivas and Senators Rubio, in the face of such a clear imbalance, is deafening. It is a failure of leadership and a betrayal of their oath to represent all constituents, not just the best-funded ones.

California, a state that prides itself on innovation and supporting the “little guy,” is on the verge of pulling the rug out from under dozens of small businesses to satisfy the demands of a powerful few. As a supporter of the Constitution and free enterprise, I find this outrageous. As a humanist, I see the real human cost: jobs threatened, dreams deferred, and a community of artisans told their work is not worthy of direct access to those who appreciate it. This is a call to action for all who believe in transparent government and economic justice. We must demand that our representatives let this amendment see the light of day, be debated on its merits, and be decided by the will of the people, not the weight of a lobbyist’s checkbook. The integrity of our democratic process depends on it.