Not everything the legislature does gets the attention of constitutional amendments, teacher pay or other budget issues. A lot just happens quietly with very little coverage and sometimes under the radar of the media and even some legislators. That almost happened in a bizarre piece of legislation that gave the beer distributors new leverage over the beer producers.

I say almost because Andrew Dunn over at Longleaf Politics caught wind of the story. He saw the episode as an example of buttonholing legislators away from the legislative building, and away from scrutiny, to get a measure put into a bill. It’s also the story of long-term relationships, campaign cash and the government taking sides in a private business dispute.

The beer distributors, or wholesalers, and large brewers, or suppliers, have long had an agreement that brewers have a right of first refusal before a wholesaler could sell its business. The rationale behind the agreement is that the maker of the product wants some control over who is in its distribution chain. It’s their reputation on the line. Everybody knows who Budweiser is, but few know the name of the company that distributes it to stores. If a distributor does something unethical, it will probably reflect more poorly on the brand than the wholesaler. That’s why suppliers want some control.

The arrangement was a private contractual agreement, not a government one. However, the wholesalers wanted out of the agreement. To get what they wanted, they appealed to legislators to pass a bill that would essentially void the contractual agreement.

So why would the legislature get involved in a private contract? Well, money and relationships. The executive director of the Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association, the group that represents distributors, has been around the legislature longer than most of the members serving today. He’s well-liked and knows where the pressure points lie to get legislation passed. He also abides by the saying that money is the mother’s milk of politics. The Beer and Wine Wholesalers have given more than $650,000 in campaign contributions over the last five years, making them among the biggest givers in the state.

So what does all this mean? Well, it sends a signal to companies like Apple and Amazon that the legislature is willing to intervene in business disputes on behalf of local companies. That’s probably not the message North Carolina wants to send as it’s wooing these corporate giants. It also encourages companies and interest groups to give generously to legislators’ campaign funds. Money might not determine a decision every time, but it sure gets legislators’ attention. Finally, it reminds us that relationships matter in politics and, sometimes, those relationships trump good government.

Thomas Mills

Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >