There seems to be a great deal of confusion about these two State Questions. They both have to do with retail liquor…cold beer, wine in grocery stores, etc. But there are some major differences.
Here’s one of those differences:
SQ 792 is corporate-backed, whereas SQ 791 comes from the local retailers & the RLAO (Retail Liquor Association of Oklahoma).
Money and Power vs The Little Guy. It’s an age old battle, isn’t it?
Our friends at Edmond Wine Shop can tell the story very well. They’ve been doing a great job at getting the word of 791 out there. Here’s an excerpt of a post on their Facebook page:
[The featured image above is from that post.]
In the photo are two very different things that you may have been asked to sign. The option on the left is paid for in part by Walmart. The people who distribute this glossy info in your neighborhoods are volunteers or employees of the Yes on SQ792 campaign, which is funded by Walmart. You may see them at festivals or the upcoming Oklahoma State Fair. If you have signed anything related to the option on the left, you have given Walmart and others the right to use your name to promote the Yes on SQ792 campaign in social and print media. You have every right to sign whatever you like. You’ll get no judgement or argument from us. We are sorry, though, if you were misled.
The document pictured on the right is the petition for SQ791, which is another option for alcohol modernization that many consumers and local retail liquor stores support. We were unable to obtain 124,000 signatures in less than 30 days, so you will not see our option on the ballot in November. However, signature collection continues. We still have the opportunity to make an appearance on a future ballot. Why try? SQ792 may not pass in November or may not survive a constitutional review, which is why we will continue to gather signatures for SQ791.
By signing the petition for SQ791 you are showing your support for Edmond Wine Shop. We will NOT use your name in social or print media to promote our cause, but you will help us inspire legislators to write legislation that promotes fair competition.
It appears as if those backing SQ 792 haven’t been totally transparent.
Further down in the article is a quote from Bryan Kerr, the president of RLAO:
And, no, my hands are not clean. I clearly tried to negotiate something that would minimize the damage to the local businesses I represent. That would include license restrictions that might not give some consumers 100% of what they desire. I definitely tried to highlight all of the social and economic negatives of expanding strong sales to thousands of new locations; and will continue to do so. But I came with a compromise and rewrote that compromise a dozen times based on feedback from Senators Bice and Jolley. I came ready to find a balance between convenience, local business and public safety. I actually asked for consumer-friendly measures that were not included like growler fills in liquor stores, local delivery of alcohol from liquor stores and the opening of liquor stores in Sundays. And from Day 1, I was on board for single-strength beer in grocery and convenience stores.
It seems there’s a good deal of incorrect information floating out there, and this post we’re putting in the spotlight seems to help clear the air a little.
To read the post in full, go to Edmond Wine Shop‘s FB page.
To sign a petition allowing another option on the ballot or to talk about SQ 791, stop by Cork & Bottle, Edmond Wine Shop, or contact your favorite store.