Ads against alcohol sales statewide top $1 million

Arkansans in the state’s 37 “dry” counties — where alcohol sales are largely prohibited — have been hit with more than $1 million in advertising against a statewide ballot initiative that seeks to amend the Arkansas Constitution to allow statewide alcohol sales.

The ballot question group Citizens for Local Rights had raised more than $1.7 million as of Thursday — mostly from liquor store owners or industry groups — to fight the proposed measure. The group fighting to pass the constitutional amendment, Let Arkansas Decide, had raised less than one-tenth of that — $165,000 as of Sept.

30. Out-of-state retailers that want to sell alcohol contributed much of that money.

As of Friday, Let Arkansas Decide had not filed its pre-election campaign finance report for the first three weeks of October, according to the Arkansas Ethics Commission’s website. Reports are not due to the commission until Tuesday.

“The other side wants to point out that we have some liquor businesses that contributed to us. They don’t have any Arkansas contributors to their campaign,” said Brian Richardson, chairman of Citizens for Local Rights. “Look where the money is coming from for the support. It’s all coming in from out of state. It’s all these people who want to sell alcohol and don’t want to play by the rules, and I don’t think it’s right for us to tear up our constitution to increase their profits.”

Richardson hopes the television commercials, social media ads, radio spots, billboards and direct mail aren’t drowned out by the tens of millions of dollars being spent on high-profile political races.

With fewer resources, David Couch, chairman of Let Arkansas Decide, said he’s spending his money on newspaper advertisements in dry counties and social media ads on Facebook and other websites targeting Arkansas voters under the age of 45.

Opponents of statewide alcohol sales had a head start, Couch said.

“Their side has been preparing for this fight for forever,” Couch said. “I’ve gotten some money from convenience stores and others. And we looked at where our key demographics would be. All of the air has been sucked out of the media markets with advertising for all of these candidates. I’m trying to do everything I can with all the money. I’ve had to beg, borrow and plead.”

The amendment, Issue 4, on the ballot, would make it legal to sell, manufacture, distribute and transport alcohol in all of Arkansas’ 75 counties for the first time since the 1930s. After national prohibition was lifted in 1933, alcohol became legal in every county of Arkansas.

Two years later, the Arkansas Legislature passed a series of rules for local elections on alcohol sales so that counties could vote themselves “dry.”

The number of signatures required to hold a wet-dry election has changed over the years. Since 1993, 38 percent of registered voters have had to sign petitions in order to place an alcohol referendum on a local ballot.

Couch said tougher requirements to get alcohol initiatives on local ballots is part of the reason he decided to work on a statewide initiative. To place a proposed constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot, petitioners must gather valid signatures from 10 percent of the number of voters who cast ballots in the previous gubernatorial election.

“Only for alcohol sales does a local initiative require signatures from 38 percent of voters. You can raise taxes with 15 percent,” said Couch. “Take Faulkner County. When they tried to do the local initiative there, liquor stores from outside the county spent $350,000 just trying to stop people from signing those petitions. That’s why this needed to happen at the statewide level. I’m relying on the common sense of the people of the state of Arkansas.”

But Richardson said Couch’s amendment takes control away from counties, which is an issue most of the amendment’s opponents can unite behind.

“We’re doing everything in our power to get our message out to every voter in the state, to get the message out that this is just a bad amendment and it’s not fair to local counties and cities,” he said. “We’re getting donations daily, hourly, from people who agree that it’s just not good for local communities, and it’s dangerously written.”

The Family Council Action Committee registered with the Arkansas Ethics Commission earlier this month with the stated mission of fighting three statewide ballot initiatives and a local initiative in Fayetteville. The group is an arm of the Family Council, a conservative Christian group that promotes “a biblical perspective” on issues.

Jerry Cox, president of the Family Council, said the action committee has done only a handful of things against the alcohol measure, including mailing about 5,000 leaflets to council supporters.

“I don’t know what’s wrong with the system we have, other than some people don’t get to sell as much alcohol as they want,” he said. “This is a way for people in more populated counties to get to impose their will on people in less-populated counties, who might not want alcohol sales. It ought to remain in local control.”

Opponents of the proposed constitutional amendment warn that it may erase existing bans on alcohol sales within 1,000 feet of churches or schools. The amendment’s supporters say those regulations wouldn’t be affected.

Michael Langley, director of the Department of Finance and Administration’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, said the agency will continue to enforce the existing rules about per capita liquor sales permits and restricting sales near churches and schools.

“On the front-end, nothing will change. The laws on the books will remain the laws unless and until the Legislature decides differently,” he said. “We will continue to enforce the 1,000-foot rule, until the Legislature changes it or until a court tells us it’s not valid.”

Several city governments in “wet” cities or counties have used conditional-use permitting, a zoning tool, to regulate where beer sales are allowed. For example, Little Rock passed a regulation requiring stores of a certain size to obtain conditional-use permits if they planned to sell alcohol for take-home consumption. That regulation ensures that neighbors are notified and that the proposal is heard before the Planning Commission and the Little Rock Board of Directors.

Richardson said he believes that the language of the amendment would make it easy for someone to challenge those local restrictions in court.

If approved, statewide sales would become legal on July 1, 2015.

If the amendment does pass, Langley said his division will likely propose legislation to streamline the permitting process for alcohol sales and “create efficiencies” to pay for staffing in enforcement or other areas that might need to be increased as a result of the measure.

“If nothing changes in the Legislature about the permitting process, those guys will be overwhelmed for a good 18 months if this passes,” he said.

Langley disagreed. If the rules for alcohol sales are made the same in all 75 counties, he said, his agency will propose legislation to make the permitting process far less complex and decrease the number of permit options.