Whine merchants 2

There's a revolution going on out there in how wine is sold. Can good old Georgie, your friendly package-store owner -- backed by the deep pockets of the liquor distributors and his pals at the State House -- continue to block it at the Massachusetts state line?

Georgie will tell you the fight against ballot Question 1 in November is all about safety -- keeping booze out of the hands of kids -- and preserving local businesses. The big grocery chains, the backers of the ballot question, say it is all about customer convenience and choice. What it is really about, of course, is money and market share. No one has a lock on virtue in this scrap.

The liquor industry is one of the most regulated and Byzantine of businesses -- still largely governed by a system put in place after Prohibition. But finally the archaic chain that moves liquor from manufacturer to distributor to retailer -- each taking a cut -- is breaking down, thanks to the muscle of giant retailers, the courts, and the Internet. Wine sales in particular are surging.

The ballot question would create a new class of liquor licenses for food stores that want to sell wine. It would end the ban on any individual or corporation owning more than three liquor licenses, which has limited the big grocery chains from expanding further into the business. While the ballot question would not affect the three-tier distribution system, it would strengthen the hand of the biggest buyers. The new licenses would not include hard liquor and beer; local communities would continue to have jurisdiction over liquor licenses.

The liquor store operators and the distributors like the system the way it is -- it works for them, after all. This is far from a battle between the Georgies and the Stop & Shops. Follow the money. Stop & Shop wrote a $1 million check for the campaign. But so did the Beer Distributors of Massachusetts. The Wine & Spirit Wholesalers of Massachusetts put in $500,000. United Liquors put in $300,000. Both sides are well armed.

The distributors, the middlemen, know their world is threatened. In Washington state, a federal judge in April struck down state rules forcing retailers to buy through wholesalers at pre established prices. If upheld, it could allow giants like Costco and Wal-Mart to go directly to manufacturers. Last year the US Supreme Court ruled that states must allow wine shipments to consumers from wineries both in and out of state, or ban such sales altogether. Internet sales are exploding.

Amid this global shift, the liquor store operators and distributors are acting locally -- their strongest hand. They have built up generations of good will supporting Little League teams and hunger walks and writing checks to local pols. God bless them. But they don't deserve special protection any more than did the local hardware store or the local drugstore.

If Quincy state Senator Michael Morrissey had his way, Home Depot would have been banned from selling hammers in Massachusetts. Morrissey, a man who has cashed more than his share of checks from the local liquor industry, tries to make the case that liquor store owners are at a disadvantage because they have been limited all these years to only three licenses. He has it backward: They have been protected all these years.

Like everyone, I like my business local. There is no business like a local business. Certainly, we should not have laws that put the little guy at a disadvantage. For instance, why should Apple be allowed to sell music online without charging a sales tax, when the local merchant, who pays property tax, who hires locally, has to add 5 percent?

But the reverse is just as true: We can't erect artificial barriers that protect the few at the expense of the many either. Consumers deserve better. And ultimately it won't work.

Steve Bailey is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at bailey@globe.com or at 617-929-2902.