California’s winery shakedown tests limits of free speech

California county is trying to force businesses to pay dues to a trade association they may not support — just like unions that once forced workers to join and to pay dues. And the precedent could hurt businesses across the Golden State.

Most Californians have never heard of Flying Goat Cellars, a family winery in Lompoc. These are not faceless corporations. They are small businesses where the owner may be the person pouring your tasting flight and telling you the story behind the bottle.

Last year, Santa Barbara County’s Board of Supervisors created a Wine Business Improvement District. Wineries selling directly to consumers must pay a 1% assessment on their sales. What makes this so insidious is that it isn’t a tax in the traditional sense. The money doesn’t fund public programs. It funds the Santa Barbara County Vintners Association, a private trade organization that controls how the money is spent.

But even that isn’t the whole problem. The issue is compulsion. Wineries don’t just pay the assessment — they must join the association, too. No opt-out. No choice. Pay the assessment. Join the organization. Fund the speech.

Flying Goat Cellars disagrees with the association’s priorities, marketing strategy, and advocacy efforts. Santa Barbara County says that doesn’t matter. The legal question is straightforward: Can government force a business owner to financially support speech he or she disagrees with? Can government compel membership in a private organization against someone’s wishes?

Goldwater Institute has filed a lawsuit in federal court against Santa Barbara County and the Vintners Association on behalf of Flying Goat Cellars and its owners. The lawsuit argues that forcing wineries to fund a private trade association violates First Amendment protections against compelled speech and freedom of association. It also raises Fifth Amendment concerns about redirecting private money to a private organization.

Similar wine districts already exist in other counties in California. If this lawsuit fails, every struggling trade association in California may notice and adopt mandatory membership, guaranteed funding, and government enforcement.

But something may finally end this scheme before it becomes the next California industry standard. One winery owner in Santa Barbara County was willing to become a plaintiff. That matters, because constitutional rights mean very little if only billion-dollar corporations can afford to defend them.

In my opinion, Flying Goat Cellars is likely to prevail. The Supreme Court has already told government it cannot force someone to subsidize another party’s speech just because officials believe that speech serves a worthy purpose. If that principle held for a government worker’s paycheck, it is hard to see why it should bend for a small winery’s cash register. A 1% cut of a family business’s sales, sent to a trade group whose marketing priorities that business rejects, is compelled subsidization with a different letterhead.

No lawsuit is guaranteed, but this one deserves to win.

In a recent article by Jon Fleischman, a seasoned strategist in California politics, he raises an important question that goes beyond the wine industry. Fleischman discusses the implications of government intervention in forcing wineries to join organizations and how it sets a dangerous precedent for other businesses in the future.

The issue at hand is not just about wineries being mandated to join organizations, but rather the broader implications of government overreach into private businesses. If the government has the power to force wineries to join organizations today, what is stopping them from imposing similar mandates on other industries tomorrow? This raises concerns about government interference in the free market and the potential erosion of individual business autonomy.

Fleischman’s argument highlights the need for vigilance and resistance against government overreach in the business sector. By allowing the government to dictate how businesses operate, we risk setting a dangerous precedent that could lead to further encroachments on economic freedom and entrepreneurship.

Ultimately, the question of government intervention in the wine industry serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting businesses from undue government interference. It is crucial to uphold the principles of free enterprise and resist any attempts to infringe upon the rights of businesses to operate independently. Only by safeguarding these principles can we ensure a thriving and competitive business environment for all.