Minibottle backers air commercials

COLUMBIA - Advertisements opposing a change in the state's minibottle laws started running last week in some newspapers and on radio stations, including at least one in Horry County.

The ads state that they are placed by the Coalition for the Responsible Consumption of Alcohol. But the address, telephone number and contact person for the organization are at Crantford and Associates, a Columbia marketing and political consulting firm with an owner who formerly worked for a consortium of video poker operators.

Neither Carey Crantford, the firm's owner, nor Will Brennan, who is listed on state-required forms as the contact for the coalition, were available for comment Friday.

The ads are using a coalition-funded study that says South Carolina could lose $6 million if bars are no longer required to use minibottles. The Senate is caught in a filibuster against bills that would change the minibottle requirement if voters approve in November.

The study's projections, by former state economist Harry Miley, are the opposite of those by state economist Bill Gillespie and the state's Board of Economic Advisors, which estimate South Carolina would make a little money with a change in the minibottle law.

The proposed change in the minibottle law isn't intended to make or lose money. It would add a 5 percent cocktail tax to make up for the 25-cent minibottle tax.

Besides questioning the authenticity of Miley's findings, those who support the change object to the coalition's name.

"It's to make the public think it's the public, and it's not. It's the liquor people," said Tom Sponseller, president of the S.C. Hospitality Association, which has pushed the change for years.

Sponseller said Crantford told him he was working for some of the liquor distributors who oppose the change.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving also supports the change for safety reasons. State Director Harry Ward said the coalition's name could confuse people because selling a smaller drink fosters responsible drinking, not a larger cocktail than visitors are used to getting.

The intent of the change "is to have people drink more responsibly," Ward said. "You're not at risk of putting as many impaired drivers on the road."

The threat of $6 million in lost minibottle taxes is "eye-catching," but even if it's true, the price "is minute compared to the loss of life that the minibottle may be creating," Ward said.

The change is especially important in a heavily tourism-dependent state, in which visitors who are used to having two drinks consume in South Carolina almost the same alcohol as four cocktails in other states, Ward said.

"I feel like South Carolina does not need to have the distinction of being the only state with the minibottle," Ward said. About 20 states required minibottles 30 years ago, but the others have changed.

"That tells you something," Ward said.

Although Gillespie issued a rebuttal saying Miley's study is flawed, Miley said Friday he stands by his report.

He said he took the 2001 revenue figures from minibottle sales and converted them into what would happen under the proposed law. His report did not need to assume rising sales or account for inflation, he said.

Even though he was hired by Crantford, Miley said he "wasn't asked to say whether it's a good or a bad thing," only to analyze the tax setup.

By his accounting, the legislation would have to double taxes to prevent losing the $6 million, "unless consumption goes way up," he said.

But proponents say consumption would increase to some extent because cocktails that now are expensive because they require two or more kinds of liquor could be sold at the price of one drink, Sponseller said.

Miley acknowledged that if drink prices decrease, more drinks likely will be sold.

"If you lower the price of something, demand will go up," he said.

Gillespie said Miley improperly overestimated the amount of sales tax that goes uncollected, and that his included a tax that is no longer charged.

"When you're doing any kind of analysis like this, nothing's perfect," Miley said, adding that his figures are closer to reality than Gillespie's.

"This guy was paid by a special interest group," while Gillespie works for the state and doesn't have an ax to grind, Sponseller said.

Miley said he is a consultant who charges for his work, so someone could make that accusation for any project he does.

"If nothing else, it forces everybody to take a very good, close look at [the issue]," Miley said.