Score One For Heather.

I have given Heather Steans, my state senator, a hard time in the past for this and that, including for how she got her job in the first place, but she did something good recently for which she deserves due credit.

On October 1st, Senator Steans, in her words, "was able to do something as a Senator that has never made me feel more proud or honored." She filed the Equal Marriage Act, a bill that would allow same-sex couples in Illinois the right to marry. Senate Bill 2468 will clarify equal marriage rights for same-sex couples across the state - a right which, she says, "is already enshrined in our constitutional language and traditions."

Rep. Greg Harris (D-13th) has introduced civil union and equal marriage bills in the House each session for each of the past two General Assemblies, but nothing had ever been filed in the Senate. Harris is my state rep. I've given him a hard time too, but they both have my support on this one.

Dear Senator Steans, Reform Begins With You.

It seems like every time Senator Heather Steans (D-7th) sends me a legislative update, I get a blog post out of it.

Since Senator Steans does a poor job of keeping her web site updated, I'm posting her most recent one, which I received via email, here.

It's about what you would expect, including the last two paragraphs, which follow:

Today the sun is shining and I - like people throughout the state - am breathing a sigh of relief that we can start a new chapter. Clearly Illinois suffers from a culture of corruption that requires ethics reforms such as campaign contribution limits and greater transparency and oversight. We have an enormous budget deficit that has to be tackled. And we need a capital plan to restore our infrastructure and put Illinois residents back to work. I am confident that our new Governor, Patrick Quinn, and the House and Senate will now pull together to start the real work that needs to be done.

Please call or email me if you have any questions or would like further insights into the impeachment trial. I welcome your thoughts and suggestions.

Since she asked, here are my thoughts and suggestions:

Dear Senator Steans,

Respectfully, we do not need more ethics legislation from the same people who gave us all of the previous ethics legislation, then immediately figured out how to get around it and continue to do business as usual.

The current situation presents a unique opportunity for every Illinois legislator to lead by doing. What will you do to be more open and transparent about the way you conduct your own official business? What will you do to help expose the existing corrupt systems, individuals and groups of which you and every other legislator are aware? What will you do to demonstrate to your constituents that they and they alone direct your actions, even above and beyond the Senate and party leadership?

What will you do to show us—-prove to us-—that this really is a new chapter and not a repeat of the last reform movement, which as you may recall was led by the now disgraced ex-governor and his running mate, the new governor?

What can you say to us that we haven't heard a thousand times before? What can you do to show us you are really different?

Perhaps a good place to start would be the confession of past sins. What do you think?

We Won't Forget You, Heather.

Today the Chicago Tribune editorial page--the same editorial page Illinois Governor Blagojevich is accused of trying to suppress--provided a useful history lesson.

Although it seems like a lifetime ago, it was only last spring that Governor Blagojevich enjoyed enough support in the Illinois Senate to defeat a House-sponsored recall bill. Had it passed, we probably would be voting right now to remove him. Back then, Emil Jones was Senate President and Rod's buddy. The Trib today lists all the Senators who defeated one recall proposal and kept another one from coming to a vote.

One of those faithfully lined up behind Jones back then was my own state Senator, representing the 7th District, Heather Steans. She was even trotted out at the time to carry the governor's water on Chicago Tonight and elsewhere, ironically arguing against the recall but for a measure that would reform (i.e., increase) the state's income tax.

It was a sorry spectacle, as I told her in a letter I shared with you blog readers here.

The surprise retirement of Jones back in August may have been the beginning of the end for Blago. Or maybe it was the Rezko conviction in June. The feds were clearly getting close, the guys behind the guys were cutting their losses, and the front men and women were scrambling for cover. It's hard for somebody like Steans, used to following orders, to know whose orders to follow when everything is falling apart. Her most recent constituent report described at length, but bloodlessly, the impeachment process and how the all-important U. S. Senate seat at the center of it all might be filled. It was distributed on December 17, before the Burris appointment. Here is the closest she came to taking a position or even expressing an opinion about any of it, but even with all of her careful weasel-wording, she got it so very wrong.

She wrote:

Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senate, has indicated he will not seat anyone who the Governor appoints, and the Governor's legal defense attorney has stated that the Governor will not act to fill this seat. Thus the threat of the Governor trying to fill this vacancy no longer exists. We have some time over the holidays to see if the Governor resigns or steps aside before the U.S. Senate reconvenes in the new year. There is no perfect solution for filling the vacant Senate seat. I continue to prefer conducting a special election despite its downsides, but there is no consensus on this in Springfield.

(Emphasis mine.)

As the citizens of Illinois pour their outrage onto Rod Blagojevich, we should not forget his many enablers, including what the Tribune today called "The Blagojevich 26."

Voters have notoriously short memories so I won't speak for anyone but myself. I won't forget you, Senator Steans. I won't forget how you got your seat, nor what you did with it, no matter how many food drives for the needy you promote.

Senator Heather Steans, For The Children.

Although she downplayed it in an email to me, writing that "there are far more serious problems we need to tackle," Illinois State Senator Heather Steans (D-7th) continues to boast about her role in "banning promotion of alcoholic energy drinks to children." Since no one was promoting alcoholic energy drinks to children in the first place, I guess she can claim success.

I happen to live in Senator Steans' district.

Of the five legislative accomplishments she chose to tout in her Legislative Update sent to constituents last week, this one ranked second:

This spring, I was chief sponsor of legislation that prohibits the marketing of energy drinks containing alcohol to children and requires improved labeling to assist parents and businesses with identifying these products which are not safe for children.

It came after one headlined "Ending Pay-to-Play Politics" and before "Working to Eliminate Poverty." Senator Steans is nothing if not ambitious.

But her work on the so-called Alcopops Law (235 ILCS 5/6-35) is a non-solution to a non-problem.

This sort of thing drives me crazy because it falsely accuses the good people of the beverage alcohol industry of seeking to harm children, a serious and completely baseless charge, made for the purpose of pandering to parents, including some who want to blame their children's substance abuse problems on someone other than their children and themselves, and who better?

These charges are also an attack on the advertising industry. Since for a long time I worked in the advertising industry on alcohol accounts, I take this personally.

Who in government doesn't blame marketing and marketers? How about the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which investigates such things and has consistently found that the beverage alcohol industry does not market to underage consumers. Instead of falling for neo-prohibitionist propaganda like Senator Steans does, read the FTC's most-recent report here. (Right-click to download the PDF.)

Critics will, of course, dismiss the FTC as in the pocket of Big Alcohol, and Senator Steans knows all about that since she is the scourge of "Pay-to-Play," but in its 86-page report the FTC found little to fault in the performance of alcohol marketers, and while it made some common sense recommendations for improvement, none of them involve anything like the measures of which Senator Steans is so proud.

The Legislative Update gave this additional example of Senator Steans wasting government resources to make it look like she's doing something "for the children." It announced her co-sponsorship of a bill creating the Illinois Commission on Children and Youth.

Illinois achieved statehood on December 3, 1818 and I can't imagine how her children and youth have survived 190 years without this commission.

Nothing New in the Adult Beverage Wars.

Just a follow-up to last week's post's about my state senator and her support of the latest attack on the marketing of adult beverages. The gist of that post was sent to her by way of a reply to her reply. She answered my first inquiry in about 24 hours. This time, it's been a week and no word.

She may not reply and that's okay. The first email was a direct question. The second states my opinion. She isn't really obliged to reply to that. I also have no illusions that I have changed any minds in the Steans organization.

I'll keep you posted if anything further develops.

A Call to Arms.

I always try to pay attention to the neo-prohibitionists.

I need to try harder.

Illinois just passed a new law aimed at alcoholic energy drinks like Sparks and Tilt.

I wrote about some of this on Sunday and again yesterday.

In reading SB2472, I discovered that it basically amends an existing law aimed at what they call "alcopops." Among other things, I am outraged that such a prejudicial colloquial term would find its way into a statute. The industry does not use that term because it does conflate the ideas of "alcoholic beverage" and "soda pop" in a potentially confusing way, and may even make those products more appealing to under-age youth. In other words, by popularizing the term "alcopop," the neo-prohibitionists are doing exactly what they falsely accuse the beverage alcohol industry of doing.

That alone should get your dander up.

I'm not going to go into a lot more about it here. Scroll down to read the older posts. It's also easy enough to research it on your own.

My point here is to urge everyone to add neo-prohibitionist legislation to the list of political things you pay attention to, and react accordingly. I don't expect to ever taste Sparks or Tilt, and I might even argue they're a bad idea, but this affects all of us who enjoy the responsible use of beverage alcohol products.

For a peak into the neo-prohibitionist world, check out GetSerious.Org.

Alcoholic Energy Drinks, Part Two.

I received a prompt answer to my inquiry to Senator Steans. It's a good answer; factual and reasonable, at least as far as it goes. What I wrote to her is here. This is her answer:

Thanks for your e-mail. The products in question are named Tilt, Sparks, BudExtra, and LiquidCharge and are manufactured by Anheuser-Busch and Miller Brewing Co. These beverages are over 6% alcohol. My staff members have found Tilt and Sparks in grocery stores in the district. While they are located in the alcohol aisle, the products look so much like normal energy drinks that when my 24 year old intern purchased one in a local store, along with non-alcoholic drinks, he wasn’t carded.

All over the country, police officers and parents have complained that these beverages look so much like energy drinks that it is difficult to tell them apart. Here are links to a few news articles about alcopop energy drinks, reporting on this labeling issue:

(She provided one, here.)

This new legislation in Illinois changes the labeling requirements so that consumers can clearly tell that this product is alcohol. The labels on beverages in Illinois have already changed. Pictures of the previous product labels are available here. We took these pictures after purchasing the beverages locally.

These products are being marketed towards young people. Attorney generals from 30 states have written a letter to federal authorities expressing concerns over the marketing of these beverages. For example, you can see the website for Sparks at www.sparks.com. This site is clearly youth-oriented, even cartoonish in nature. Several of these beverages advertise on facebook and myspace, used by millions of teenagers.

While I am pleased to have been able to address this issue, I believe there are far more serious problems we need to tackle, including the need for higher quality education for all kids in the state, reducing the regressive nature of our taxes, changing our culture of corruption, decreasing violence in our communities, and addressing our state’s fiscal crisis. I am working on these issues as well, and appreciate any suggestions regarding other concerns you feel we should be addressing at the State level.

Regards,
Heather Steans

Alcoholic energy drinks have been around for a couple of years. They haven't been particularly successful and their footprint in the marketplace is very small. They are like Smirnoff Ice and its ilk in that they are beer with most of the flavor and color stripped away, to be replaced by sweet citrus fruit flavors. Like Red Bull and other energy drinks they contain caffeine, taurine and ginseng.

As the Toledo Blade article points out, it should concern parents if their kids are consuming large quantities of even the non-alcoholic energy drinks.

I'm pretty much with Senator Steans through her third paragraph. We part company at the part about them being marketed to kids. Yes, the products are being marketed to young adults, but the web site she cited has an age requirement like all alcoholic beverage sites, and standard alcohol warnings, and the "cartoonish" claim, dubious even if true, isn't.

I don't know if I would go so far as to call these products irresponsible, but they may well be a bad idea for their makers. I haven't had one and don't know the actual effect but alcohol is a depressant and the other active ingredients are stimulants so, on paper at least, the effect should be ... nothing. They should cancel each other out, though it probably doesn't work that way. I know plenty of people who drink vodka and Red Bull or Jaegermeister and Red Bull. It just seems like a bad idea, no matter who is doing it.

The fact that some retail clerks are unfamiliar with these products, may not realize they're alcohol, and may not card purchasers is a problem. It's a problem for retailers because that's a very easy way to lose your license. It's also a problem for producers, image-wise. As someone who would like to see the whole beverage alcohol industry be less harassed, these products are not helpful.

The pictures she pointed to, of the old and new packaging, don't show much. Ironically, because these are marketed as malt beverages, not beer, they are able to show their alcohol content on the label. In most states, beers are prohibited from putting their alcohol content on the label, which was supposed to prevent brewers from competing to offer the highest alcohol content products. That worked well. Senator Steans might want to look into changing Illinois law to require all beverage alcohol labels to clearly state the product's alcohol content.

The last paragraph of Senator Steans' reply is also somewhat disingenuous, in that it was she who listed that legislation first among her personal legislative accomplishments in her legislative update.

But it's the advertising-to-children claim that always gets my goat. As with the character dubbed "Joe Camel," ads are deemed to be directed at children solely because they are illustrated. Illustrations, especially those that can be characterized as cartoons, appeal to children, ergo Joe Camel was being used to advertise cigarettes to children. It became an article of faith among anti-smoking activists, then came to be treated as a statement of fact. There was never one iota of evidence presented that Joe Camel was intended to influence children or ever used in such a way as to reach children. The charge was based solely on the conclusion that Joe Camel must be targeted at children because he is a cartoon character.

Likewise, "alcopop" is a term of derision coined by anti-alcohol activists (aka neo-prohbitionists). That term has never been used by the producers. The non-energy versions of these products have been around for many years – the Coors product Zima was the prototype.

Like their energy counterparts, those products are deemed by their critics to be directed at children solely because they taste good, and taste similar to soda pop. The fact that most of these products bear the names of well-known distilled spirits brands is further evidence that they are not trying to pretend they are anything other than alcoholic beverages intended for legal age adults. This is not true of the alcoholic energy drinks, but it doesn't seem to matter. The same critics are making all of the same claims.

Most beverage alcohol advertising is directed at young adults, as is most advertising for automobiles, music, electronics, clothing, health and beauty aids, and a wide range of other consumer products. Young adults are attractive to advertisers because they are still forming brand preferences. Also fundamental is that there is no way to create advertising that will appeal to persons of legal age but won't appeal to anyone younger than legal age. There is not some kind of switch that is thrown at age 18 or 21. Kids, especially older kids, like many of the same things young adults like. It is not possible to effectively advertise to persons at the low end of the legal age scale without some of that advertising reaching individuals at the high end of non-legal age.

This is why claims that certain products or ads are nefariously directed at children are, at best, an unfounded personal opinion and, at worst, a deliberate falsehood.

There is one objective way to determine if advertising is directed at children, and that is by examining the medium in which it is run and determining who views or hears that medium. The standard followed by the beverage alcohol industry is that advertising for those products is placed only in magazines, on television shows, on radio shows, or in other media, where at least 70 percent of the audience is expected to be adults. The Federal Trade Commission has consistently found that the beverage alcohol industry adheres to those guidelines and, therefore, does not market to underage consumers.

I Read Their Legislative Reports So You Don't Have To.

My State Senator, Heather Steans, sent me a legislative update yesterday. Here's the legislation of which she is most proud:

Better regulating energy drinks that contain alcohol (SB2472). I was the lead sponsor of this bill that requires energy drinks that contain alcohol to have better labeling and prohibits them from being marketed to youth. Research shows that energy drinks are consumed primarily by youth. As a mother of 3 kids, I was very concerned about the easy access underage kids had to the alcoholic version of these beverages.

So I sent Senator Steans the following constituent inquiry:

Dear Senator Steans:

As the lead sponsor of a bill that requires energy drinks that contain alcohol to have better labeling, and prohibits them from being marketed to youth, who you allege have “easy access” to said beverages, could you please give me the names and makers of the products that concern you and point me in the direction of your evidence that these products are being marketed to youth, as well as your evidence that “underage kids” have “easy access” to these products. In particular, I would appreciate knowing what specific evidence convinced you that this is a serious problem within the 7th District.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I'll let you know what she says.

We've been down this road before. I'll cut to the chase for you. This is a phony, non-solution to a phony non-problem, the kind of stunt legislation legislators from this district are famous for.