This article originally appeared on Watchdog.org, as written by Maggie Thurber, and is re-printed here with permission.

[Update: a proposed amendment would allow A-B’s pending purchase of C&G Distributing to go through but block future deals.

As part of the Memorial Day celebrations, many Ohioans stopped by their local grocery store or carryout and picked up a six-pack of beer, and they probably didn’t give even a passing thought to how the beverage ended up on the shelf.

Maybe they should have, considering what’s been going on in Columbus.

It all started back in February when a bill to change certain liquor laws was introduced in the Senate. It was approved and sent to the House of Representatives.

Ohio has a three-tier system when it comes to beer: manufacturers make it, distributors deliver it to retailers, and retailers sell it to consumers.

Sub. S.B. 48 allowed smaller breweries to bypass the distributors and sell directly to retailers. As long as they’re making less than 31 million gallons of beer a year, these brewers can sell their product for home use, on their premises or directly to retail outlets without a middleman.

Many beer lovers who prefer the smaller micro-brewed beers liked this change and no one really objected to it.

But another provision of the bill banned manufacturers from owning, or acquiring any financial interest in, a distributorship, though it did grandfather in any distributorships that were currently owned.

Anheuser-Busch is not happy with how their competitor, MillerCoors, is working with the legislature to ban them from owning distributorships in the state.

Anheuser-Busch owns distributorships and they were in the process of purchasing one in Lima when the bill took effect. Their business model calls for them to have a financial interest in the companies that distribute their products.

One of their major competitors, MillerCoors, does not own their own distributors. Their business model relies upon independent companies for the distribution of their brands.

MillerCoors supported Sub. S.B. 48, as did the Ohio Wholesale Wine and Beer Association.

Anheuser-Busch opposed it – vigorously, noting that the substituted bill language was introduced, approved by a House committee, approved unanimously by the full House and then received Senate concurrence – all in a matter of hours on April 17.

They met with Gov. John Kasich and requested a veto.

“This thing passed the House and Senate unanimously,” Kasich told the Columbus Dispatch. “I’m not going to just veto something that has, basically, unanimous support across the board. I don’t see why I would do that.”

And he didn’t. He signed the bill and it takes effect July 30.

But that wasn’t the end. Paul Lucas, regional director of State Government Affairs for MillerCoors, sent a letter on May 17 to Senate President Keith Faber, objecting to the grandfather provision:

“We had expressed concern that the future ban on ownership in SB 48 that ‘grandfathered’ the (Anheuser-Busch) Canton branch cemented in state law a competitive advantage for our competitor. The urgency is now increased because today we learned that (Anheuser-Busch) is purchasing a second distributorship in Lima, Ohio, prior to the effective date of SB 48. Our market intelligence also indicates (Anheuser-Busch) is looking to aggressively roll up further Ohio distributorships prior to the effective date of SB 48. Canton alone was troublesome. This further expansion represents a major threat to the health of MillerCoors in Ohio and could create a permanent, competitive disadvantage for the company and its independent MillerCoors wholesale distributors.”

In the letter, Lucas admits that Anheuser-Busch is the company’s “major competitor” and that they have two different business models when it comes to their approach to distributorships.

What solution did they propose to deal with their competitor’s, well, competition?

They asked for an emergency bill that stops Anheuser-Busch from buying any distributorship between now and the July effective date and requires the divestiture of the Canton distributorship and any others they might acquire before the emergency bill can be passed.

Three business days later, H.B. 174 was introduced to prohibit any beer maker from buying any distributorship before July 30. It did not require the divestiture of any existing distributorships.

Needless to say, Anheuser-Busch was not happy and let House Speaker William Batchelder know:

“It is our understanding that you have received a letter from MillerCoors … asking you to pass yet another piece of legislation which has the effect of favoring the business position of one competitor in a free and open market over the business position of another,” wrote Kevin Feehan, regional sales vice president.

“Now MillerCoors, presumably because its strategy isn’t working, asks you to change the rules and force Anheuser-Busch to sell a company it has operated successfully for 20 years in full compliance with Ohio law.

“For comparison, assume that Wendy’s, which doesn’t sell breakfast, found itself at a disadvantage to McDonald’s, which does. Surely the General Assembly would not agree to a request from Wendy’s to bar McDonald’s from selling breakfast.

“The buying and selling of distributorships is the natural movement and realignment of a vibrant, competitive marketplace. MillerCoors wants you to abandon a long-held principle that government has no business picking winners and loser in the private marketplace, and instead is asking you to put a heavy thumb on the scale in their favor to compensate for MillerCoors’ own business decisions.”

Feehan asked them to reject the plea from MillerCoors.

“While no doubt good for MillerCoors, it could not be worse for the principles of free enterprise and competition,” he concluded.

The Ohio Legislature already has decided what the beer market should look like in Ohio. In passing Sub. S.B. 48, they have insisted that large beer makers must use independent distributors to move their product to market. They have banned beer makers from having any type of ownership or financial interest in those distribution companies.

They have, basically, insisted on a middleman in order for Ohioans to get their larger brand beers.

Will they go the extra step to side with MillerCoors over Anheuser-Busch and pass emergency legislation that stops Anheuser-Busch from using their preferred model of delivery?

Only time will tell. H.B. 174 is pending before the House Commerce, Labor & Technology committee with sponsor testimony scheduled this week.