Over 20 years ago, economist and FTC director Bruce Yandle wrote an influential column on the origins of social regulation. The theory of “Bootleggers and Baptists” contends that legislative regulation of “sin” (e.g., alcohol, tobacco) requires both a vocal “moral” voice (the Baptists) and a quiet though politically powerful lobby that profits from the regulation:
“Baptists” point to the moral high ground and give vital and vocal endorsement of laudable public benefits promised by a desired regulation. Baptists flourish when their moral message forms a visible foundation for political action. “Bootleggers” are much less visible but no less vital. Bootleggers, who expect to profit from the very regulatory restrictions desired by Baptists, grease the political machinery with some of their expected proceeds. They are simply in it for the money.
Here in Tennessee we have some of the most draconian laws protecting the liquor wholesalers. We also have no shortage of legislators who speak in moral absolutes. Of course, the “Baptist” is the protagonist in this story, since he purports to represent moral ideology and social welfare, rather than cynical greed.
Or does he?
Of the 32 members currently serving in the Tennessee State Senate, seven find their religious affiliation with Baptism sufficiently important to list on their short State Senate biography. While Baptist conventions continue their internal debate on the merits of total abstinence from alcohol, there is apparently no debate on whether one ought to practice, legislatively, what one preaches.
A quick perusal of campaign finance records indicates that all seven members have received political donations from the beer and spirits lobby since 2000. Particularly:
- Jerry Cooper (D-14) received $8,000 in the last two election cycles.
- Steve Southerland (R-1) received $4250 in 2006
- Lowe Finney (D-27) received $4000 in 2006
- Jamie Woodson (R-6) received $4000 in her last election
- Tommy Kilby (D-12) received $1000
- Dewayne Bunch (R-9) in 2004
- Mike Williams(I-4) in 2000
The “Baptist” in Yandle’s theory is not meant to be literal, but merely a proxy for the voice of morality. However, other self-professed voices of moderation would likely yield similar results.
Anyone want to guess how many of these names also profited from tobacco lobbyists’ efforts?
Is this where we start a long list of jokes about Baptists and alcohol?
Hmmm… I smell hypocrisy.
Why do you always take two Baptists with you when you go fishing? Because if you only bring one, he’ll drink all your beer.
[...] the religious blue laws. Of course, like most legislation that comes under the banner of morality, someone is sneering and profiteering. Opposed to the legislation is the Connecticut association of liquor stores. Head cynic cretin [...]