Both my niece and a friend alerted me of a serious error in describing Question 3 as being sponsored by supermarket chains. In fact, Question 3 is being sponsored by package store chains. My friend forwarded a link to the whole shaggy dog story of the sponsorship of this referendum by the Massachusetts Package Store Association:
https://www.marketwatchmag.com/independents-under-siege/
She also forwarded an op-ed in the Boston Globe by Michael Weiner, owner of Sav-Mor Spirits in Natick, comparing package stores to David and the supermarkets to Goliath.
Weiner was somewhat disingenuous in writing "I've concluded that a yes vote is the best choice." According to OCPF records, another Weiner who, like the letter-writer is also the owner of Sav-Mor, heads up the "21st Century Alcohol Retail Reform Committee" which sponsored Question 3.
What has made this ballot question particularly challenging is that it's one group of retailers jockying for advantage against another. Package stores versus retailers. David versus Goliath? Hmm. Neither side has provided a completely honest accounting of the issues.
The one committee listed with the OCPF as an opponent of Question 3 is headed by Louis A. Rizoli, a state house lobbyist who is also leading the opposition to Question 2.
Rizoli's filing in behalf of Big Dental and Big Insurance suggests that, if he's on the wrong side of Question 2, he's also on the wrong side of Question 3. His committee's name, "Food Stores for Consumer Choice," confirms that I had it backwards — that the NO people are the supermarket chains.
And to top it all off, the rightwing Mass Fiscal Alliance opposes Question 3.
So I was wrong. I was really wrong.
You will find an excellent summary of what is known of the proposed legislation here:
So vote YES down the line on all the referendum questions.
YES YES YES YES
And I’m really sorry to have misled anyone.