Whether you prefer your wine red or white, your spirits on the rocks or your beer frosty cold, chances are your bartender is pouring a drink infused with politics.

Many of the most recognizable brands lining store shelves are made by companies that contribute heavily to federal-level politics, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of campaign finance data. And many are ensuring the cup of only one party overfloweth.

The Democratic Party has received a windfall from major wine producers during recent years, including some notable brands in California.

Among the top five alcohol-related political contributors during the 2010 election cycle, no one donated a greater percentage of cash to Democrats than E. & J. Gallo Winery, the Center finds. Individuals connected to the massive Sonoma County winery, famous for such brands as Gallo and Turning Leaf, uncorked more than $256,700 in the 2010 election cycle, a full 93 percent of which went to Democratic candidates or party committees. Gallo winery employees are also notably the top donor to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over her career.

Democrats can in large part thank the Gallo family itself for the lift. Individuals from the family, which has owned the company since the 1940s, have given $1.58 million to Democratic candidates during the past two decades. The top donor from the family is the company’s current president and chief executive, Joseph Gallo, the son of co-founder Ernest Gallo. Joseph Gallo has contributed nearly $400,000 of the family’s total.

Through their employees and political action committees, other notable California wineries such as Puma Springs Vineyards, Hall Winery, Sutter Home and even the Wine Institute , an advocacy group representing California vineyards, have all contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic interests in recent years.

Like Gallo, these vineyards are primarily represented in the campaign finance arena by their moneyed owners — men and women such as Puma Springs Vineyards owner Barbara Grasseschi, who has contributed more than $120,000 to Democratic interests during the past decade.

Republicans, for their part, have some support from wineries, as well. Most notable is perhaps Jackson Family Enterprises, which makes the famed Kendall Jackson brand. Individuals associated with the company donated $107,000 — 83 percent of their 2010 election cycle total — to Republican-led interests.

But when it comes to quenching their thirst and the campaign trail, the GOP has had better luck from the tap.

In particular, Molson Coors Brewing, which oversees the Molson and Coors beer brands has deep connections to the Republican Party. Of the more than $1.73 million the company has contributed to federal-level candidates and campaigns, 80 percent, or about $1.4 million, has benefited the Republican Party since the 1990 election cycle. For the GOP, it’s the brothers Coors, and in particular Pete Coors , the current chairman of the board for Molson Coors, that have their hand on the tap. During the past two decades, the brothers have combed to contribute about $309,500 to the Republican Party. About $290,000 of that amount came from Pete Coors, who once ran for U.S. Senate in Colorado as the GOP nominee, but lost to Democrat Ken Salazar in 2004. Left-leaning Constellation Brands, which owns such notable libations as Sveda vodka and Corona beer, is another top political contributor. Employees affiliated with the company joined the company’s PAC to contribute about $197,500 to federal-level candidates and parties during the 2010 cycle, with 69 percent going to Democrats.

But sometimes an alcohol company’s partisan preference isn’t easy to discern.

Anheuser-Busch InBev is the multinational corporation that lays claim to the Budweiser, Becks, Stella Artois, Michelob, Labatt and Natural Light beer franchises. It’s also the all-time producer of alcohol-related cash in the beer, wine and liquor industry, and the company has given fairly evenly to Democrats and Republicans during the past two decades . The company’s strongest Republican years were between the 1998 election cycle and the 2006 election cycle, when the company’s giving ranged between 51 percent to 62 percent. The company has since veered toward Democrats, giving 55 and then 60 percent of contributions to the party during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles.

And then there’s Brown-Forman Corp ., which owns two popular brands in Jack Daniels whiskey and Southern Comfort liqueur. The Louisville, Ky.-based company with operations throughout Appalachia has contributed slightly more to Democrats in recent years, but a wider look at the company’s giving shows it has actually preferred Republicans in the long run. Sixty-seven percent of the company’s PAC and employee-related contributions have supported federal-level Republican causes — about $3.04 million since the 1990 election cycle.

Phil Lynch, vice president of corporate communications and public relations of Brown-Forman, says there is no partisan bent to his company’s political action committee giving — just a focus on influencing topics that affect the alcohol industry.

OpenSecrets Blog. “We base our contributions not on whether the politician is a Democrat or a Republican or an independent, but on where they stand on our issues,” he told

Lynch argues that the alcohol industry is highly regulated and heavily taxed by the federal government, and that Brown-Forman wants to make sure that “if new regulations are proposed, [it] can present [its] case.” And to that degree, the company focuses its giving on politicians in states such as Kentucky or Tennessee, where it’s based, and on the chairmen of influential congressional committees.

Julian Green, director of media relations for MillerCoors Brewing, agrees. He says his company contributes to members of Congress in an attempt to educate them on important issues facing the company.

OpenSecrets Blog. “We feel the need to educate elected officials on our business and on our industry. Why? Because we provide a significant economic impact [in districts] where they serve.” “Our giving is very balanced, very bipartisan,” Green told. “We feel the need to educate elected officials on our business and on our industry. Why? Because we provide a significant economic impact [in districts] where they serve.”

Contribution records by Brown-Forman’s PAC certainly confirm that trend: nine of the company’s top ten congressional recipients in the 2010 election cycle hailed from either Kentucky or Tennessee.

And indeed, it’s a pattern that stays consistent across the beer, wine and liquor industry.

The top, currently serving congressional recipient for alcohol-related campaign cash is Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.). Representing California’s 1st District , Thompson’s jurisdiction includes parts of Napa and Sonoma Counties, the home to much of California’s lush wine country. It’s also home to many of the wine producers heavily favoring Democrats.

During the 2010 election cycle, three of the top five contributors to Thompson’s campaign committee were Gallo Winery, Sutter Home Winery and the Wine Institute . The long-serving Democrat collected nearly $50,500 from PACs and individuals associated with those three groups.

In a statement to OpenSecrets Blog , Thompson’s office said that the congressman represents the “heart and soul of California’s wine industry,” and is proud to do his part to help the industry succeed.

“Any support he receives is secondary to his primary goal of creating new jobs for the wine community in his district,” the statement read.

Though major producers are currently dominating in the arena of political influence, smaller craft or micro-breweries are also starting to leave a mark.

The micro-brewing movement has grown significantly during the past two decades as Americans have increasingly sought out more carefully crafted alternatives to some of the major beer brands. Democrats might be pleased at the trend.

Such efforts are led by the Boston Beer Company, maker of Massachusetts staple Sam Adams beer and the largest craft beer brewery operating in the United States. Employees and individuals associated with the company contributed nearly $32,000 to federal-level political candidates and committees during the 2010 election cycle. Every penny went to Democratic interests.

Colorado’s New Belgium brewery is another craft brewery finding its political footing — and it is also leaning left. Individuals associated with the company contributed about $12,000 — 98 percent of its total — to Democratic interest during the 2010 election cycle.

Despite the growth in the industry, craft brewing is still taking its time adjusting to the political scene in Washington, says Bob Pease, chief operating officer for the Brewers Association , the industry’s trade association, which represents more than 1,700 small breweries in the United States.

Unlike some of the other major beer producers operating, the association has no plans to create a PAC, Pease says. That’s partially because they don’t feel challenged by the major producers, and because they prefer to send the members of their group to Washington to meet with lawmakers in person.

“The Brewers Association has numbers,” Pease says. “While we don’t have the fiscal resources that the large suppliers have … we have the ability to bring small brewery owners, Main Street businesses to Washington, D.C.”

Below is a table showing how the people and PACs associated with the top 10 alcohol producers contributed during the 2010 election cycle to federal-level candidates, party committees and independent political groups:

Note: A joint business venture between SABMiller and Molson Coors, known as MillerCoors, sponsors its own political action committee . Donations made from this political action committee are counted toward SABMiller’s totals.





* Partisan totals for Lemelson Vineyards include major donations to independent outside spending groups and therefore do not add up to 100 percent.





Center for Responsive Politics senior researcher Douglas Weber and research intern Gary Wong contributed to this report.



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]

·

·

·

·

·

Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust. Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜

Read more OpenSecrets News & Analysis: