Date: 9/28/2008 4:03 PM
By DINESH RAMDE
Associated Press Staff Writer
WEST BEND, Wis. (AP) _ Pastor Luke Emrich prepared his sermon this week knowing his remarks could invite an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. But that was the whole point, so Emrich forged ahead with his message: Thou shalt vote according to the Scriptures.
“I’m telling you straight up, I would choose life,” Emrich told about 100 worshippers Sunday at New Life Church, a nondenominational evangelical congregation about 40 miles from Milwaukee.
“I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin,” he said. “But friends, it’s your choice to make, it’s not my choice. I won’t be in the voting booth with you.”
All told, 33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.
The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors’ sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics. Critics call it unnecessary, divisive and unlikely to succeed.
Congress amended the tax code in 1954 to state that certain nonprofit groups, including secular charities and places of worship, can lose their tax-exempt status for intervening in a campaign involving candidates.
Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” Thirty-three were chosen, in part for “strategic criteria related to litigation” Stanley wouldn’t discuss.
Pastor Jody Hice of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Ga., said in an interview Sunday that his sermon compared Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain on abortion and gay marriage and concluded that McCain “holds more to a biblical world view.”
He said he urged the Southern Baptist congregation to vote for McCain.
“The basic thrust was this was not a matter of endorsing, it’s a First Amendment issue,” Hice said. “To say the church can’t deal with moral and societal issues if it enters into the political arena is just wrong, it’s unconstitutional.”
At the independent Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla., pastor Paul Blair said he told his congregation, “As a Christian and as an American citizen, I will be voting for John McCain.”
“It’s absolutely vital to proclaim the truth and not be afraid to proclaim the truth from our pulpits,” Blair said in an interview.
Because the pastors were speaking in their official capacity as clergy, the sermons are clear violations of IRS rules, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University. But even if the IRS rises to the bait and a legal fight ensues, Tuttle said there’s “virtually no chance” courts will strike down the prohibition.
“The government is allowed, as long as it has a reasonable basis for doing it, to treat political and nonpolitical speech differently, and that’s essentially what it’s done here,” Tuttle said.
Not all the sermons came off as planned. Bishop Robert Smith Sr. of Word of Outreach Center in Little Rock said he had to postpone until next week because of a missed flight. Smith, a delegate to this month’s Republican National Convention, declined to say whom he would endorse.
Promotional materials for the initiative said each pastor would prepare the sermon with “legal assistance of the ADF to ensure maximum effectiveness in challenging the IRS.”
Stanley said the pastors alone wrote the sermons, with the framework that they be “a biblical evaluation of the candidates for office with a specific recommendation.” That could be a flat-out endorsement or opposition to one or both candidates, he said.
The legal group declined to release a list of participants in advance, citing concerns about potential disruptions at services. A list and excerpts from sermons will be made public early this week, with the delay necessary for lawyers to review the material, the group said.
Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voter guides, run nonpartisan voter registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly — a sometimes murky line.
The IRS said in a statement it is aware of Sunday’s initiative and “will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate.”
The agency has stepped up oversight of political activity in churches in recent years after receiving a flurry of complaints from the 2004 campaign. The IRS reported issuing written advisories against 42 churches for improper politically activity in 2004.
The ban on churches intervening in candidate campaigns survived a court challenge when a U.S. appellate court upheld the revocation of tax-exempt status of a New York church that took out a newspaper ad urging Christians to vote against Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election.
Opposition to Sunday’s sermon initiative was widespread. A United Church of Christ minister in Ohio rallied other religious leaders to file a complaint with the IRS. Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because “we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt.”
Three former IRS officials also asked the agency to investigate the initiative, questioning the ethics of lawyers asking ministers to break the law.
Two-thirds of adults oppose political endorsements from churches and other places of worship and 52 percent want them out of politics altogether, according to a survey last month from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
“It is good public policy that in exchange for the valuable privilege of a tax exemption, you cannot turn your church or charity into a political action committee,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Church and State, which intends to report the participating churches to the IRS, along with any other churches acting independently.
___
Associated Press writer Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock and AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Who will inherit your retirement account?
Date: 9/26/2008 5:32 PM
By DAVID PITT
AP Business Writer
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) _ Financial planners say it happens all too frequently: a person dies unexpectedly leaving ex-spouses or relatives they haven’t seen in years large chunks of money because they hadn’t updated their retirement plans or life insurance policies.
It’s a problem that you can try to head off at the pass this open enrollment season. But be aware that for most insurance and retirement accounts, changes can be made any time and do not require you to wait for your annual benefits selection.
It’s important to keep beneficiary designations current because a lot is at stake. Collectively, the amount of money held in retirement accounts in the United States is large and growing.
The Employee Benefit Research Institute said IRA assets grew 12.5 percent to $4.75 trillion in 2007.
Private-sector defined contribution plans including 401(k) accounts held $3.5 trillion, and private-sector defined benefit plans held $2.33 trillion in 2007.
Many people may believe that an updated will is sufficient to take care of any financial issues left behind, but that’s not the case, said Rande Spiegelman, vice president of financial planning at the Schwab Center for Financial Research, a division of Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.
Retirement plan assets and life insurance benefits generally go directly to the named beneficiaries, and those survivors likely will have their money before a will is processed in probate court.
Many people have multiple life insurance policies and retirement funds from different employers and forget to update beneficiaries. So, if you’ve divorced and your first wife is still the beneficiary on a life insurance policy, there could be a problem for other survivors who may be depending on the benefits.
“This is probably not one of those things that’s the top priority for most folks,” Spiegelman said.
He recommends reviewing beneficiary declarations on retirement accounts and insurance policies every two to three years. They also should be reviewed when major life changes occur such as a birth, death of a family member, a divorce or a move to another state.
Some advisers recommend an annual review to keep the policies and accounts as up-to-date as possible.
Accounts that may have beneficiary designations include individual retirement accounts — 401(k), 403(b), or 457. Self-employed accounts such as a Keogh or qualified retirement plan. Credit union plan accounts, disability insurance policies, life insurance policies and annuities also have beneficiary forms. Also think about beneficiaries for accounts at brokerages, he said.
As a practical matter, most married people will name their spouse as the primary beneficiary and their children as contingent beneficiaries if the primary isn’t still living.
Spouses have certain benefits when it comes to inheriting a retirement account. They can roll the money over into their own retirement account or keep it in a separate account and defer taking out any money until they turn 70½ — when they must take required minimum distributions. A spouse also has the option of taking the money out in distributions over his or her lifetime, taking advantage of the tax-deferred status of the account.
It’s important to note that federal law makes your spouse the default beneficiary on the retirement account through your employer such as a 401(k). Someone other than your spouse can be named the beneficiary only if you authorize it and your spouse signs a release form.
For unmarried people, parents, other family members, domestic partners or others close to them may be chosen as beneficiaries.
Failure to name beneficiaries means the money goes into your estate and becomes part of the probate process, which means the cash will be tied up in a court process and some of it will be lost to the expenses of the probate process.
Some people have made the mistake of naming their estate as the beneficiary, which again locks up the assets in court-managed probate.
In a few cases, an individual may want to name a trust as the beneficiary, which places the money in control of a trusted money manager. It’s an option if you believe the beneficiaries of your money may not have the skills to handle it.
Marvin Feldman, president and CEO of the Washington-based Life and Health Insurance Foundation for Education, a nonprofit group formed by insurance companies, said a trust might be important if you decide to leave the money to a minor child.
The trust would be named as the beneficiary of your money and the person you name to manage it, the trustee, would be responsible for distributing funds to your child in the way you establish in the trust documents.
Sometimes trustees are given some flexibility to make distribution decisions as needed but within parameters you establish.
Trusts may also be an option if you’re divorced with minor children and former spouse has custody of the children. A trust would ensure that the money you leave is used to support the child’s needs.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By DAVID PITT
AP Business Writer
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) _ Financial planners say it happens all too frequently: a person dies unexpectedly leaving ex-spouses or relatives they haven’t seen in years large chunks of money because they hadn’t updated their retirement plans or life insurance policies.
It’s a problem that you can try to head off at the pass this open enrollment season. But be aware that for most insurance and retirement accounts, changes can be made any time and do not require you to wait for your annual benefits selection.
It’s important to keep beneficiary designations current because a lot is at stake. Collectively, the amount of money held in retirement accounts in the United States is large and growing.
The Employee Benefit Research Institute said IRA assets grew 12.5 percent to $4.75 trillion in 2007.
Private-sector defined contribution plans including 401(k) accounts held $3.5 trillion, and private-sector defined benefit plans held $2.33 trillion in 2007.
Many people may believe that an updated will is sufficient to take care of any financial issues left behind, but that’s not the case, said Rande Spiegelman, vice president of financial planning at the Schwab Center for Financial Research, a division of Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.
Retirement plan assets and life insurance benefits generally go directly to the named beneficiaries, and those survivors likely will have their money before a will is processed in probate court.
Many people have multiple life insurance policies and retirement funds from different employers and forget to update beneficiaries. So, if you’ve divorced and your first wife is still the beneficiary on a life insurance policy, there could be a problem for other survivors who may be depending on the benefits.
“This is probably not one of those things that’s the top priority for most folks,” Spiegelman said.
He recommends reviewing beneficiary declarations on retirement accounts and insurance policies every two to three years. They also should be reviewed when major life changes occur such as a birth, death of a family member, a divorce or a move to another state.
Some advisers recommend an annual review to keep the policies and accounts as up-to-date as possible.
Accounts that may have beneficiary designations include individual retirement accounts — 401(k), 403(b), or 457. Self-employed accounts such as a Keogh or qualified retirement plan. Credit union plan accounts, disability insurance policies, life insurance policies and annuities also have beneficiary forms. Also think about beneficiaries for accounts at brokerages, he said.
As a practical matter, most married people will name their spouse as the primary beneficiary and their children as contingent beneficiaries if the primary isn’t still living.
Spouses have certain benefits when it comes to inheriting a retirement account. They can roll the money over into their own retirement account or keep it in a separate account and defer taking out any money until they turn 70½ — when they must take required minimum distributions. A spouse also has the option of taking the money out in distributions over his or her lifetime, taking advantage of the tax-deferred status of the account.
It’s important to note that federal law makes your spouse the default beneficiary on the retirement account through your employer such as a 401(k). Someone other than your spouse can be named the beneficiary only if you authorize it and your spouse signs a release form.
For unmarried people, parents, other family members, domestic partners or others close to them may be chosen as beneficiaries.
Failure to name beneficiaries means the money goes into your estate and becomes part of the probate process, which means the cash will be tied up in a court process and some of it will be lost to the expenses of the probate process.
Some people have made the mistake of naming their estate as the beneficiary, which again locks up the assets in court-managed probate.
In a few cases, an individual may want to name a trust as the beneficiary, which places the money in control of a trusted money manager. It’s an option if you believe the beneficiaries of your money may not have the skills to handle it.
Marvin Feldman, president and CEO of the Washington-based Life and Health Insurance Foundation for Education, a nonprofit group formed by insurance companies, said a trust might be important if you decide to leave the money to a minor child.
The trust would be named as the beneficiary of your money and the person you name to manage it, the trustee, would be responsible for distributing funds to your child in the way you establish in the trust documents.
Sometimes trustees are given some flexibility to make distribution decisions as needed but within parameters you establish.
Trusts may also be an option if you’re divorced with minor children and former spouse has custody of the children. A trust would ensure that the money you leave is used to support the child’s needs.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Court: Relatives who assist in suicide can inherit
Date: 9/25/2008 5:10 PM
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) _ The wife and daughter of a man who committed suicide can inherit his estate even if they assisted him in the act, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.
State law prohibits anyone who “intentionally kills” another from inheriting from the person, but Wisconsin’s District 4 Court of Appeals said that provision does not apply to those who assist in suicide.
“Providing (the man) with a loaded shotgun did not deprive him of his life: he deprived himself of life by shooting himself with the shotgun,” Judge Margaret Vergeront wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.
Wisconsin Right to Life, which opposes assisted suicide, said the ruling gives people a financial incentive to help relatives die prematurely.
“It’s a horrendous decision,” said Barbara Lyons, the group’s executive director.
“I think the implications are enormous,” she said.
Boston College law professor Ray Madoff, an expert on inheritance law, said she has never heard of a similar ruling in the nation.
“This is something that people have been curious about where the law would draw the line, and it’s interesting to actually have a case addressing it,” she said.
Edward Schunk, 63, shot himself in 2006 in a cabin on his property while he was terminally ill with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a form of cancer. He left an estate valued at nearly $500,000.
The court ruled in favor of his wife, Linda, and youngest child, Megan Schunk, now 20, who were granted most of the estate under Schunk’s will.
Schunk’s six older children received little or nothing, according to court records. Five of them challenged the will, arguing that Linda and Megan Schunk took Schunk to the cabin, gave him a loaded shotgun and left even though they knew he was suicidal.
The two acknowledged they took him home from the hospital on a one-day pass but denied assisting his death. They said he had told them he wanted to go turkey hunting.
For the purposes of deciding the dispute, the court assumed the other children’s allegations were true but still ruled in favor of the wife and younger daughter.
Under Wisconsin law, assisting in a suicide is punishable by up to six years in prison. Thursday’s ruling did not address that law, and no one has been charged in Schunk’s death.
Terry Moore, lawyer for Megan Schunk, called the case a “one-in-a-million situation” and said he doubted it would have broad impact. Lawyers for Schunk’s other children did not immediately return phone messages. They could ask the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review the case.
Boston College’s Madoff said courts often struggle with whether someone who kills another should be allowed to inherit their money, she said. It’s an easier question when dealing with murder but more difficult in instances such as drunken driving, self-defense against spousal abuse or assisted suicide, she said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) _ The wife and daughter of a man who committed suicide can inherit his estate even if they assisted him in the act, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.
State law prohibits anyone who “intentionally kills” another from inheriting from the person, but Wisconsin’s District 4 Court of Appeals said that provision does not apply to those who assist in suicide.
“Providing (the man) with a loaded shotgun did not deprive him of his life: he deprived himself of life by shooting himself with the shotgun,” Judge Margaret Vergeront wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.
Wisconsin Right to Life, which opposes assisted suicide, said the ruling gives people a financial incentive to help relatives die prematurely.
“It’s a horrendous decision,” said Barbara Lyons, the group’s executive director.
“I think the implications are enormous,” she said.
Boston College law professor Ray Madoff, an expert on inheritance law, said she has never heard of a similar ruling in the nation.
“This is something that people have been curious about where the law would draw the line, and it’s interesting to actually have a case addressing it,” she said.
Edward Schunk, 63, shot himself in 2006 in a cabin on his property while he was terminally ill with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a form of cancer. He left an estate valued at nearly $500,000.
The court ruled in favor of his wife, Linda, and youngest child, Megan Schunk, now 20, who were granted most of the estate under Schunk’s will.
Schunk’s six older children received little or nothing, according to court records. Five of them challenged the will, arguing that Linda and Megan Schunk took Schunk to the cabin, gave him a loaded shotgun and left even though they knew he was suicidal.
The two acknowledged they took him home from the hospital on a one-day pass but denied assisting his death. They said he had told them he wanted to go turkey hunting.
For the purposes of deciding the dispute, the court assumed the other children’s allegations were true but still ruled in favor of the wife and younger daughter.
Under Wisconsin law, assisting in a suicide is punishable by up to six years in prison. Thursday’s ruling did not address that law, and no one has been charged in Schunk’s death.
Terry Moore, lawyer for Megan Schunk, called the case a “one-in-a-million situation” and said he doubted it would have broad impact. Lawyers for Schunk’s other children did not immediately return phone messages. They could ask the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review the case.
Boston College’s Madoff said courts often struggle with whether someone who kills another should be allowed to inherit their money, she said. It’s an easier question when dealing with murder but more difficult in instances such as drunken driving, self-defense against spousal abuse or assisted suicide, she said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Wis. court: Cops illegally taped nursing home sex
Date: 9/11/2008 3:12 PM
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) _ Police who videotaped a man having sex with his comatose wife in her nursing home room violated his constitutional rights, an appeals court ruled Thursday.
David W. Johnson, 59, had an expectation to privacy when he visited his wife, a stroke victim, at Divine Savior Nursing Home in Portage, the District 4 Court of Appeals ruled. Therefore, police violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches when they installed a hidden video camera in the room, the court said.
“We are satisfied that Johnson’s expectation of privacy while visiting his wife in her nursing home room is one that society would recognize as reasonable,” the unanimous three-judge panel wrote.
The ruling means prosecutors cannot introduce the videotapes as evidence in their case against Johnson, who is charged with felony sexual assault for having intercourse with his wife without her consent at least three times in 2005.
Johnson’s attorney, Christopher Kelly, said his client would visit his now 54-year-old wife every day, reading her the Bible and moving her arms and legs so her muscles wouldn’t atrophy.
The woman’s sister is upset that prosecutors brought charges against him, Kelly said. “She believes her sister’s husband was merely expressing his love for his wife and was trying everything he could to bring her back to consciousness,” Kelly said.
The couple married in 1988 and had no children, Kelly said.
Kelly said he believed prosecutors would be forced to drop the charges without the evidence on the tapes and thought the appeals court made “a pretty obvious call.”
Johnson’s wife was admitted to the nursing home after suffering a stroke. Court records say she was unable to speak or sit up, and nursing home staff members fed, cleaned and turned her. Prosecutors say she was comatose.
Johnson visited her frequently and sometimes would close the door to her room so they could have privacy as allowed by the nursing home. But staff members tipped off police, fearing she was in danger because, they suspected, he was having sex with her.
Police obtained a search warrant to videotape the room and installed the camera, which ran for three weeks. Johnson, who is free on bail, was charged based on that evidence.
Sauk County Circuit Judge Patrick Taggart, who heard the Columbia County case as a substitute judge, tossed out the evidence last year, ruling it stemmed from an illegal search. Prosecutors appealed, arguing Johnson had a right to privacy when he visited his wife to care for her but not when he used the room for what they contend was illegal intercourse.
The appeals court affirmed Taggart’s ruling.
Department of Justice spokesman Bill Cosh said prosecutors are evaluating whether to ask the state Supreme Court to review the case.
Johnson’s wife remains in a coma at the nursing home.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) _ Police who videotaped a man having sex with his comatose wife in her nursing home room violated his constitutional rights, an appeals court ruled Thursday.
David W. Johnson, 59, had an expectation to privacy when he visited his wife, a stroke victim, at Divine Savior Nursing Home in Portage, the District 4 Court of Appeals ruled. Therefore, police violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches when they installed a hidden video camera in the room, the court said.
“We are satisfied that Johnson’s expectation of privacy while visiting his wife in her nursing home room is one that society would recognize as reasonable,” the unanimous three-judge panel wrote.
The ruling means prosecutors cannot introduce the videotapes as evidence in their case against Johnson, who is charged with felony sexual assault for having intercourse with his wife without her consent at least three times in 2005.
Johnson’s attorney, Christopher Kelly, said his client would visit his now 54-year-old wife every day, reading her the Bible and moving her arms and legs so her muscles wouldn’t atrophy.
The woman’s sister is upset that prosecutors brought charges against him, Kelly said. “She believes her sister’s husband was merely expressing his love for his wife and was trying everything he could to bring her back to consciousness,” Kelly said.
The couple married in 1988 and had no children, Kelly said.
Kelly said he believed prosecutors would be forced to drop the charges without the evidence on the tapes and thought the appeals court made “a pretty obvious call.”
Johnson’s wife was admitted to the nursing home after suffering a stroke. Court records say she was unable to speak or sit up, and nursing home staff members fed, cleaned and turned her. Prosecutors say she was comatose.
Johnson visited her frequently and sometimes would close the door to her room so they could have privacy as allowed by the nursing home. But staff members tipped off police, fearing she was in danger because, they suspected, he was having sex with her.
Police obtained a search warrant to videotape the room and installed the camera, which ran for three weeks. Johnson, who is free on bail, was charged based on that evidence.
Sauk County Circuit Judge Patrick Taggart, who heard the Columbia County case as a substitute judge, tossed out the evidence last year, ruling it stemmed from an illegal search. Prosecutors appealed, arguing Johnson had a right to privacy when he visited his wife to care for her but not when he used the room for what they contend was illegal intercourse.
The appeals court affirmed Taggart’s ruling.
Department of Justice spokesman Bill Cosh said prosecutors are evaluating whether to ask the state Supreme Court to review the case.
Johnson’s wife remains in a coma at the nursing home.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
States ask MillerCoors to pull energy drink
Date: 9/17/2008 3:53 PM
By EMILY FREDRIX
AP Business Writer
MILWAUKEE (AP) _ Twenty-five states asked beverage maker MillerCoors LLC on Wednesday to abandon plans for a new caffeine-infused alcoholic energy drink.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in a statement that the Sparks Red drink is a “recipe for disaster” because adding caffeine to alcoholic beverages reduces drinkers’ sense of intoxication.
Blumenthal, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and the other attorneys general say young drinkers are especially vulnerable because of their limited judgment and risky behaviors in driving and other activities. They urged MillerCoors to abandon plans for the product and said they would consider other steps — hinting at a potential lawsuit — if necessary.
MillerCoors spokesman Julian Green said the company still plans to release the drink on Oct. 1. He said the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, or TTB, has approved all formulas and labeling for Sparks.
“We will continue to work with the TTB to insure that marketing, labeling and formulation continues to meet all guidelines,” he said.
The company said it was reviewing the letter and looked forward to talking with the attorneys general about it.
Attorneys general and advocacy groups have long been targeting MillerCoors, a joint venture between SABMiller’s U.S. unit and Molson Coors Brewing Co., and the nation’s largest brewer, Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc., in connection with the making and marketing of such drinks. They say these drinks are targeting teenagers and young drinkers who are already drawn to highly caffeinated drinks like Red Bull.
Last week the Center for Science in the Public Interest said it sued MillerCoors to stop the brewer from selling Sparks, saying it’s going after teenagers with the drink.
On Wednesday, the latest group, which also includes California, Ohio, Illinois and Vermont, sent MillerCoors Chief Executive Leo Kiely a letter asking the brewer to stop its plans for Sparks Red.
“MillerCoors’ decision to introduce Sparks Red defies increasing undeniable evidence from medical and public health professionals about the dangers of mixing alcohol with stimulants found in energy drinks,” the letter said.
In announcing its lawsuit last week, the CSPI cited a 2007 study that found that drinkers of caffeinated alcoholic drinks are more likely to binge drink and ride with an intoxicated driver, among other dangers.
The 25 attorneys general said the new drink will contain as much as 8 percent alcohol by volume, and noted that was higher than other alcoholic energy drinks. According to MillerCoors’ Web site, current versions of Sparks have between 6 percent and 7 percent alcohol by volume. By comparison, MillerCoors’ beers Miller High Life and Coors contain just under 5 percent alcohol by volume, according to the site.
The CSPI’s lawsuit asks the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to stop MillerCoors from selling the drink. It said it is illegal to use caffeine, guarana, ginseng and taurine in alcoholic beverages. All of those ingredients are in Sparks, MillerCoors spokesman Pete Marino said, adding that he believed they were all in Sparks Red as well.
CSPI said the Food and Drug Administration has given “only very narrow approval” for caffeine and guarana — with no allowance for alcoholic drinks — and no approval for ginseng in any food or beverage. Taurine, which is often found in energy drinks, is a derivative of an amino acid.
St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch said in June it would reformulate its brands “Tilt” and “Bud Extra” to remove the stimulants they contain as part of a settlement with 11 attorneys general.
In February the attorneys general subpoenaed documents from Anheuser-Busch related to its marketing efforts for the alcoholic energy drinks. Anheuser-Busch also agreed to pay $200,000 to the states that investigated its practices.
Anheuser-Busch strongly disputed the allegation that its marketing for the caffeinated alcoholic drinks targets those under the legal drinking age.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By EMILY FREDRIX
AP Business Writer
MILWAUKEE (AP) _ Twenty-five states asked beverage maker MillerCoors LLC on Wednesday to abandon plans for a new caffeine-infused alcoholic energy drink.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in a statement that the Sparks Red drink is a “recipe for disaster” because adding caffeine to alcoholic beverages reduces drinkers’ sense of intoxication.
Blumenthal, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and the other attorneys general say young drinkers are especially vulnerable because of their limited judgment and risky behaviors in driving and other activities. They urged MillerCoors to abandon plans for the product and said they would consider other steps — hinting at a potential lawsuit — if necessary.
MillerCoors spokesman Julian Green said the company still plans to release the drink on Oct. 1. He said the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, or TTB, has approved all formulas and labeling for Sparks.
“We will continue to work with the TTB to insure that marketing, labeling and formulation continues to meet all guidelines,” he said.
The company said it was reviewing the letter and looked forward to talking with the attorneys general about it.
Attorneys general and advocacy groups have long been targeting MillerCoors, a joint venture between SABMiller’s U.S. unit and Molson Coors Brewing Co., and the nation’s largest brewer, Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc., in connection with the making and marketing of such drinks. They say these drinks are targeting teenagers and young drinkers who are already drawn to highly caffeinated drinks like Red Bull.
Last week the Center for Science in the Public Interest said it sued MillerCoors to stop the brewer from selling Sparks, saying it’s going after teenagers with the drink.
On Wednesday, the latest group, which also includes California, Ohio, Illinois and Vermont, sent MillerCoors Chief Executive Leo Kiely a letter asking the brewer to stop its plans for Sparks Red.
“MillerCoors’ decision to introduce Sparks Red defies increasing undeniable evidence from medical and public health professionals about the dangers of mixing alcohol with stimulants found in energy drinks,” the letter said.
In announcing its lawsuit last week, the CSPI cited a 2007 study that found that drinkers of caffeinated alcoholic drinks are more likely to binge drink and ride with an intoxicated driver, among other dangers.
The 25 attorneys general said the new drink will contain as much as 8 percent alcohol by volume, and noted that was higher than other alcoholic energy drinks. According to MillerCoors’ Web site, current versions of Sparks have between 6 percent and 7 percent alcohol by volume. By comparison, MillerCoors’ beers Miller High Life and Coors contain just under 5 percent alcohol by volume, according to the site.
The CSPI’s lawsuit asks the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to stop MillerCoors from selling the drink. It said it is illegal to use caffeine, guarana, ginseng and taurine in alcoholic beverages. All of those ingredients are in Sparks, MillerCoors spokesman Pete Marino said, adding that he believed they were all in Sparks Red as well.
CSPI said the Food and Drug Administration has given “only very narrow approval” for caffeine and guarana — with no allowance for alcoholic drinks — and no approval for ginseng in any food or beverage. Taurine, which is often found in energy drinks, is a derivative of an amino acid.
St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch said in June it would reformulate its brands “Tilt” and “Bud Extra” to remove the stimulants they contain as part of a settlement with 11 attorneys general.
In February the attorneys general subpoenaed documents from Anheuser-Busch related to its marketing efforts for the alcoholic energy drinks. Anheuser-Busch also agreed to pay $200,000 to the states that investigated its practices.
Anheuser-Busch strongly disputed the allegation that its marketing for the caffeinated alcoholic drinks targets those under the legal drinking age.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.