It seems this beauty queen is beginning to lose her power over the judges.

Eric Peterson, chief of staff for Sen. Lena Taylor, D-Milwaukee, has spent months helping craft legislation to combat drunken driving and believes the Tavern League’s populist appeal may be waning.

According to Peterson, the Tavern League is losing clout.

“It’s a shift in cultural understanding that it’s not just something that needs to be done on the personal level,” he says. “Stopping the bad things that happen because of smoking … and tragedies that happen from drunk driving are … things we all can do as a collective, as a society.”

Peterson is right if proposed laws are any reflection of societal values. Already in this legislative session, a statewide smoking ban has been signed into law and a slew of bills have been proposed to stiffen penalties for people who drive drunk.

The public’s concern over drunken driving has been ramped up in recent years. Wisconsin is one of the most lenient states when it comes to this issue and has one of the country’s highest DUI-related fatality rates to match, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.

“There’s certainly been a constant drumbeat of news talking about … fatal accidents and terrible tragedies,” says Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison. “The people who are concerned about [drunken driving] have gotten organized … and started speaking out, and that makes a big difference.”

Of the proposed bills relating to the treatment and enforcement of drunken driving, two include raising taxes on alcohol. One bill even suggests raising the tax on beer, something that has not been done since 1969.

Jauch believes the Tavern League must be cautious in their stance on drunken driving reform. Their reputation has already suffered from the prolonged fight they put up over the smoking ban and any more damage could leave the beauty queen’s dress threadbare.

“I think their organization looked out of touch. Their position [on the smoking ban] was unrealistic. They were in denial of reality,” Jauch says. “[The Tavern League] has to be very careful. If they come out appearing to oppose drunk driving bills, then they are in some real trouble. So they have to walk a fine line as an organization.”

Officially, the Tavern League believes laws need to be stricter for people who repeatedly drive drunk – just as long as the alcohol industry doesn’t have to foot the bill. So far this year, the Tavern League has only opposed drunken driving legislation that involves raising taxes on alcohol to fund stricter laws. According to the Tavern League, any rise in alcohol tax would inevitably lead to job loss.

“Good public policy is often times at odds with many in the business community,” Stenger says. “There are very few drunk driving bills we don’t support. … But thinking you can raise the tax and it would fix drunk driving is flawed.”

Some question the seriousness of the Tavern League when they say they support tougher laws.

“In their heart of hearts, they’d sooner rather not have stricter laws,” Black says. “But public opinion is overwhelming. Like an army they have to fall back to a more defensible position.”

Regardless of the Tavern League’s attitude toward cracking down on drunken driving, the biggest roadblock remains how to fund tougher laws that will put a greater burden on the state’s judicial system. While lawmakers have begun to line up on the side of taxing alcohol, it would be foolish to expect the same from the Tavern League.

Reforming drunken driving laws may not keep taverns full and beer flowing, but it would help keep our roads safe. After all, patrons would hopefully drink a lot less if a drunken driving arrest meant prison time rather than a traffic ticket.

While the Tavern League may recognize the serious nature of Wisconsin’s drunken driving habit, they are not going to willingly combat it on their dime. At the end of the day, the Tavern League is made up of business owners who are concerned about dollars and cents. Stenger says it best himself: the best interest of the public is usually in conflict with the best interest of the business owner.

It would seem when you get past all the sparkles and make-up, our beauty queen is like any other person: looking after her best interests first. After all her years on top, people are starting to question her authority. Is she still relevant and worth the vote?