Intelligent people can have a reasonable debate about how restrictive the Washington State Liquor Control Board should be in regulating alcohol, from the hours it's sold to the locations you can buy it. And watching the deluge of TV ads this fall, you may think that's exactly the debate you're witnessing over Initiative 1183, which would break the state's grip on retail liquor sales and allow private stores to sell liquor. But it's not.

The pro side argues that state-run liquor stores operate at odd hours and are a prohibition-­era throwback that inconvenience consumers. It's time to modernize, their bonanza of TV ads will almost certainly say. The con campaign contends that allowing private stores to sell liquor would open the floodgates of underage binge drinking and drunk driving.

"Alcohol kills more kids than any other drug," warns dour-looking Cowlitz County sheriff Mark Nelson in a September 8 television ad. "Problem drinking could increase by as much as 48 percent."

But the debate this fall isn't really about convenience or safety or the extent of the government's hand in regulating agricultural commodities. It appears to be strictly about corporate profits, no matter how much money each side spends trying to convince us otherwise.

The two sides have raised more than $5 million each, according to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, more than three times the amount of all the other statewide campaigns this year combined. And more than 94 percent of that money comes from just two opposing donors.

The initiative is backed by Seattle-based Costco, which donated $1 million on September 15, bringing its total contributions to $4.9 million. Under the banner of the Yes on 1183 Coalition (a "coalition" that includes additional funding only from Trader Joe's and Safeway), Costco's initiative would permit hard liquor sales only in stores over 10,000 square feet. In other words, liquor would be sold only in large grocery chains. These companies could also produce and sell their own generic liquor—as Costco has done in California under the Kirkland brand—which would encroach on the existing liquor market.

Which brings us to the opposing side trying to protect its market share—the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA), whose membership includes the world's top liquor brands. It's contributed $5.8 million to Protect Our Communities, the campaign opposing I-1183, ironically by arguing that liquor is dangerous.

That's funny rhetoric for a liquor trade group whose two primary associate members are liquor giants Patrón Spirits and Pernod Ricard, which generated $7 billion in annual revenue last year. Also ironically, their campaign claims to oppose the "corporate profits" of retailers like Costco, according to the campaign's website, even though WSWA is also driven by "corporate profits."

Not that either side is more wrong or right—that's not the point of this article. Despite their arguments, privatizing liquor only for retail giants is of little convenience to consumers, and the concern that alcohol is dangerous is clearly dishonest coming from the liquor industry. But it's not about us, the voters. It's about them, the companies with a stake in this.