When legislators drink, who picks up the tab?
getty
In many offices, wine at work would get you a call from HR. But in France’s National Assembly, it’s been routine for over a century. The chamber’s marble halls boast the Palais Bourbon’s bar. Once a place to savor a glass of red, it is now at the center of a political argument.
What’s Happening
Emmanuel Duplessy, a young member of Parliament (MP) from the leftist Génération.s party (also known as M1717), recently released a report that included a modest proposal: End alcohol sales inside the National Assembly.
The report, part of the “Public Powers” budget mission, encourages the banning of wine and spirit sales at the Palais Bourbon’s bar (which is reserved for legislators) and seeks to ban deputies from claiming alcohol through their expense allowances. The reasoning is simple. Alcohol, says Duplessy, is banned in most French workplaces. Why should lawmakers be different, especially when the public foots the bill?
The Price of Privilege
Currently, legislators don’t have restrictions on drinking on the taxpayer’s dime—or at work. France’s current system allows deputies a monthly allowance of €5,900 ($6,798 US) for expenses, including meals and entertainment (this is separate from their salary). Little is required in the way of receipts and allowances, including for alcohol.
And the Palais Bourbon’s bar has long attracted those who might want to have a drink with colleagues and other connections. While the bar isn’t open to the public, it extends a welcome beyond current MPs—the bar is also open to ministers, staff, and former MPs.
Drinks at the bar aren’t free, but the prices are considered cheap compared to other bars and restaurants in Paris (and, again, there’s a generous allowance for MPs). That’s because the catering services inside the National Assembly are effectively subsidized by public funds—they do not pay commercial rent or taxes. Duplessy notes that sales of alcoholic drinks at the buvette generated less than 100,000 euros last year.
That, Duplessy indicates, isn’t okay. He believes that deputies should not enjoy perks that ordinary workers can’t, including subsidized drinks in spaces that taxpayers can’t patronize.
His proposal wouldn’t just ban alcohol sales at the Palais Bourbon bar. He also wants to end government reimbursements for alcoholic beverages.
“It’s not a moral crusade,” Duplessy told the French newspaper, Le Monde. “It’s about equality and image.”
Elsewhere
France is a little bit of an outlier when it comes to allowing booze on the taxpayer’s dime.
In Britain, the House of Commons still runs several bars, but MPs can’t expense alcohol. The catering department publishes annual figures showing that after accounting for sales, taxpayers still cover some of the net operating costs. The same happens in the House of Lords, where the sometimes outrageous expenses have become regular fodder in the press. (In March 2025, The Guardian reported that 15 members of the House of Lords who did not say a word in the chamber, sit on a committee, or hold any government post during the last parliament, claimed more than £500,000, or $652,475 US, in allowances between them.)
In Berlin, the Bundestag’s rooftop restaurant is run by a commercial caterer that serves the public and MPs alike. If a German lawmaker wants a Riesling, it’s on their own, er, euro.
(GERMANY OUT) Restaurant Feinkost Kaefer, Deutscher Bundestag in Berlin (Photo by Buddy Bartelsen/ullstein bild via Getty Images)
ullstein bild via Getty Images
And in Washington, members of Congress also pay out of pocket: their official allowances explicitly forbid spending federal money on booze.
Each member of the House of Representatives receives a Members’ Representational Allowance (MRA) to defray the costs of official and representational duties in their district. Those funds are not intended to be used for anything “primarily social in nature.” The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the House Administration Committee have reinforced that alcoholic beverages, even when consumed with meals, are not reimbursable. That means lawmakers can pay for their own drinks, but they cannot bill taxpayers for them. The quarterly Statement of Disbursements makes all House spending public, meaning that any alcohol expenses could be scrutinized.
(Members of the House may serve drinks at dinners and parties they may host as part of their official duties on the taxpayer’s dime.)
In the Senate, the same principle generally applies, though the rules are a bit more flexible. The Senate Ethics Committee allows alcohol to be covered if it is part of a meal or reception that serves a clearly defined official purpose and includes participants from outside Congress. The regulation is mostly aimed at privately sponsored trips or diplomatic receptions, not routine hospitality. Even then, the rules emphasize that alcohol should be incidental, not the focus, and that expenses must be disclosed on official travel forms.
Additionally, there are no on-site bars subsidized by taxpayers at the Capitol. If a member of Congress wants a drink, it’s strictly on their dime.
(Not a legislator? In the U.S., taxpayers can’t deduct alcohol as a personal expense like a non-business related lunch, but alcohol can be deducted as a part of a business meal, marketing or promotional event, or an employee event, like a holiday party.)
What’s Next
For now, nothing is settled. The Duplessy report is a recommendation, not a law. Implementing it would mean rewriting the Assembly’s internal rules and adjusting deputies’ expense regulations. Some MPs already grumble that, amid budget shortfalls and other issues, focusing on a glass of wine is absurd.
Still, symbolism has a long shelf life in French politics. When the National Assembly banned smoking in restaurants, bars, and public buildings, many said it would never stick. It did.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2025/12/05/from-the-buvette-to-the-beltway-who-pays-for-government-booze/
