Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Citizens Outspending Cops 5:1 in Prop 19
Legalization David Downs — Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:52 AM
Hundreds of California citizens allied with the state's booming medical cannabis industry outspent law enforcement establishment by a ratio of five to one during ongoing efforts to roll back at the ballot box 80 years of pot prohibition in the now-broke Golden State.
Campaign finance reports released Monday show Tax Cannabis 2010 received $176,430 in monetary contributions from this period, which covers April 1 to June 30, 2010, and also received $37,609 in non-monetary contributions for a total of $214,040. The drug law reform group has an ending cash balance of $61,933 after expenditures.
Oakland businessperson Richard Lee's Oaksterdam college chipped in at least $40,000 during the reporting period and total overall contributions from the cannabis school now total $1.46 million. Medical cannabis groups like Berkeley Patients Group and delivery service The CannyBus have donated funds. Jeff Wilcox and his marijuana cultivation corporation AgraMed, who pushed for cultivation permits in Oakland, donated to Prop 19 as well as councilmember Nancy Nadel, who gave $125. NORML's Dale Gieringer gave more than $10,000, while Men's Warehouse's George Zimmer added another $500 to his total contributions of $20,500.
The large volume of contributions came from hundreds of regular citizens across the state and country who are employed as teachers and engineers. One Stinson Beach, CA. resident listed his occupation as "alchemist".
Among Prop 19 expenditures, a large amount went to polling research. The federal government is collecting taxes on Tax Cannabis 2010's payroll, creating a situation where the government is in a way using tax profits to prosecute the people paying them. Around $1,400 went to Facebook and roughly $5,000 went to Google Adwords — part of Prop 19's ongoing digital campaign.
California's official law enforcement opposition to Prop 19, known as Public Safety First reported about $61,000 in contributions with just one citizen donor. The largest contributors: the California Police Chiefs Association, who gave $30,000 and the California Narcotics Officer's Association, who gave $20,000. Public Safety First's largest expenditure to date has gone to campaign consultants the Wayne Johnson Agency in Sacramento. They have about $18,000 cash on hand. A RAND Corporation study showed California would spend roughly $300 million less on law enforcement and incarceration if it stopped arresting 60,000 Californians for pot each year.
As previously reported, about $100,000 in new funds supporting Prop 19 has come from an East Coast libertarian who formed the Drug Policy Alliance Network Committee to Tax and Regulate Marijuana.
All other groups supporting and opposing Prop 19 did not e-file campaign finance reports, indicating negligible funds.
Prop 19 originator Lee has said it could take $10 million to wage an advertising campaign on behalf of the measure, which is polling at roughly 50-50. He recently told AlterNet fundraising for the campaign was "off-track", and that a one-on-one grass roots campaign would replace costly ad buys. For context, gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has reportedly spent over $100 million trying to defeat opponent Jerry Brown, much of it on costly TV advertising.
Comments (6)
Showing 1-6 of 6
Prop. 19 DOES have a chance. Polls report EITHER 50% or 60% of the voting CA public (2 polls, 2 results) will vote in favor of Prop. 19.
Could it be that Californians are smart, know the facts about marijuana, know that we've been lied to for decades, and are STILL being lied to, by the "authorities," are SICK of being inundated with simplistic, dishonest propaganda, and so will vote YES on Prop. 19, to help end the madness, at long last?
I think so, and I hope so.
like
dislike
zOregon Cannabis Tax and California Proposition 19 - two birrds, OnE STONE!
Jason G. Gibson
P.A.N Agent 67
www.gorgewellness.org
Here's why federal involvement in the anti-Prop 19 campaign -- activity which does not get reported to any state authorities -- matters: Money.
For example, the Office of National Drug Control Policy funds many local-level anti-drug programs, mostly through the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. Local groups and activists receiving CADCA funding have to know that a public show of support for Prop 19 could put their funding in jeopardy. Such a quid pro quo doesn't have to be publicly-stated; it's just politics.
It is arguable whether any recipient of federal moneys -- from from the Attorney General or other federal sources, not only ONDCP -- who opposes the measure publicly is motivated to do so because of a hope to please their funders. Yet I'm not making that sort of claim, and I'm certainly not accusing anyone of insincerity. I am merely observing that reports to the state on campaign spending related to this issue do not fully reflect opposition spending.
Winning and winning big! Now that's funny! Polls are just that and don't forget that that was an automated poll not live. Could have been a kid answering. Fact is, prop 19 doesn't have a chance........
If your gonna report---Then at least report the truth. PROP 19 is ahead 56% Yes to 34 % No with 12% not sure---your POLL is out of Date. See the new poll then report again. PROP 19 is winning and winning BIG!!!!!!!
While officially-reported donation and spending figures may currently appear to favor legalization advocates, some opponents of reform can side-step such official reporting. For example, federal agencies and employees, such as US Attorneys, DEA agents, and officials from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, are freely allowed to campaign on initiative measures without being required to file campaign spending reports. This could include -- as it has in the past in other states such as Nevada and Oregon -- speaking publicly against measures, or even sending out official letters or email from their offices to community groups and elected officials urging opposition to measures. While the Hatch Act precludes federal officials from involvement in partisan elections, the Act contains an exemption allowing participation in ballot measures as these are regarded as "nonpartisan".
Author Archives
