The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016
Daniel G. Orenstein, JD, MPH Acknowledgements & Disclosures
. Paper in review - Co-author: Stanton A. Glantz, PhD . Major data sources - FollowTheMoney.org (National Institute on Money in State Politics) - Ballotpedia.org . Funding Sources: - National Institute on Drug Abuse grant DA-043950. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. . Other required disclosures: - Industry funding: None - Off-label medication uses discussed: None - Other conflicts of interest: None
2 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Where are we?
3 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Current Cannabis Legal Landscape in US
ME WA VT NH MT ND MA MN OR NY ID WI RI As of SD MI CT WY PA MD NJ DE IA OH Nov. 7, 2018 NE IL IN NV WV VA Washington D.C. UT CA CO KY KS MO NC TN SC OK AR AZ NM GA AL MS
AK TX LA FL
Recreational/Adult Use Decriminalization HI Medical (Full) Passed in 2018
4 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Current Cannabis Legal Landscape in US . Recreational / Adult Use - 10 states + DC nearly 1/4 US pop. . 10 of 11 via ballot initiative (all but VT) . Medical - 33 states + DC over 2/3 US pop. . 19 of 34 via ballot initiative
“Prohibition” “Legalization”
5 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Overall US Public Opinion
Over time: By age group:
Source: Hartig, H., Geiger, A., Pew Research Center, “About six-in-ten Americans support marijuana legalization. Oct. 8, 2018. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/
6 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Questions to Answer
1. What happened in these elections?
2. Who funded legalization advocates and opponents?
3. What factors were associated with electoral outcomes?
4. What does all this tell us about legalization, its future, and the role of health advocates?
7 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Data Collection
8 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Data Collection Contribution Data
. FollowTheMoney.org - All contributions (direct, in-kind) to registered ballot committees . Excluding one committee to another - OpenSecrets.org for PACs
. Election results and vote totals: Ballotpedia.org
. Cannabis industry affiliations - FTM business data; Google search - National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) membership
9 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 States Included in Analysis
ME WA VT NH MA MT ND MN OR NY RI ID WI SD MI CT WY PA MD NJ DE IA OH NE IL IN NV WV VA Washington D.C. UT CA CO KY KS MO NC
TN SC OK AR AZ NM GA AL MS
AK TX LA FL
32 Initiatives HI 16 States
10 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Elections Included in Analysis
State 2004 2006 2008 2009 2010 2012 2014 2015 2016 Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Florida Maine Massachusetts Michigan Montana Nevada North Dakota Ohio Oregon South Dakota Washington
11 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Initiative Classification
. Decriminalization [n=3] - Reduce or eliminate penalties for possession and/or cultivation - Without system for lawful sale
. Medical Legalization [n=15] - Possession and/or cultivation based on medical condition - Sales approved or licensed - Vary by qualifying conditions, program structure, or licensure - CBD-only/low-THC-only programs not included
. Recreational Legalization [n=14] - Possession and/or cultivation by any adult - Sales approved or licensed
12 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 What happened?
13 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 What Happened: Initiative Outcomes
14 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Some Initial Definitions . % in Favor: votes in favor / total votes cast
. Total PRO: contributions to ballot committees supporting - Per-Voter PRO: Total PRO / votes cast
. Total CON: contributions to ballot committees opposing - Per-Voter CON: Total CON / votes cast
. PRO Funding Advantage Score: measure of relative funding - −5 to 5; each point = 10% funding advantage - ((Total PRO/(Total PRO+Total CON))*100−50)/10 - PRO advantage if > 0; CON advantage if < 0
15 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Initiative Funding: Summary Statistics
Summary Statistics for State Election and Contribution Data
Total PRO Total CON PRO Funding % in Favor Per-Voter PRO Per-Voter CON Advantage ($ Million) ($ Million) Score
Sum -- $139.0 $38.1 ------
Min 36% 0.03 0 $0.10 $0.00 –3.5
Max 71% 29.3 8.7 $7.65 $3.42 5.0
Mean 52% 4.3 1.2 $1.92 $0.46 3.3
SD 9% 6.3 2.1 $2.08 $0.83 2.0
Median 53% 1.7 0.3 $1.40 $0.15 4.1
IQR 45% – 58% 0.6 – 6.3 0.03 – 1.7 $0.46 – $2.35 $0.02 – $0.51 2.3 – 4.7
16 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Total Contributions by State
PRO CON PRO CON PRO CON State State State ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M)
AK04 1.24 0.03 CA10 4.65 0.40 OH15 21.52 2.20
MT04 0.71 0 OR10 0.16 0.04 AR16 1.66 0.31
OR04 0.73 0 SD10 0.09 0.03 AZ16 6.58 8.67
CO06 0.23 1.29 AR12 1.55 0.05 CA16 29.34 2.51
NV06 4.40 0.32 CO12 3.53 0.74 FL16 6.20 3.47
SD06 5.73 4k MA12 1.38 0.02 ME16 3.47 0.28
CA08 8.52 3.24 OR12 0.56 0.07 MA16 6.88 3.08
MA08 1.77 0.09 WA12 6.45 0.02 MT16 0.33 0.23
MI08 2.26 0.34 AK14 1.13 0.19 NV16 3.70 3.77
ME09 0.18 0 FL14 8.17 6.34 ND16 0.03 0
AZ10 0.87 0.03 OR14 10.22 0.33 5 Lowest 5 Highest
17 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Contribution Changes over Time
Dependent Variable Change Per Year (b) SE R2
Total PRO ($1,000) $587* $258 0.15
Total CON ($1,000) $205* $83 0.17
Per-Voter PRO $0.07 $0.09 0.02
Per-Voter CON $0.08* $0.03 0.15
PRO Funding Advantage Score –0.12 0.09 0.06
* p < .05
18 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Contributions by Initiative Type: PRO
Rank-Sum**
Median KW p* ab (Pcrit=0.0170) ac (Pcrit=0.0253) bc (Pcrit=0.0500)
Total PRO ($1M) Significant Pairwise Results
Recreationala 4.53
Decriminalizationb 1.77 0.009 Recreational > Medical
Medicalc 0.73
Per-Voter PRO Significant Pairwise Results
Recreationala $2.97
Decriminalizationb $0.59 0.001 Recreational > Medical Medicalc $0.52
* p values, Kruskal-Wallis test
** post hoc pairwise comparisons, Mann-Whitney Rank-Sum with Holm-Sidak Adjustment (Family Error Rate, αT=0.05)
19 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Contributions by Initiative Type: CON
Rank-Sum**
Median KW p* ab (Pcrit=0.0170) ac (Pcrit=0.0253) bc (Pcrit=0.0500)
Total CON ($1M) Significant Pairwise Results
Decriminalizationa 1.29
Recreationalb 0.36 0.028 Decriminalization > Medical
Medicalc 0.03
Per-Voter CON Significant Pairwise Results
Recreationala $0.33
Decriminalizationb $0.25 0.033 Recreational > Medical Medicalc $0.03
* p values, Kruskal-Wallis test
** post hoc pairwise comparisons, Mann-Whitney Rank-Sum with Holm-Sidak Adjustment (Family Error Rate, αT=0.05)
20 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Contributions by Initiative Type: Summary . Significant differences by type: - Recreational > Medical . Total advocate contribution . Per-voter advocate contribution . Total opponent contribution - Decriminalization > Medical . Per-voter opponent contribution
21 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Who funded advocacy and opposition?
22 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 More Definitions
. Industry: does not include major advocacy groups (e.g., MPP, DPA), though there are known links and synergies
. Industry Contributions: contributions from donors affiliated with cannabis industry (among 10 largest donors)
. Cannabis Industry Share of Top 10: % of 10 largest contributions by industry-affiliated donors
23 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Major Contributors: PRO-Legalization 20 Largest Pro-Legalization Advocate Donors (1-9) 20 Largest Pro-Legalization Advocate Donors (10-20)
Donor Total ($M) States Donor Total ($M) States
AK, AR, AZ, CO, Bob Wilson $2.8 CA Marijuana Policy Project $16.4 MA, ME, MI, MT, ND, NV, OR, SD George Soros 2.8 CA, MA New Approach PAC 10.6 FL, MA, ME, OR RC Operations LLC 2.3 OH Sean Parker & Affiliated 8.9 CA Entities Bridge Property Group LLC 2.1 OH
Morgan & Morgan 6.6 FL Verdure GCE LLC 2.1 OH Fund for Policy Reform 6.1 CA OhioVen LLC 2.1 OH AZ, CA, FL, ME, Drug Policy Alliance 6.1 ND, NV, OR, WA DGF LLC 2.0 OH
Green Light Acquisitions LLC 4.9 OH Barbara A. Stiefel 1.8 FL
CA, CO, MA, OR, SK Seymour LLC 1.4 CA Peter B. Lewis 4.5 SD, WA Henry Van Ameringen 1.4 CA, FL Open Society Policy Center 3.9 CA Daniel Lewis 1.3 CA
24 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Major Contributors: PRO-Legalization . Dominant donors - Advocacy groups: MPP, DPA, or both = top 10 or committee in 28 of 32 - Wealthy individuals: Sean Parker, Peter Lewis, George Soros, Bob Wilson . Multi-State Reach - 6 of 20 largest were top-10 in multiple states . MPP (12); DPA (8); Lewis (6); New Approach PAC (4); Soros/affiliated (2); Henry Van Ameringen (2) - 6 were top donors only in California ($$$ campaign) - 6 were top donors only in Ohio (oligopoly) . Concentration - Mean 86% funding from 5 top donors; 61% from largest . Industry involvement - Mean 11% large contributions industry-affiliated (>5% in 7 elections) - Outliers (e.g., Ohio) almost entirely industry-funded
25 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Who Funds the Funders? : MPP PAC Contributors >$5000 (2004-2016) (Known cannabis industry investment/affiliation in red)
GILMORE, JOHN $ 50,000 KUHN, PAUL $ 7,500 PRITZKER, JOSEPH BENJAMIN 30,000 HAMMETT, MATTHEW JOHN 7,000 RUIZ, RENE ANTONIO 25,000 SEMON, TED A 6,000 WIGGINS, ADAM B 25,000 YASS, JEFF 5,000 LEWIS, JONATHAN 25,000 DUNKER, THOMAS J 5,000 HAILEY, SHAWN 5,000 FIELD, KAREN 20,000 LEONARD, TWYLIA J 5,000 FIELD, ROBERT E 20,000 TURNBULL, CAREY 5,000 PRITZKER, JACQUELINE 20,000 HARTFIELD, JUSTIN 5,000 LEWIS, PETER B 20,000 GLASSCO, DAVID 5,000 HOLLIDAY, J EDWIN 15,000 THIEL, PETER 5,000 RUIZ, RENE 15,000 MOSHER-RUIZ, SUSAN 5,000 HARVEY, PHIL D 15,000 LEWIS, ADAM J 5,000 WOODS, CHRISTOPHER 10,000 WILLETT, JAMES M 5,000 HOLLIDAY, KEIKO 10,000 KAPLAN, WOODY 5,000 PERSKY, STEVEN 10,000 MCNAMEE, ROGER B 5,000 LEONARD, PATRICK 10,000 MAZESS, RICHARD 5,000 LEWIS, DANIEL 10,000 GLASSCO, DAVID M 5,000 TURNER, TERRY L 9,000 MARKOFF, STEVE 5,000
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, OpenSecrets.org
26 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Who Funds the Funders? : New Approach PAC 2014 2016 Henry van Ameringen $ 300,000 Henry van Ameringen $ 3,217,000 Cari Tuna 2,000,000 Philip D Harvey 200,000 Daniel Lewis 2,000,000 Adam J Lewis 2,000,000 Angela Howard 200,000 Sean Parker 1,250,000 Adam J Lewis 100,000 Daniel R Lewis 1,000,000 Dr Bronners Magic Soaps 693,000 Daniel Lewis 100,000 Toby Lewis 500,000 Dr Bronners Magic Soaps 100,000 Philip D Harvey 275,000 Ivy Beth Lewis 200,000 Jonathan D Lewis 100,000 Aegis LLC 150,000 Richard J Steves, Jr 60,000 Angela Howard 100,000 Privateer Holdings Inc 50,000 Thomas Cody Swift 50,000 Ianthis Capital 25,000 Privateer Holdings Inc 50,000 Sage Consulting Services 1,000 Source: Center for Responsive Politics, OpenSecrets.org
27 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Potential Trend in Industry Contributions
. Total industry-affiliated contributions did not change significantly over time (p=0.242) - But share of top contributions did increase . 2.3% ± 1.0% (SE) per year (p < .05) - % industry contributions only >5% in 7 cases . But 6 of these were 2015-2016
Change Per Year Dependent Variable SE R2 (b)
Industry Contributions (in Top 10) $196,898 $164,922 0.045
Industry % of Top 10 Contributions 2.30%* 1.03% 0.144
* p < .05
28 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Contributions by Initiative Type: PRO Advantage & Industry
Rank-Sum**
Median KW p* ab (Pcrit=0.0170) ac (Pcrit=0.0253) bc (Pcrit=0.0500)
PRO Funding Advantage Score Significant Pairwise Results
Medicala 4.6
Recreationalb 4.1 0.304 No significant differences
Decriminalizationc 2.2
Cannabis Industry Share of Top 10 Contributions Significant Pairwise Results
Recreationala 4.26%
Medicalb 0.04% 0.032 No significant differences Decriminalizationc 0.00%
* p values, Kruskal-Wallis test
** post hoc pairwise comparisons, Mann-Whitney Rank-Sum with Holm-Sidak Adjustment (Family Error Rate, αT=0.05)
29 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Major Contributors: ANTI-legalization
20 Largest Legalization Opponent Donors (1-10) 20 Largest Legalization Opponent Donors (11-20) Donor Total ($M) States Donor Total ($M) States AZ, FL, Insys Therapeutics $ 0.5 AZ Sheldon G. Adelson $12.4 MA, NV Save Our Society from CA, CO, 0.5 Arizona Chamber of Drugs MA, MI, OR 3.7 AZ Commerce Ohio Hospital Association 0.4 OH Julie Schauer 1.4 CA Empire Southwest 0.4 AZ Partnership for Ohio’s 1.0 OH Future Alliance for Healthy 0.3 ME Melvin F. Sembler 1.0 FL Marijuana Policy
Discount Tire 1.0 AZ Services Group of America 0.3 AZ
California Correctional 1.0 CA Jerrold A. Perenchio 0.3 CA Peace Officers Association
Focus on the Family 1.0 CO Margaret C. Whitman 0.3 CA Smart Approaches to 0.9 CA, MA Marijuana Action California Republican Party 0.2 CA
Archdiocese of Boston 0.9 MA Stephen A. Zabawa 0.2 MT
30 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Major Contributors: ANTI-legalization
. Dominant donors - Wealthy individuals: Sheldon Adelson (3x next), Julie Schauer, Melvin and Betty Sembler / Save Our Society from Drugs - Mix of state groups, but often similar (law enforcement unions, chambers of commerce, religious groups)
. Multi-State Reach - Only 3 of 20 largest donors top-10 in multiple states . Semblers / SOS (7); Adelson (4); Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) (2)
. Concentration - Mean 71% funding from 5 top donors; 48% from largest . Not including states where opponent contributions = $0
31 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Major Contributors: Key Points
. Dominant Voices - Small # of donors = most $ for and against legalization - Influence of wealthy individuals and their philanthropic organizations . PRO side: significant funneling through advocacy organizations - Not much activity from health or health-related groups (various reasons)
32 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 What factors were associated with electoral outcomes?
33 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Methods: Variables
Initial independent variables (15) Dependent variables (2) . Initiative year • Voter support (continuous: % vote in favor) . Initiative type • Initiative outcome (binary: pass/fail) . Election cycle . Voter turnout Final Independent Variables (4) . % pop. born before 1946 • Initiative year . Governor’s party • Voter turnout . Legislative party control • % population born before 1946 . Total PRO,CON contributions . PRO,CON per vote cast • Advocate funding advantage . PRO,CON per eligible voter . Advocate funding advantage score . Industry % of top 10
34 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Methods: Variable Selection . Stepwise regressions - Backward, forward, and backward/forward - Linear for voter support - Logistic for initiative success . Repeated with Florida 2014 as success (57.6% in favor) . Election cycle vs. turnout (r = 0.77) - Turnout varies within cycle, may reflect resource allocation . Total, per-voter contributions also correlated (no ∆ if total excluded) . Only 32 data points - No more than 4 variables to avoid overspecification - 4 variables significant in any stepwise analysis; 3 in multiple
35 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Results
Factors Associated with Voter Support (Multiple Linear Regression) and Odds of Passage (Logistic Regression) % Vote in Favor Pass/Fail Pass/Fail (FL) Independent Variables b (SE) OR [95%CI] OR [95%CI]
1.40** 1.90* 2.02** Year (per year) (0.38) [1.17 , 3.09] [1.22 , 3.35]
0.38* 1.20* 1.14 Turnout (per 1% increase) (0.15) [1.03 , 1.39] [0.99 , 1.30]
% Pop. Born before 1946 1.35** 1.20 1.50 (per 1% increase) (0.47) [0.82 , 1.76] [0.97 , 2.31]
PRO Funding Advantage Score 0.51 2.23* 1.71 (per 10% shift) (0.65) [1.00 , 4.96] [0.83 , 3.52]
R2 / Pseudo R2 0.43 0.43 0.41
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01
36 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Results: Summary
. Election year - Only factor consistently associated with both support + success
. Turnout - Also positively associated with voter support + initiative success
. Population born before 1946 - Surprisingly, positively associated with voter support - No relationship with initiative success - Possible explanation: . Lowest support among age cohorts, but still rising (Hartig and Geiger 2018) . Demographic minority despite higher turnout (Caulkins et al. 2012)
37 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Results: Summary
. Advocate funding advantage - Advocates routinely outraised opponents (29 of 32 elections), but . . . - Not significantly associated with voter support - Barely (p=0.049) significant association with initiative success . And not if FL14 coded success - Initial data for 2018 appear to support . CON > PRO in 3 states (OK, MI, ND) but 2 still passed (OK, MI)
. Money always matters, but it may not be the driver here - Still has an impact . Prerequisite for ballot (e.g., signature gathering) . Prior campaigns raised issue profile? . Possible time-delayed effects not captured
38 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Incidental Finding . Gap: support in abstract vs. election - Ex: Arkansas . Poll: 84% support MML (2015) . Election: 53.1% for MML initiative (2016) - Possible interpretations: . Polling mismatch: sample vs. voting pop. . Enthusiasm gap: opponents > supporters - Consistent with association between turnout and support/success . Concern re: policy details - Possible opportunity for health advocates
39 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Limitations & Caveats
. “Industry” assessed conservatively - Did not count MPP or similar groups despite known connections . Not directly positioned to benefit - Did not count smaller donors outside top 10, could still be influential - Opaque ownership/investment, no mandatory disclosures for some entities . Dates limited to 2004 and later - Earlier elections may have been different . Exogenous factors - Elections are complex (other ballot items; political climate; other trends) - “All politics is local” . Small number of observations - May obscure trends, esp. with n=3 decrim
40 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Some initial data from 2018
41 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Initiatives on the Ballot in 2018
Population (2016) . Michigan (Recreational) PASS (55.9%) - $2,270,122 PRO / $ 1,500,769 CON 9,928,300
. North Dakota (Recreational) FAIL (40.5%) - $108,532 PRO / $518,820 CON 757,952
. Oklahoma (Medical) PASS (56.9%) - $310,262 PRO / $1,321,424 CON 3,923,561
. Utah (Medical) PASS (52.4%) - $882,934 PRO / $1,075,262 CON 3,051,217
. Missouri (Medical) PASS (65.6%) - Odd case: 3 initiatives – still collecting data - Per BP: $1,777,322 PRO / $9,700 CON 6,093,000 - Amendment 2 (backed by New Approach, MPP, DPA) . Lowest tax (4%); no local bans
42 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 What does all this tell us about legalization, its future, and the role of health advocates?
43 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Ballot Initiatives Generally
. Origins - Populist movement (late 19th century) - Progressive era (early 20th century) - Goal: circumvent legislatures beholden to special interests . Critiques - Citizen comprehension, complex policies - Campaign advertising (esp. in modern PAC system) . Out-of-state influence . Industry advantage intended to prevent? - “Lock in” bad policies . Initiatives can be hard to change (e.g., Arizona)
44 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Contrast: Tobacco on the Ballot . Late 1970s: Tobacco industry influence in state legislatures - Tobacco control advocates pass smoking restrictions, excise taxes - Industry responds (Laposata, Kennedy & Glantz 2014) . Partners with “ballot-prone industries” . Uses front groups to monitor ballot initiatives and advocate for “reforms” - More signatures, shorter time, supermajorities for tax increases, single subject restrictions . Limited initial success, but amplified existing arguments later changes
. Mid-2000s: Tobacco/gaming industries fight clean indoor air laws - Competing initiatives (Tung, Hendlin & Glantz 2009) - “Look-alike” initiatives on the same subject with weaker regulation and/or preemption of local laws - Presented as “reasonable” alternatives . Two-front fight (proposal vs. status quo; proposal vs. weaker proposal)
45 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 What to Expect Next: More of the Same?
46 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 What to Expect Next: More of the Same?
. What matters most: TIME and TURNOUT - More initiatives, will mostly pass - Americans more comfortable with legalization (in abstract) . ~90% support medical; ~62% recreational . Less “obvious” places (e.g., 61% support RML in Texas in 2018 poll) - Advocate professionalization . Media appearances, political endorsements, resource allocation . Rhetorical emphasis - Personal freedom/peace/love/etc. tax revenue, social justice, vs. alcohol - Responsible for some of the change in public opinion? - Medical legalization has also paved the way - More initiatives in presidential years (c/w trend) . 2018 midterms 2020
47 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 What to Expect Next: More of the Same?
23 states have initiative process
No Legalization (3) Limited Medical (2) Medical Only (8) • Arizona (’96/’10) RML fail ’16 • Idaho • Mississippi • Arkansas (‘16) • Nebraska • Wyoming • Florida (‘16) • South Dakota • Missouri (‘18) • Montana (‘04) • North Dakota (’16) RML fail ‘18 • Ohio (’16 – leg.) • Oklahoma (‘18) • Utah (‘18)
48 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 What to Expect Next: Something Different?
. Legislatures beginning to act - Beginning to think about preparing to consider potentially starting to act? - Vermont 1st legislative RML (effective 2018) . No system for sales yet . More states considering (IL, NJ, NY…) . Legislative MMLs could be a blueprint
. Legislation = health advocate opportunity - Legislatures can do a better job balancing PH, other perspectives - May preempt ballot initiatives - Health group influence (in ways they won’t/can’t for ballot initiatives)
49 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Conclusion
50 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Major Conclusions
. Expected: - Time and turnout are associated with electoral outcomes . Consistent with changing public opinions and demographics - Advocate funding highly concentrated among a small # of donors - Advocates typically better funded than opponents
. Surprising: - Money doesn’t seem to be that important in predicting success - Legalization opponent funding also highly concentrated - Cannabis industry not yet major contributor in most states
51 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 More Crystal Ball: Good, Bad, and Ugly
. More legislation potential PH opportunity . US seems to know which direction, but not the destination or best route - New laws c/w public sentiments (in abstract) . Purpose of initiatives - But detailed policy not a good fit . Missteps common, may be hard to change THANK YOU! . Corporatization Looms Contact: - Consolidation, buy-outs, etc. [email protected] - Entry of existing large corporate entities . Canada: Constellation Brands; Altria - Could change industry relationship to initiatives . More reliance on legislation, regulation, lobbying? . Reduced public trust?
52 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016