The Grassroots of Grass - National Cannabis...
Transcript of The Grassroots of Grass - National Cannabis...
The Grassroots of Grass:Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016
Daniel G. Orenstein, JD, MPH
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
Acknowledgements & Disclosures
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-20162
Where are we?
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-20163
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-20164
WA
OR
CA
MT
ID
NV
AZ
UT
WY
CO
NM
TX
OK
KS
NE
SD
NDMN
IA
MO
AR
LA
MS AL GA
FL
SCTN
NC
IL
WI MI
OHIN
KY
WV VA
PA
NY
ME
VTNH
NJDE
MD
Washington D.C.
MA
CTRI
AK
HI
As of Nov. 7, 2018
Current Cannabis Legal Landscape in US
Recreational/Adult Use
Medical (Full)
Decriminalization
Passed in 2018
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-20165
“Prohibition” “Legalization”
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
Overall US Public Opinion
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-20166
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/
Over time:
Questions to Answer
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-20167
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?
Data Collection
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-20168
Data Collection
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-20169
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
Contribution Data
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201610
States Included in Analysis
32 Initiatives16 States
WA
OR
CA
MT
ID
NV
AZ
UT
WY
CO
NM
TX
OK
KS
NE
SD
NDMN
IA
MO
AR
LA
MSAL
GA
FL
SCTN
NC
IL
WI MI
OHIN
KY
WV VA
PA
NY
ME
VTNH
NJDE
MD
Washington D.C.
MA
CTRI
AK
HI
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201611
Elections Included in AnalysisState 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
Initiative Classification
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201612
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
What happened?
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201613
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201614
What Happened: Initiative Outcomes
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201615
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
Initiative Funding: Summary Statistics
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201616
Summary Statistics for State Election and Contribution Data
% in FavorTotal PRO($ Million)
Total CON($ Million)
Per-Voter PRO Per-Voter CONPRO Funding
Advantage 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 – $0.51 2.3 – 4.7
Total Contributions by State
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201617
State PRO($M)
CON($M)
AK04 1.24 0.03
MT04 0.71 0
OR04 0.73 0
CO06 0.23 1.29
NV06 4.40 0.32
SD06 5.73 4k
CA08 8.52 3.24
MA08 1.77 0.09
MI08 2.26 0.34
ME09 0.18 0
AZ10 0.87 0.03
State PRO($M)
CON($M)
CA10 4.65 0.40
OR10 0.16 0.04
SD10 0.09 0.03
AR12 1.55 0.05
CO12 3.53 0.74
MA12 1.38 0.02
OR12 0.56 0.07
WA12 6.45 0.02
AK14 1.13 0.19
FL14 8.17 6.34
OR14 10.22 0.33
State PRO($M)
CON($M)
OH15 21.52 2.20
AR16 1.66 0.31
AZ16 6.58 8.67
CA16 29.34 2.51
FL16 6.20 3.47
ME16 3.47 0.28
MA16 6.88 3.08
MT16 0.33 0.23
NV16 3.70 3.77
ND16 0.03 0
5 Highest5 Lowest
Contribution Changes over Time
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201618
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
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201619
Contributions by Initiative Type: PROMedian KW p*
Rank-Sum**ab (Pcrit=0.0170)ac (Pcrit=0.0253)bc (Pcrit=0.0500)
Total PRO ($1M) Significant Pairwise Results
Recreationala 4.53
0.009 Recreational > MedicalDecriminalizationb 1.77
Medicalc 0.73
Per-Voter PRO Significant Pairwise Results
Recreationala $2.97
0.001 Recreational > MedicalDecriminalizationb $0.59
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)
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201620
Median KW p*
Rank-Sum**ab (Pcrit=0.0170)ac (Pcrit=0.0253)bc (Pcrit=0.0500)
Total CON ($1M) Significant Pairwise Results
Decriminalizationa 1.29
0.028 Decriminalization > MedicalRecreationalb 0.36
Medicalc 0.03
Per-Voter CON Significant Pairwise Results
Recreationala $0.33
0.033 Recreational > MedicalDecriminalizationb $0.25
Medicalc $0.03
* p values, Kruskal-Wallis test** post hoc pairwise comparisons, Mann-Whitney Rank-Sum with Holm-Sidak Adjustment (Family Error Rate, αT=0.05)
Contributions by Initiative Type: CON
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201621
Significant differences by type:- Recreational > Medical Total advocate contribution Per-voter advocate contribution Total opponent contribution
- Decriminalization > Medical Per-voter opponent contribution
Contributions by Initiative Type: Summary
Who funded advocacy and opposition?
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201622
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201623
More Definitions Industry: does not include major advocacy
groups (e.g., MPP, DPA), though there are known links and synergies
Industry Contributions: contributions from donors affiliated with cannabis industry (among 10 largest donors)
Cannabis Industry Share of Top 10: % of 10 largest contributions by industry-affiliated donors
Major Contributors: PRO-Legalization
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201624
20 Largest Pro-Legalization Advocate Donors (1-9)
Donor Total ($M) States
Marijuana Policy Project $16.4AK, AR, AZ, CO, MA, ME, MI, MT, ND, NV, OR, SD
New Approach PAC 10.6 FL, MA, ME, OR
Sean Parker & Affiliated Entities 8.9 CA
Morgan & Morgan 6.6 FL
Fund for Policy Reform 6.1 CA
Drug Policy Alliance 6.1AZ, CA, FL, ME, ND, NV, OR, WA
Green Light Acquisitions LLC 4.9 OH
Peter B. Lewis 4.5CA, CO, MA, OR,
SD, WA
Open Society Policy Center 3.9 CA
20 Largest Pro-Legalization Advocate Donors (10-20)
Donor Total ($M) States
Bob Wilson $2.8 CA
George Soros 2.8 CA, MA
RC Operations LLC 2.3 OH
Bridge Property Group LLC 2.1 OH
Verdure GCE LLC 2.1 OH
OhioVen LLC 2.1 OH
DGF LLC 2.0 OH
Barbara A. Stiefel 1.8 FL
SK Seymour LLC 1.4 CA
Henry Van Ameringen 1.4 CA, FL
Daniel Lewis 1.3 CA
Major Contributors: PRO-Legalization
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201625
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
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201626
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, OpenSecrets.org
Contributors >$5000 (2004-2016)(Known cannabis industry investment/affiliation in red)
GILMORE, JOHN $ 50,000
PRITZKER, JOSEPH BENJAMIN 30,000RUIZ, RENE ANTONIO 25,000WIGGINS, ADAM B 25,000LEWIS, JONATHAN 25,000FIELD, KAREN 20,000FIELD, ROBERT E 20,000PRITZKER, JACQUELINE 20,000LEWIS, PETER B 20,000HOLLIDAY, J EDWIN 15,000RUIZ, RENE 15,000HARVEY, PHIL D 15,000WOODS, CHRISTOPHER 10,000HOLLIDAY, KEIKO 10,000PERSKY, STEVEN 10,000LEONARD, PATRICK 10,000LEWIS, DANIEL 10,000TURNER, TERRY L 9,000
KUHN, PAUL $ 7,500HAMMETT, MATTHEW JOHN 7,000SEMON, TED A 6,000YASS, JEFF 5,000DUNKER, THOMAS J 5,000HAILEY, SHAWN 5,000LEONARD, TWYLIA J 5,000TURNBULL, CAREY 5,000HARTFIELD, JUSTIN 5,000GLASSCO, DAVID 5,000THIEL, PETER 5,000MOSHER-RUIZ, SUSAN 5,000LEWIS, ADAM J 5,000WILLETT, JAMES M 5,000KAPLAN, WOODY 5,000MCNAMEE, ROGER B 5,000MAZESS, RICHARD 5,000GLASSCO, DAVID M 5,000MARKOFF, STEVE 5,000
Who Funds the Funders? : MPP PAC
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201627
2014Who Funds the Funders? : New Approach PAC
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, OpenSecrets.org
Henry van Ameringen $ 300,000
Philip D Harvey 200,000
Angela Howard 200,000
Adam J Lewis 100,000
Daniel Lewis 100,000
Dr Bronners Magic Soaps 100,000
Jonathan D Lewis 100,000
Richard J Steves, Jr 60,000
Thomas Cody Swift 50,000
Privateer Holdings Inc 50,000
Henry van Ameringen $ 3,217,000
Cari Tuna 2,000,000
Daniel Lewis 2,000,000
Adam J Lewis 2,000,000
Sean Parker 1,250,000
Daniel R Lewis 1,000,000
Dr Bronners Magic Soaps 693,000Toby Lewis 500,000
Philip D Harvey 275,000
Ivy Beth Lewis 200,000
Aegis LLC 150,000Angela Howard 100,000
Privateer Holdings Inc 50,000Ianthis Capital 25,000Sage Consulting Services 1,000
2016
Potential Trend in Industry Contributions
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201628
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
Dependent Variable Change Per Year (b) SE R2
Industry Contributions (in Top 10) $196,898 $164,922 0.045
Industry % of Top 10 Contributions 2.30%* 1.03% 0.144
* p < .05
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201629
Contributions by Initiative Type: PRO Advantage & Industry
Median KW p*
Rank-Sum**ab (Pcrit=0.0170)ac (Pcrit=0.0253)bc (Pcrit=0.0500)
PRO Funding Advantage Score Significant Pairwise Results
Medicala 4.6
0.304 No significant differencesRecreationalb 4.1
Decriminalizationc 2.2
Cannabis Industry Share of Top 10 Contributions Significant Pairwise Results
Recreationala 4.26%
0.032 No significant differencesMedicalb 0.04%
Decriminalizationc 0.00%
* p values, Kruskal-Wallis test** post hoc pairwise comparisons, Mann-Whitney Rank-Sum with Holm-Sidak Adjustment (Family Error Rate, αT=0.05)
Major Contributors: ANTI-legalization
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201630
20 Largest Legalization Opponent Donors (1-10)
Donor Total ($M) States
Sheldon G. Adelson $12.4AZ, FL, MA, NV
Arizona Chamber of Commerce 3.7 AZ
Julie Schauer 1.4 CA
Partnership for Ohio’s Future 1.0 OH
Melvin F. Sembler 1.0 FL
Discount Tire 1.0 AZ
California Correctional Peace Officers Association 1.0 CA
Focus on the Family 1.0 CO
Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action 0.9 CA, MA
Archdiocese of Boston 0.9 MA
20 Largest Legalization Opponent Donors (11-20)
Donor Total ($M) States
Insys Therapeutics $ 0.5 AZ
Save Our Society from Drugs 0.5
CA, CO, MA, MI, OR
Ohio Hospital Association 0.4 OH
Empire Southwest 0.4 AZ
Alliance for Healthy Marijuana Policy 0.3 ME
Services Group of America 0.3 AZ
Jerrold A. Perenchio 0.3 CA
Margaret C. Whitman 0.3 CA
California Republican Party 0.2 CA
Stephen A. Zabawa 0.2 MT
Major Contributors: ANTI-legalization
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201631
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
Major Contributors: Key Points
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201632
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)
What factors were associated with electoral outcomes?
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201633
Methods: Variables
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201634
Initial independent variables (15) Initiative year Initiative type Election cycle Voter turnout % pop. born before 1946 Governor’s party Legislative party control Total PRO,CON contributions PRO,CON per vote cast PRO,CON per eligible voter Advocate funding advantage score Industry % of top 10
Final Independent Variables (4) • Initiative year• Voter turnout• % population born before 1946• Advocate funding advantage
Dependent variables (2)• Voter support (continuous: % vote in favor)• Initiative outcome (binary: pass/fail)
Methods: Variable Selection
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201635
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
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201636
Factors Associated with Voter Support (Multiple Linear Regression) and Odds of Passage (Logistic Regression)
Independent Variables % Vote in Favorb (SE)
Pass/FailOR [95%CI]
Pass/Fail (FL)OR [95%CI]
Year (per year) 1.40**(0.38)
1.90*[1.17 , 3.09]
2.02**[1.22 , 3.35]
Turnout (per 1% increase) 0.38*(0.15)
1.20*[1.03 , 1.39]
1.14[0.99 , 1.30]
% Pop. Born before 1946(per 1% increase)
1.35**(0.47)
1.20[0.82 , 1.76]
1.50[0.97 , 2.31]
PRO Funding Advantage Score (per 10% shift)
0.51(0.65)
2.23*[1.00 , 4.96]
1.71[0.83 , 3.52]
R2 / Pseudo R2 0.43 0.43 0.41
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01
Results
Results: Summary
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201637
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)
Results: Summary
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201638
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
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201639
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
Limitations & Caveats
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201640
“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
Some initial data from 2018
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201641
Initiatives on the Ballot in 2018
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201642
Michigan (Recreational) PASS (55.9%)- $2,270,122 PRO / $ 1,500,769 CON
North Dakota (Recreational) FAIL (40.5%)- $108,532 PRO / $518,820 CON
Oklahoma (Medical) PASS (56.9%)- $310,262 PRO / $1,321,424 CON
Utah (Medical) PASS (52.4%)- $882,934 PRO / $1,075,262 CON
Missouri (Medical) PASS (65.6%) - Odd case: 3 initiatives – still collecting data- Per BP: $1,777,322 PRO / $9,700 CON- Amendment 2 (backed by New Approach, MPP, DPA)
Lowest tax (4%); no local bans
Population (2016)
9,928,300
757,952
3,923,561
3,051,217
6,093,000
What does all this tell us about legalization, its future, and the role of health advocates?
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201643
Ballot Initiatives Generally
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201644
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)
Contrast: Tobacco on the Ballot
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201645
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)
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201646
What to Expect Next: More of the Same?
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201647
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
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201648
What to Expect Next: More of the Same?23 states have initiative process
• Idaho• Nebraska• South Dakota
No Legalization (3)
• Mississippi• Wyoming
Limited Medical (2)• Arizona (’96/’10)
RML fail ’16• Arkansas (‘16)• Florida (‘16)• Missouri (‘18)• Montana (‘04)• North Dakota (’16)
RML fail ‘18• Ohio (’16 – leg.)• Oklahoma (‘18)• Utah (‘18)
Medical Only (8)
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201649
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)
Conclusion
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201650
Major Conclusions
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201651
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
More Crystal Ball: Good, Bad, and Ugly
The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-201652
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
Corporatization Looms- Consolidation, buy-outs, etc.- 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?
THANK YOU!Contact: