How The Grassroots & Independent Expenditures Can Defeat Proposition 64

Mainstream media is reporting in California that the opposition to Proposition 64 is coming from law enforcement and their campaign is poorly funded, compared to the millions already contributed by Sean Parker, George Soros and others in the billionaire boys’ club, people who have no empathy for the cannabis movement, but simply want to cash in and take over California’s cannabis industry.   What the mainstream is missing is that the primary opposition to Proposition 64, or the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), comes from within the cannabis industry itself and from patient advocates.  Spend any time on social or indy media and you will see dozens of efforts to get the word out to “Vote No on AUMA,” or “Stop Prop 64.”

The other thing the mainstream media is missing, and what seasoned activists already know, is that one does not have to form a political action committee or PAC to defeat Prop 64.  All hail the Independent Expenditure.

In California citizens are allowed to campaign and voice their support for or against a candidate or measure without forming a PAC as long as one individual spends less than $1,000.00 of his or her own funds.  This allows a citizen to run a small grassroots campaign without going through the effort of forming and filing reports for a PAC as required by law. 

A thousand dollars is generally not enough to purchase billboards or send out mailers or run a phone bank or run ads on radio or television, but it is plenty to print stickers, buttons, signs, posters and flyers or send emails or run a website.  The rest is volunteer time.  Here are some simple rules. 

1.) You are not allowed to take in funds for an independent expenditure campaign.  You can only spend your funds not to exceed $1,000.00.  Taking in funds makes your effort a recipient committee and requires you to file one once you accept $1,000.00 or more.

2.) If you distribute over a certain amount of materials, you are required to include a disclaimer with that message.  For example, distributing more that 200 door hangers, flyers, posters, and oversized campaign buttons (10” across or larger) and stickers (60 sq. in. or larger) requires a disclaimer in 14-point, bold, sans serif type in contrasting print color.  That disclaimer should read “Paid for by (your name).”

3.) For websites and emails the disclaimer statement must be in the same font size as the majority of the text and displayed conspicuously near the ad, on the site or in the message.

4.) Posting video or audio messages online requires a disclaimer.  Video messages require both written & spoken disclaimer at the beginning or end of the ad not less than 4 seconds and must be large enough to be legible to the average viewer.  Audio messages must be at least 3 seconds either at the beginning or end of the ad. 

5.) There is a difference between purely educational or conversational discussion about a candidate or measure and a political statement.  Once you venture into the territory of “Vote No on…” or “Vote For…” you are safest by following the disclaimer rules.  All of these rules can be found here:  http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/Campaign%20Manuals/Manual_4/Manual_4_Ch_9_Ad_Disclaimers.pdf

California is still getting caught up with the use of social media for political purposes.  If you have any questions about independent expenditures or disclaimers, contact the Fair Political Practices Commission at:  http://www.fppc.ca.gov.  Also, expenditures are cumulative, so if one works on multiple independent expenditure campaigns, it’s best to confirm your expenditures with the Fair Political Practices Commission to make sure you have not reached a point where you need to file a committee. 

So, don’t’ let anyone tell you a bad law can’t be defeated because you don’t have a lot of money or you didn’t form a PAC.  Our goal is to get everyone we know to Vote NO.  It worked in defeating Prop 19.  It can happen again… corrupt billionaires be damned. 

** This post is for educational purposes only and not intended to support or oppose any candidate, measure or committee.

The Corporate Billionaires’ Hostile Attempt To Take Over The California Cannabis Industry in 2016 – NO! California deserves better!!

Since the failure of Proposition 19, a voter initiative to “legalize” marijuana in California in 2010, the grassroots have worked very hard to bring the community and industry together.  The goal has been to draft workable guidelines that the cannabis community could get behind and voters would accept.  Prop. 19 mainly failed because it created NEW criminal penalties and this was not acceptable to enough voters that the effort was gladly defeated.

As the 2016 election cycle drew closer and grassroots proponents of cannabis community supported legalization initiatives began their signature gathering efforts, rumblings began that someone with VERY BIG MONEY would throw in their initiative and derail the efforts of authentic cannabis activists and cannabis industry leaders. 

Interestingly, California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom abandoned his Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy soon before the passage of the California legislature’s Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) in September 2015, in support of a gun control measure.  Almost immediately after the passage of MMRSA, Napster founder and billionaire Sean Parker, a good friend of Newsom, announced his support for an initiative of which no one in the legalization movement had heard, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), a 62-page legal mess.

Gavin Newson and Sean Parker

By this point all the grassroots efforts had websites where their initiatives were posted for review and input.  Multiple groups had already hosted panels and debates to demonstrate the differences and similarities between the initiatives.  What was demonstrated is that all the grassroots initiatives work together and not against each other.  The ‘Craft Cannabis’ initiative protects genetics and boutique growers; the ‘Jack Herer’ initiative releases prisoners and offers a broad and unrestrictive approach to legalization; and the Marijuana Control, Legalization and Revenue Act was referred to as the ‘comprehensive piece’ providing Sacramento with specific directives as to regulation, enforcement and taxation. 

Most importantly, what these proponents agreed upon is that their initiatives were not in competition with each other, but complimented one other.  Just as MMRSA was comprehensively made of three legislative bills, these voter initiatives could all pass and together legalize cannabis in California and protect the existing industry.  A gentlemen’s agreement was reached and for the most part the grassroots efforts were working along side each other.

Then in walks Sean Parker, backed by George Soros, Monsanto and others that have no in-state interest in the cannabis industry, but the ability to completely take it over and destroy California’s unique cannabis heritage.  Despite all of the open statewide debate and conversation for the last 3+ years, the Parker camp never participated or asked for feedback or input.  AUMA is a hostile attempt by the Billionaire Boys’ Club to steal California’s cannabis industry.  

This is just the short-list of what is bad about the AUMA:

It decimates Proposition 215 by absorbing medical marijuana into the initiative’s ‘non-medical’ scheme and does away with the newly formed Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation;

It creates new criminal penalties that mostly affect people under 21 and establishes a number of new punishable provisions (Growing more than 6 plants? = $250 fine, 3 years in jail – Get caught making a ‘Rick Simpson’ type oil? = up to a $50,000 fine, 7 years in jail - Get caught smoking in public? = $100 fine  - If near a campus or children can smell it? = $250 – $500 fine, 10 days in jail);

It taxes both cultivation and sales including a 15% excise tax, a use tax and sales tax, and places an additional tax per pound on all dried flowers and leaves;

None of the money raised through AUMA: taxes, fees or fines, benefits Californians – all funds go directly to enforcement and its bureaucracy’s salaries and pensions.

AUMA has gathered a little over 600,000 signatures that are being verified as of the writing of this post.  Soon it will have a proposition number and Patient Advocacy Network will have voter education materials prepared.  Currently, all of the other legalization efforts are on hold and working together to defeat AUMA just as we defeated Prop. 19, because California deserves better!  NO on AUMA.