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?



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


“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


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


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


Data Collection


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


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


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


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?



What Happened: Initiative Outcomes


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


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


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


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


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)


Median KW p*


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


Contributions by Initiative Type: CON


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?



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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


Contributions by Initiative Type: PRO Advantage & Industry

Median KW p*


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%


Major Contributors: ANTI-legalization


20 Largest Legalization Opponent Donors (1-10)


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)


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


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


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?


Methods: Variables


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


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


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


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


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


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


“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


Initiatives on the Ballot in 2018


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?


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)

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)


What to Expect Next: More of the Same?


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


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)


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


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

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

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:

[email protected]

the grassroots of grass - national cannabis...

Documents