This was originally published in City Coucilor Jake Auchincloss’ email newsletter Two local corporations have spent $500K+ to campaign and lobby for retail pot. Sanctioned by Citizens United, they spent $328K in campaign contributions to defeat last year’s limit-or-ban referendum. Garden Remedies will begin selling in Newtonville by end of April. Cypress Tree Management has filed for a permit in Upper Falls. Issue-oriented political action committees (PACs), funded by individuals, are standard in Newton. Corporate PACs are new. The difference is in the dollars.Garden Remedies and Cypress Tree spent: ~10X more than their opponents, the Opt Out committee (2018)
~10X more than the committee against the charter (2017)
~5X more than the committee for the charter (2017)
~30X more than the committee in favor of the last override (2012) Where did the money go? · Paid door-knocking & phone calls · Direct mail · Facebook ads · Consulting fees to Five Corners Strategies. The public-relations firm also handles real estate, gambling and shale-gas drilling The scale of spending was not disclosed until after the 2018 election due to a loophole. Political consultants tell vendors to post-date invoices for after the pre-election reporting deadline. Also undisclosed are the companies’ fees for land-use attorneys, who petition and lobby the city council. Based on conservative hourly-rate estimates, those fees bring total spending well above $500K. At least six more companies could sell in Newton. One has already filed. My perspective: (Disclosure: I supported Opt Out.) The 2018 referendum was poor form for democracy in Newton. The city council submitted a confusing and structurally biased ballot question. Then, two corporations spent unprecedented and undisclosed sums to sway the vote. The 2016 election indicated that a majority of voters in Newton supported recreational use. The 2018 ballot sophistry and corporate electioneering were probably not necessary. But now unhealthy precedents have been set. The affair is a case study in how sorely the city misses rigorous local reporting.
| 
Can the loophole that allows PAC money to be hidden until after an election be closed locally or is it a State issue?
That Jake… he just never quits. A prohibitionist ’til the end!
Voters have reaffirmed their support for cannabi freedom four times at the ballot box, and this dude still doesn’t understand the message… “regulate marijuana like alcohol.”
Ok, digging deeper into this:
Respect the Vote Newton initiative spent about $328k total, and it looks like Garden Remedies and Weston Roots (CTM) each contributed half in matching funds.
In a tribute to how fast consultants blow through money, Five Corners Strategies costs included a $50k charge to manage the campaign, $16,500 on voter identification, $7,800 on transportation/meals/rentals, $3,000 on compliance and $15,000 on miscellaneous project related expenses.
Actual outreach spending of Five Corners Strategies included $81k canvassing, $5,500 for phone calls, $10,500 in printed materials, $36,000 direct mail, $2200 “digital advocacy” (guessing that’s related to RtV on Facebook), and $24,240 for what looks like voting day GOTV efforts.
I’m not sure how to read Responsible First Step Newton filings, but I think RFSN collected about $3k, give or take.
It is shameful that a progressive city like Newton has allowed corporate spending by cannabis companies to influence an election like this — first by lobbying to get the Mayor and City Council to create a confusing and contradictory ballot structure, and then spending obscene amounts of money on the campaign. Newton should be ashamed.
The Newton elected officials that hoisted this confusing and devious ballot structure at the behest of corporate skunkweed are the ones that should be ashamed.
Nice post, but i dont see the point of digging up the past. What’s done is done…
Maybe revisit in 5 years if the negative aspects come to roost…
The Globe has done great work exposing how easily the electorate was conned on this one. This ended up being a transparent giveaway to a bunch of billionaires who were initially fronted by a bunch of millionaires.
Prime example: Massachusetts cannabis investor Four Daughters Compassionate Care in Sharon, which was founded by a well-connected millionaire family with close ties to Newton – Brian and Lynne Striar. The Striars’ company was acquired in February by Chicago-based Verano Holdings, a huge national corporate player in the cannabis industry. Then, no sooner had that transaction closed than Verano Holdings was purchased last month for $850 million by an even bigger multinational corporation, Harvest Health and Recreation.
The electorate (naïvely) expected that cannabis commercialization would provide fair and open opportunities to local investors with a commitment to their communities. Instead, the local investors’ license was shopped to a faceless out-of-state corporation which no more than six weeks later was gobbled up by another faceless out-of-state corporation that currently controls more than 200 facilities in 16 states. And let’s not pretend that the millionaires and the billionaires weren’t aware how this was all going to turn out from the moment they launched their lobbying and PR blitzes.
According to the Globe’s excellent reporting on this subject, the fate of the Striars’ company is symptomatic of the state of the industry, with licenses initially being awarded to a handful of politically-connected local millionaires, then quickly consolidated by billionaire multinational investors who’ve easily gotten around ownership limits by exploiting loopholes in the legislation (which the billionaire companies had lobbied for and placed into the legislation in the first place).
Oh and remember that argument that the legalization of marijuana would address historical instances of racial injustice? What a complete load of malarkey that was. Not a single active dispensary is currently operated by minority licensees in Massachusetts – and of course, the socioeconomic backgrounds of the minorities who did receive licenses is not at all reflective of the actual makeup of Rosbury or Mattapan.
The issue here isn’t “prohibition” – it’s economic and social fairness. The legalization and commercialization of weed could have been done property and equitably. Instead, well-intentioned progressives were gamed by corporate interests who were basically awarded licenses to print money.
All of you who steamrolled over concerns about social and economic justice because of your burning desire to access to what you thought would be cheaper weed (even though it’s actually going to end up costing you more than you paid through your previous procurement channels), congratulations – you and the billionaire corporate interests got your way. I wonder what will be the next amazing opportunity for billionaire investors and millionaire front-men to game well-intentioned progressives and purchase their own easy-money legislation? Make no mistake, this next time I’m going to play along and get my own piece of the action, one way or the other!
What Michael wrote is 100% right on the money — literally!
In 2012 Massachusetts voters approved medical marijuana. In 2016 those same voters approved recreational marijuana. These two ballot initiatives were the tools voters used to fully legalize marijuana. Can anyone name any large corporation that swayed voters to support the 2012 or 2016 ballot initiatives? Of course not, because there were none!
Those two voter approved laws defined the playing field and the rules of the game. They required cannabis entrepreneurs to structure their businesses in certain ways. To my knowledge, every licensed operator in the Commonwealth of Mass. is in compliance with those laws. If not, they would [and should] be immediately closed down.
Likewise, it appears to me that cannabis entrepreneurs fully complied with election laws, as no charges have been brought. Again, can anynome name a single corporation or individual who violated election laws during any of the ballot initiatives?
Actually, Abe, what Michael wrote ignores why many Newton voters support retail cannabis — because of the huge tax dollars that the city will receive! Don’t forget that little fact in your next diatribe, Michael.
As for Jake, yes indeed, Bugek, he seems stuck in the past. Not exactly a good place to reside for someone with grand plans for his political future. But what interests me most is that Jake seems to be complaining about what he himself did to get elected in the first place, which is to raise a ton of money for all those standard political techniques he now apparently abhors. Why the seeming contradiction, Jake? Because it’s corporate money and not personal money? The amount you spent is no less atrocious. So Jake, would you maybe agree to a fund raising/spending limit in your upcoming contested race for re-election and pass on paid door knocking & phone calling & direct mail & online ads? No? I didn’t think so.
Gerry – I remember how, during the ballot campaign, Mayor Fuller (who helped manipulate the ballot structure) had her office put out information confidently assuring that Newton would get $2M or more in pot taxes. Interestingly, now in her budget rollout she says it is more prudent to be “conservative” about projecting pot revenues …
Yes, Abe, I understand, but Mayor Fuller is nothing if not super cautious. And she’s never exactly been a cannabis supporter either. But once those 8 cannabis stores are up and running and the tax dollars are flowing I’m sure you’ll see more budgetary enthusiasm from the mayor.
Gerry- Some money just isn’t worth taking. That was the lesson learned from the Tobacco Litigation Settlements that made states economically complicit in tobacco sales. Here again the state will find out that the societal costs of the problems that will attend culturally normalizing recreational pot sales will outstrip the short term tax benefits. It is no coincidence that Big Tobacco is already making multi-billion dollar buys into the Pot Sector.
It’s possible to support retail cannabis while opposing the bought-and-paid-for Massachusetts legislation that was, from the start, a giveaway to a bunch of well-connected millionaire investors temporarily fronting for billionaire multinational investors. With the way this legislation was structured, none of these private investors did anything whatsoever to deserve their easy money – based on their wealth and connections alone, the Commonwealth gave each of them a once-in-a-lifetime, can’t-lose, overnight-millionaire business opportunity in an oligopolistic market that didn’t require them to innovate or take any real risk (cue the defenders of the wealthy with the canard that yes, this really was a big risk for the fat cats! The millionaires had no idea that they’d be able to so quickly sell out to billionaire interests! And the billionaire Wall Street-backed corporations had no idea that they’d be able to so quickly consolidate and control the market! No idea!)
It’s funny to see all the right wingers supporting this exercise, when of course it was the absolute opposite of how capitalism is supposed to work.
As for taxes, the model that I would have preferred, which was passed into law by the Quebec Liberal Party in 2018 after years of researching international models for the solution that was the most equitable and just would be the SQDC. You want government revenue, you got it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9coise_du_cannabis
There are two simple solutions to big money in cannabis. The first is to license a more reasonable number of shops to foster competition. Imagine if we had 15 liquor stores to serve the whole state? It’d be pandemonium — there would be rioting. Fortunately pot heads are proving to be a pretty good-natured bunch.
If we won’t license enough shops to make for real competition, then go around them by further enabling home grows. To wit:
– Cannabis seeds are not a drug. So exclude them from commerce restrictions. Let any person in the state buy and sell seeds legally, as if they were tomato seeds. Oddly, we don’t regulate seeds for growing some extremely toxic plants like morning glory, foxglove (digitalis), jimsonweed (datura), or castor beans (ricinus).
– Remove the onerous restrictions that home grows must be in a secured area, out of sight from public view. Let people grow cannabis on the balcony next to the tomatoes. In a window box. In the back yard on the deck. Or in the front yard next to the rosebushes.
If anyone can buy a pack of cannabis seeds for $2.59 and throw it into their (sub)urban garden, you’re countering pot shops’ licenses to print money. Along the way you take a bite out of the billionaires who bet big on selling people grow lights and tents and hydroponic systems and jugs of specialized chemicals and all that nonsense.
This is very old very tired news.
BOTH political parties use Citizens United to raise untold millions of dollars. Democrats rail endlessly about getting rid of CU, hoping voters will continue to ignore snd deny the fact that they use & abuse CU as much as Republicans. The dirty little secret is that both Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton had significantly more money than their presidential opponents John McCain and Donald Trump.
Who did the “millionaire and billionaire” Wall Street and corporate vultures give nearly all of their money in the 2016 presidential election to?
That’s right, Hillary Clinton. The Democrat party,
in terms of millionaires and billionaires is at least equal to or darn close to the Republican Party.
Everyone can get off their moral,
virtuous high horses. Democrats are rich and they should embrace their wealth.
I would have more respect for all of them if they just stopped running away from their money and used more of it to do something good.
@Gerry it is grossly unfair to equate Jake spending fairly modest amounts of money raised from Newton residents with corporate interests spending over half a million dollars to get the city to do their bidding.
@Mike I guess you haven’t been reading the Globe lately if you think the marijuana companies are on the up and up. They’ve chronicled exactly the kind of skirting the law that Michael outlines above. The law was written to favor these corporate interests because it was written by them and They outspent legalization opponents by a 4 to 1 margin in 2012 and 2016.
Shall we take bets on how long it takes for Garden Remedies and Cypress Tree to sell out to these billion-dollar companies skirting the state law on the three-store limit? I predict less than one year, and our Mayor and the majority of city councilors will do nothing about it.
We keep discussing the pot issue as if there’s anything new. There isn’t. But it’s worth considering why it keeps popping up like weeds (no pun intended).
It looks as though many expected the original 2016 initiative to fail, given the substantial political weight behind the opposition, and the fact that most voters aren’t typically moved by the issue (yes, the v14 community is excepted). Perhaps thinking this, few (on either side) were prepared for what happened next.
To the apparent surprise of most, the referendum did pass, and by a fairly wide margin. The opponents, not satisfied with defeat, kept on fighting. Which they had every right to do. Hence, the opt-out effort last year. But again, their efforts failed, and again rather substantially.
Moreover, the opt-out arguments, while undoubtedly sincere, all but implied that voters were somehow misled, or didn’t really know what they voted for. In between, they blamed the City (who, admittedly have been flat-footed and haven’t been profiles in courage on this issue) for the “confusing” ballot language, for not pushing harder to further restrict new pot facilities, and so on. The arguments were overly legalistic, conceptually absurd and a bit condescending. And it didn’t work. I’m not sure an infusion of cash on the opt-out side would have made much of a difference.
So we’ve now had two referenda in the last three years where most Newton residents approved legal pot and then reaffirmed their approval. But that isn’t enough for some folks.
Now we’re being told how awful it is that big weed tried to influence the elections as another way to keep up the fight. It’s as if business groups have never spent money on political advocacy before, or that seeking profit is somehow a foreign concept. Next, we’ll be hearing about possible Russian involvement.
I get that opponents aren’t happy about the results of both referenda. But at the end of the day, voters knew what they were getting. Twice. And, as for those who continue to press the comical idea that voters were duped, naive and somehow manipulated by illicit corporate cash when they voted for legalization and against opt-out….well, we all know from another headline from the 2016 election how well *that* worked out.
I’m really glad ward 2 finally has a contested race.
@Michael: “….I wonder what will be the next amazing opportunity for billionaire investors and millionaire frontmen to game well-intentioned progressives and purchase their own easy-money legislation?” — it’s already in our midst! You guessed it: high-density development 😉
Bugek, the point of digging up the past is learning lessons for the future. Yesterday it was pot shops; today it is high-density development. Big money is constantly in search of useful idiots who they can manipulate to promote their greedy business by associating it with universally valued concepts and beliefs.
Speaking of Citizens United, many would like to see it over turned. There’s a non-profit working toward that end, called, appropriately enough, endcitizensunited.org
How, pray tell, is a small local business supposed to be able to start a dispensary in this state when the state requires an outlay of hundreds of thousands of dollars for licensure, security, logistics real estate and so forth, for which many banks won’t lend?
The developers buying up the whole city are probably much better funded than the big scary marijuana company anyway.
It’s time to move on folks.
Here’s a primer for the next corporation with half a million to spend to get their way in Newton:
1. Lobby Mayor to announce she will veto any ballot question that doesn’t have multiple questions on the ballot.
2. Create an implicit third question by instructing your voters to vote against both questions, making it a three-way race where the two ballot questions have to get above 50% to win but you don’t.
3. Give the city grossly inflated tax revenue projections so the Mayor can announce what the city will lose if they don’t do what you want (she can walk back those projections later after the election). Don’t include any costs to the city in these projections.
4. Pay an army of attractive door-to-door canvassers to tell citizens that the Mayor is projecting the city will lose millions if we don’t do your bidding.
@Pat Irwin-
I don’t think Citizens United is going anywhere soon. Why would Democrat politicians who raise gigantic sums of money appearing to be against CU give up a huge source of campaign fund raising money, especially when they enjoy the moral high ground? It doesn’t make sense.
Why unilaterally disarm?
People need to step away from their iPhones and social media accounts and start doing some independent reading and research or they are going to be left behind.
People like phony fossil fuel
Billionaire-Democrat Tom Steyer might want to impeach Trump and punish political candidates that won’t commit to preventing climate change, but people should be asking this fraud why it was okay for him to get rich off of fossil fuels but not anyone else?
California Dreaming Linda Ronstadt lovin’ Democrat Jerry Brown might hate Trump,
but he and his billionaire family are waist deep in the oil business, so he’s got plenty of
‘Splainin” to do.
The richest man in the world Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon & the Washington Post is a Democrat.
Google “Amazon Employee reviews” and you’ll get an eyeful of how JB treats the little people that work for him- kind of like people who attempt to migrate to America. A loyal Hillary Clinton donor JB is.
Anyone heard of Silicon Valley or companies like Apple, Facebook or Google? The people that sell your personal info, invade your privacy and lie to Congress under oath?
The billionaires that own these companies are all Democrats and
Democrat party donors
I could go on and on but I think you get the picture…
Yes I’m cynical but a well informed
electorate is essential.
@Paul: you’ll get no argument from me. Corporate Dems are a hypocritical bunch, for sure. But the times, they are a-changing 😉
Paul, we should end CU. Mitch McConnell owns his own PAC and is taking dark money from Russia at the sametime he is working to ease sanctions on Russia….that is scary. Regardless of who is benefitting from CU we should be getting rid of the ruling. It is a horrible precedent to give one side a bigger edge over another, it doesn’t matter which party benefits. It’s horrible to allow these huge corporations to have more power in society than an average everyday person. It is outrageous!!!
It’s terrible. Look up HR1. It made an attempt to get rid of dark money, gerrymandering and voter suppression….but guess what….it won’t pass because McConnell who benefits with his PAC wont allow it to. HR1 already passed the democratic house, but won’t pass the republican senate….hmmmm. Food for thought…no?? Don’t get me started with this issue….you wont win!!!
The title of this post should be “Crony Capitalism Comes to Newton.”
After this success, it won’t be the last time.
@Pat Irwin-
I hope you are right.
@Tom Sheff-
I definitely hear you and I agree. It’s all just a game, and the clown car is packed on both sides.
There is a lot of carpet-bomb invective on this thread against bogeyman “millionaires” and “billionaires”. Nobody has named even one of them or shown that any of them broke the law. Apparently they are just guilty of being richer than you.
If somebody broke the law, prosecute them. If you think the law is broken, elect people who will fix it. If your candidate didn’t win the election, such is democracy.
But don’t indiscriminately scapegoat people who are more successful than you. That’s just jealousy, and it is contrary to an economic system that has given EVERYBODY in this country a vastly better standard of living over the long run. (If you don’t accept that, please see the data in Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker, and then let’s talk).
@Michael, the angst that I see expressed here is not against wealthy people, but against the undue influence of unlimited political contributions used to further the business or political interests of the few.
The city has voted four times on separate issues related to cannabis and the outcome is almost identical each time. I put a huge amount of time into this campaign, but in looking at the numbers of the four referenda, you have to wonder if the outcome would have been identical if we’d all just stayed home.
Canvassing and phone banking is the backbone of any good campaign and the fact is the vast majority of canvassers are volunteers – I’ve spent many hours pounding the pavement for various candidates and causes for a granola bar and a bottle of water.
Opt Out had a list of 6000 people they claimed supported their position. If just 5% of these people had spent one afternoon over the 7-8 week campaign canvassing or phone banking, they could easily have covered the city. While it wasn’t the strategy they chose to pursue, it remains the only one that makes a difference, especially in a local campaign.
It’s really time to move on.
@Sarah, you are correct: that is what the headline is about, and many people here have stayed on topic. But the comments I’ve described are definitely here on this thread. They are part of an unfortunate trend, inflamed by some extremists in the Democratic party, that indiscriminately blames businesspeople and innovators for the country’s problems merely because their wealth is not “equal” to that of others.
@Michael Singer-
Theoretically, a rising tide lifts all boats, so it’s not the money that I
have a problem with, it’s the phoney holier than thou righteous indignation act that these frauds put forth with a straight face. They could care not one bit about anything than money, and that’s a real problem if they are wielding political power with that money. That’s kind of what the whole point of this thread is,
yes?
Paul, yes. One person one vote…not one person one vote plus millions of dollars.
@Paul, who are these “frauds” committing a “phoney holier than thou righteous indignation act?” What exactly did they do wrong to deserve such strong language? I agree that what is happening is unfortunate, maybe even unfair, but it was blessed by the Supreme Court. So who is to blame?
@MichaelSinger-
Hopefully the wealthy Democrat
candidates in this election cycle will refuse political donations from their Democrat Millionaire Billionaire brethren(Bezos Buffet Steyer et
al)and do what all good Democrats do – tax them right back to the Stone Age
The problem isn’t that wealthy people donate money. You and I can donate up to the 2800 maximum (on presidential election) I don’t know numbers in state or local. When I ran max on local was 500. That’s all fine. Citizens United went much, much further. By proclaiming that corporations are people it has allowed an influx of dark money (money that isn’t transparent and there is no max). That’s is why the Koch brothers can lawfully get away with pouring $400 mi in campaign cycles. Then they get their money back (and then some) when someone like Trump comes into office, yells trickle down economics and they get their tax break. I know I’m venting and we are straying way away from the issue….but the problem is deeper than Newton. By the way, it happens on both sides, but it’s more prevalent with the repubs (just sayin”).
Not for nothing, but in this case, I feel for the companies.
Having moved to Acton recently, with open town meeting government, I had the displeasure of watching:
1. The community voted FOR retail marijuana in the State initiative.
2. The Board of Selectmen tabled a local ban on retail sales – which had to go to both a local referendum & a Town Meeting vote.
3. The local referendum to ban passed – but with fewer people voting than voted on the original referendum, and the total yes (“ban”) votes, was lower than either the yes or no votes in the original initiative (i.e., fewer people turned out). This advanced things to Town Meeting.
4. At Town Meeting, the vote was overwhelmingly to ban retail sales – BUT… only about 1400 people turned out, about 10% of the electorate, and a lot smaller number than voted in either election.
In other words, a small, somewhat organized group managed to derail the clear will of the majority. It might have been different if the folks who wanted to open a dispensary had done some serious get-out-the-vote campaigning.
Miles – My heart bleeds for the Action pot head community. NOT.
Maybe you would prefer it if the Big Marijuana interests (or the small vendors — all planning to make a cash out exit play to Big Marijuana) had also spent 1/2 a million dollars — or more — to buy that election (and Town leadership) in Acton like they did in Newton?
Just to be transparent about my position on this marijuana issue, before I leave for the day. I’m fine with the result, just not with the process. I believe Jane Frantz, when she says that it would have passed without the money anyway….but knowing what I now know, it will always have an asterisk next to the results….which is a shame.
I am also for more density near village centers, but pouring more money into campaigns will send a message to developers (if they didn’t already know) that money buys elections in Newton…open your wallets and build. (Not saying all development is bad, because it’s not).
Tom — well stated on the development issue
Tom – There was another ballot committee (Responsible First Step Newton) that Jake totally dismissed in this age of money dominated politics. The people on this committee were and are deeply involved in many aspects of civic life in this community and have been for years. We were able to connect effectively with other activists in the community to spread our message.
We worked extremely hard connecting with various groups, presenting our case to them, explaining the stringent regulations of the Cannabis Control Commission, etc. We had a clear cogent message – Regulate, Don’t Ban.
In addition, with one exception, RFSN was a female driven ballot committee. It was laser focused on communicating accurate information as it pertained to the regulations established for Mass. It’s insulting that neither Jake, nor any of the other people on this thread, acknowledged our efforts and knowledge of how to organize a well run campaign in just seven weeks.
None of us will ever know how the vote would’ve turned out without this political action. My offhand comment about staying home was meant only to make reference to the consistency of the votes on cannabis in Newton over the years, and nothing more.
The other ballot committee was named Respect the Vote. It’s time to do just that.
Great post by Jane. “Respect the Vote,” [and the revote].
The problem here is that Jake Auchincloss is trying to inoculate himself from the political ramifications of his own reefer madness by suggesting there is some connection between the legalization of marijuana and the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United. There is no such connection.
Auchincloss was one of a handful of prohibitionist councilors who tried to screw the electorate out of the 2016 vote that legalized marijuana. I hope people will remember that in November.
Lots of comments and yet little discussion of what’s actually important, here. It’s not the outcome of the vote (as I state in my post).
(a) Are we OK with corporations spending big in local elections? (pot stores, developers, et al)
(b) Are we OK with corporations not disclosing that spending until after the vote?
(c) If not: how can we, as a community and a government, prevent it next time around?
Oh Jake, cut the crap already! The cannabis revote had nothing to do with Citizens United. Cannabis supporters followed all the election laws exactly and did not use any “loopholes.”
To me, b) matters a lot. I believe we should know before voting who is spending big money in the elections. The question is – can we do anything about this at a local level or is it a State issue?
Jake,
Let’s skip straight to part (c). Newton’s outstanding law department would be the ones to consult, to explore any possible remedies that force more timely reporting and/or cap contributions at the local level.
If there is no viable local enforcement (ie. any municipal law would be easily challenged & overturned), then our opinions on (a) and (b) are kinda moot, and this is a fight that needs to happen at the state and/or national level.
Jake – Are you willing to admit that a activist-driven ballot committee led by people with deep connections in the community can run an effective campaign? Or do you think it’s all about the money? It appears that to you it’s all about the money. Sorry, but I don’t see it that way and that’s why I’m pounding the pavement and making phone calls every fall.
Your silence indicates that you don’t believe that RFSN even mattered in this campaign. As it stands, you have chosen to diminish what a predominantly female ballot committee was able to do in seven weeks.
Jane, you are raising a straw man argument. You know I believe in grassroots. We have both done a lot of it. You’re great at it.
Next time you do it, will you be OK with your opponent (or even an ally) outspending the field 10-to-1 and hiding that from voters?
I know you believe in transparency. This has nothing to do with THC or the last election. It is about what voters deserve to know.
What is THC again? Remind me?
How to win friends and influence people: