T
The420Guy
Guest
House Republicans are attempting to lift long-standing restrictions on a $1
billion anti-drug advertising program in a move that would allow the White
House to use taxpayer funds to engage in partisan political activities and
campaign against candidates or ballot measures favoring the legalization of
drugs.The provision was quietly tucked into a bill reauthorizing the White
House Office of National Drug Control Policy and is set for markup today
before the House Government Reform Committee.Currently, the office and its
director, who is commonly referred to as the drug czar, are barred by law
from using their annual $195 million anti-drug advertising budget for
partisan, political purposes.
Under language included in a reauthorization bill authored by Rep. Mark
Souder (R-Ind.), the prohibition would be lifted when the ONDCP director is
acting "to oppose an attempt to legalize the use" of any illegal drug. The
measure was approved last week by the Government Reform subcommittee on
criminal justice, drug policy and human resources. As written, the provision
would allow partisan radio, print and television ads if the purpose were to
oppose the legalization of drug use.
Critics said that any candidate or political party that adopts a position
promoting such reforms as allowing the medical use of marijuana or reducing
drug sentencing provisions could face a government-sponsored advertising
campaign against them in the electoral battlefield.Last year, for example,
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) sponsored legislation that would limit federal
intervention aimed at states or localities that adopted ballot measures less
restrictive than current law in dealing with marijuana use.
Under the eased advertising restrictions, the drug-control office could
presumably use television ads against Frank, critics of the proposal
said.The provision would also allow the drug czar to campaign against state
and local ballot initiatives seeking to ease restrictions on various aspects
of drug policy."In plain English, the subcommittee has created a political
slush fund with a billion dollars of our tax money," said Steve Fox,
director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, a group
that favors reform of laws that criminalize the use of marijuana."If this
provision stands, it means that the drug czar can use our tax dollars to
fund partisan political campaigns anytime he can justify it as 'opposing
drug legalization.' Any administration of any party will have a blank check
to run taxpayer-funded attack ads against their opponents, and all they have
to do is claim they're opposing drug legalization."
Bill Piper, associate director of national affairs at the Drug Policy
Alliance, said "this would be like the [Internal Revenue Service] running
ads against tax-cut proposals and the candidates that support them. Using
public money to tell people how to think and feel about policy is the
definition of propaganda."A GOP committee aide defended the proposed
revision as an effort to protect the federal drug prevention advertising
campaign from being classified as political activity in states or locales
where ballot initiatives related to the legalization of marijuana are being
considered.
"What we are simply trying to clarify is that the regular operation of the
media campaign, when it gets into things that some people want to claim and
construe as political, is not political," the aide said.Last fall in Nevada,
John Walters, the current director of the drug policy office, campaigned
against a ballot initiative that would have largely decriminalized marijuana
possession for adults.
After the initiative was defeated, the Marijuana Policy Project filed a
complaint with state election officials against Walters for failing to
comply with Nevada's campaign finance disclosure laws, which require "the
reporting of contributions and expenses for every person or group of persons
organized formally or informally who advocates the passage or defeat of a
question or group of questions on the ballot at any election."
In an April 21 opinion which found that Walters was likely immune from
complying with state campaign laws as a federal official, the state's
attorney general, Brian Sandoval, nonetheless concluded that "it is
unfortunate that a representative of the federal government substantially
intervened in a matter that was clearly a State of Nevada issue. The
excessive federal intervention that was exhibited in this instance is
particularly disturbing because it sought to influence the outcome of a
Nevada election."
The GOP aide said Souder was expected to offer an amendment during
Thursday's markup to "tighten" the provision by including an"express
advocacy" test that is even now at the center of a major constitutional
battle in the litigation over the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.The aide,
who did not make a copy of the amendment available, said it would make clear
that advertising that "does not expressly advocate support for or defeat of
a candidate or ballot initiative in any election" would be allowed.
This would mean that the heated legal dispute over what constitutes a
genuine issue ad, as opposed to an electioneering ad, would be thrust into
the drug-control policy debate. The Supreme Court test to define express
advocacy - known in the campaign finance world as the "magic words" that
forthrightly state an electoral position after the 1974 Buckley case - is at
the center of the fight between speech and reform advocates. The aide
acknowledged difficulty with such a definition. "The problem is that the
whole area is so slippery when you try to define it. And the campaign
finance people have this problem."
But Piper said that the modified provision would still be just as bad. "It's
still allowing the White House to use taxpayer money for issue ads. At the
end of the day it really doesn't make that much difference if you go into a
district and say, 'Congressman Smith has the wrong position on drugs.' If
you do it a month before the election, voters understand what you mean."
By Damon Chappie, Roll Call Staff
billion anti-drug advertising program in a move that would allow the White
House to use taxpayer funds to engage in partisan political activities and
campaign against candidates or ballot measures favoring the legalization of
drugs.The provision was quietly tucked into a bill reauthorizing the White
House Office of National Drug Control Policy and is set for markup today
before the House Government Reform Committee.Currently, the office and its
director, who is commonly referred to as the drug czar, are barred by law
from using their annual $195 million anti-drug advertising budget for
partisan, political purposes.
Under language included in a reauthorization bill authored by Rep. Mark
Souder (R-Ind.), the prohibition would be lifted when the ONDCP director is
acting "to oppose an attempt to legalize the use" of any illegal drug. The
measure was approved last week by the Government Reform subcommittee on
criminal justice, drug policy and human resources. As written, the provision
would allow partisan radio, print and television ads if the purpose were to
oppose the legalization of drug use.
Critics said that any candidate or political party that adopts a position
promoting such reforms as allowing the medical use of marijuana or reducing
drug sentencing provisions could face a government-sponsored advertising
campaign against them in the electoral battlefield.Last year, for example,
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) sponsored legislation that would limit federal
intervention aimed at states or localities that adopted ballot measures less
restrictive than current law in dealing with marijuana use.
Under the eased advertising restrictions, the drug-control office could
presumably use television ads against Frank, critics of the proposal
said.The provision would also allow the drug czar to campaign against state
and local ballot initiatives seeking to ease restrictions on various aspects
of drug policy."In plain English, the subcommittee has created a political
slush fund with a billion dollars of our tax money," said Steve Fox,
director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, a group
that favors reform of laws that criminalize the use of marijuana."If this
provision stands, it means that the drug czar can use our tax dollars to
fund partisan political campaigns anytime he can justify it as 'opposing
drug legalization.' Any administration of any party will have a blank check
to run taxpayer-funded attack ads against their opponents, and all they have
to do is claim they're opposing drug legalization."
Bill Piper, associate director of national affairs at the Drug Policy
Alliance, said "this would be like the [Internal Revenue Service] running
ads against tax-cut proposals and the candidates that support them. Using
public money to tell people how to think and feel about policy is the
definition of propaganda."A GOP committee aide defended the proposed
revision as an effort to protect the federal drug prevention advertising
campaign from being classified as political activity in states or locales
where ballot initiatives related to the legalization of marijuana are being
considered.
"What we are simply trying to clarify is that the regular operation of the
media campaign, when it gets into things that some people want to claim and
construe as political, is not political," the aide said.Last fall in Nevada,
John Walters, the current director of the drug policy office, campaigned
against a ballot initiative that would have largely decriminalized marijuana
possession for adults.
After the initiative was defeated, the Marijuana Policy Project filed a
complaint with state election officials against Walters for failing to
comply with Nevada's campaign finance disclosure laws, which require "the
reporting of contributions and expenses for every person or group of persons
organized formally or informally who advocates the passage or defeat of a
question or group of questions on the ballot at any election."
In an April 21 opinion which found that Walters was likely immune from
complying with state campaign laws as a federal official, the state's
attorney general, Brian Sandoval, nonetheless concluded that "it is
unfortunate that a representative of the federal government substantially
intervened in a matter that was clearly a State of Nevada issue. The
excessive federal intervention that was exhibited in this instance is
particularly disturbing because it sought to influence the outcome of a
Nevada election."
The GOP aide said Souder was expected to offer an amendment during
Thursday's markup to "tighten" the provision by including an"express
advocacy" test that is even now at the center of a major constitutional
battle in the litigation over the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.The aide,
who did not make a copy of the amendment available, said it would make clear
that advertising that "does not expressly advocate support for or defeat of
a candidate or ballot initiative in any election" would be allowed.
This would mean that the heated legal dispute over what constitutes a
genuine issue ad, as opposed to an electioneering ad, would be thrust into
the drug-control policy debate. The Supreme Court test to define express
advocacy - known in the campaign finance world as the "magic words" that
forthrightly state an electoral position after the 1974 Buckley case - is at
the center of the fight between speech and reform advocates. The aide
acknowledged difficulty with such a definition. "The problem is that the
whole area is so slippery when you try to define it. And the campaign
finance people have this problem."
But Piper said that the modified provision would still be just as bad. "It's
still allowing the White House to use taxpayer money for issue ads. At the
end of the day it really doesn't make that much difference if you go into a
district and say, 'Congressman Smith has the wrong position on drugs.' If
you do it a month before the election, voters understand what you mean."
By Damon Chappie, Roll Call Staff