Meddling
in
Michigan:
Taxpayer
Money
Expended
in
Ballot
Initiative
Fight
5/26/00
Over the past four years, the proliferation of voter initiatives seeking reforms in state drug policies has drawn the ire of many pro-drug war officials, especially those in law enforcement who see any change in the status quo as a threat to their budgets. It is within their rights, of course, to disagree with any issue before voters or legislators. It is a different story, however, when state money is being used to influence the electoral process. That is what is happening in Michigan, according to Greg Schmid, who is spearheading the effort to place on the ballot and pass the Michigan Personal Responsibility Amendment, PRA 2000. The campaign, which is a strictly volunteer effort to this point, seeks to legalize the personal possession and use of marijuana in the state, and to divert monies seized in drug cases away from the coffers of police and toward education in personal responsibility. Schmid began the campaign in late 1999, and now has over 2,000 volunteers across the state, training new recruits and gathering the signatures that will be necessary to place the initiative on the ballot. Schmid credits the Internet with allowing him to conduct such a massive operation on an out of pocket, almost nonexistent budget. "The response has just been incredible," Schmid told The Week Online. "People are signing up on the site, we hook them in with more experienced volunteers in their region, and the signatures keep pouring in." Schmid said that he hopes to raise some money for later stages of the campaign, including a modest advertising budget, but that for now, he is satisfied to let the strength of his arguments and the passion of his growing volunteer corps carry the day. Pro-Drug War forces in Michigan, however, seem less confident in their own prospects. In fact, it appears that in their zeal, opponents of the measure, including some law enforcement officials, may have broken state law by using taxpayer dollars to influence the election. On May 3rd and 4th, a two-day conference titled "Training the Trainers: Putting the Brakes on the Drug Legalization Movement" was held in Lansing, Michigan. The conference was sponsored by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Drug Free America Foundation (not to be confused with the Partnership for a Drug Free America), the Michigan Chamber Foundation, the Crime Prevention Association of Michigan and local community anti-drug organizations. The conference, which focused heavily on the PRA and how to defeat it, raised two potential violations of state law. The first was the improper use of state professional education funding. The web site put up by conference organizers announced: "The class has been approved by MCOLES (the Michigan Committee on Law Enforcement Standards) as being eligible for 302 funds." According to Schmid, who is an attorney, 302 funds are taxpayer dollars authorized by the state in 1982 for criminal justice training programs. The second potential violation is that according to one attendee, Michigan law enforcement personnel attended the conference while on duty. Of the 117 attendees registered for the event, 77 were government agency employees, including many law enforcement officers. Schmid said only about 65 people actually attended the conference. "The conference was held on consecutive mid-week days," said Schmid, "meaning that it is very likely that they were there on taxpayer time." Schmid, who is in the process of filing an official criminal complaint, has waited several weeks after the actual event because "we wanted to give everyone time to cash their paychecks for the period." Schmid also sent a letter to MCOLES asking for an explanation. In response, he received a letter back stating that MCOLES had neither received nor approved an application for 302 funding for the event, despite event advertisement to the contrary. "Something is very definitely wrong here," said Schmid. But we will get to the bottom of it, through the discovery process if necessary." Schmid's case will be aided by evidence gathered by a woman who attended the conference. The woman, whose name is being kept confidential, compiled her notes on the conference in a document entitled "Through the Looking Glass," which Schmid included in a press release last week. "I arrived with a camera and tape recorder in hand," reads the document. "They looked shocked that I assumed I could record and take pictures. They demanded that prior to entering the conference I take the equipment back to my room and sign a really prohibitive agreement. No electronic equipment and no questions from the floor. Instead, we had to write them out, complete with our full name and the association we were from." In another section of the document, the woman describes an overheard conversation between another attendee and Mary Ann Solberg, executive director of the Troy Community Coalition and Coalition of Healthy Communities and an opponent of PRA 2000. "Ms. Solberg is so bothered about PRA that she made this tremendous effort, but she apparently has not bothered to read the petition. I eavesdropped on a conversation during lunch on the 2nd day wherein a Michigan attendee explained that it is not just a 'Medical Excuse Marijuana' initiative. (Their words, not mine.) Then she made the statement that 'my attorneys have told me not to mention PRA in public.' Then, she glanced at me and lowered her voice almost to a whisper. I felt like James Bond doing reconnaissance in a kindergarten." Despite the cloak and dagger frivolity, there is a serious issue at stake here. And, according to Schmid, it is an issue that goes to the very heart of the ideals of free elections and free societies. "The state of Michigan, in the wake of at least one other lawsuit, has made it clear that there is a strong interest in keeping public monies out of the electioneering process. It is a pretty basic concern for everyone, making sure that our elections are clean and free of taint. It is the business of the government to govern, not to use tax dollars to promote its will by influencing a free election." (Visit PRA 2000 at http://www.ballot2000.net on the web.)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
