Its time has come - A PRO-CANNABIS SuperPAC. Your ideas are needed!

"Legalize Freedom Pac"
Thank you and good day sir!

Or "Liberty Preservation Project"

I assume god gives me this liberty and I intend to preserve it. Mans laws will not trump my God given rights or liberties. The constitution and bill if rights protect and describe these god given rights to every human.....SO FUCK THE FUCK OFF STUPIDITY STUPIDITIES FUCK FACE PIG FUCK FUCK PEDO FED AND ANY LEO THAT WOULD VIOLATE ME AND WHAT GOD HAS GIVEN ME AND WHAT HUMANS DIED FOR AND PAID FOR WITH THEIR BLOOD. :banghead:

CannaBunkerMan said:

What will the purpose of said PAC be? It should be short, clear and consice.

or...

Should the purpose statement be broad, so that no one in the comunity is marginalized?

Is our main purpose to educate? To offer a counter to the reefer madness naritive? Are we for legalization? Regulation? Does this unnecessarily tie us into symentics if we focus on changing law? Should it be to further the MMJ, or to bring MJ out of the closet, and into mainstream?

Click to expand...

IMO, that is gonna be the biggest sticking point.

im sure none of us here, or anyone smoking wants to be harrassed for smoking, so anything removing criminal penalties would be a step foward. but then you get idiots who need to have a law allowing 1000 plants and this and that, or a constitutional ammendment, and the greedy commercial grower will always be against competition, or act like big biz will take it over. Something like this would probably have been accomplished by now if we didnt all sit around waiting for our own personal perfect bill. Its not gonna happen. You can't pick the revolution thats happening.

I say decriminalization should be the goal, no limits or taxes, which HR 2306 does on a federal level. But this might be a bit much.

i mean some places will just never go for pot on any level, only 16(?) states even allow med mj, so its not like everyone will go for this immediately.

Should we take the Jack Herer route? We could use his book as a starting point.

advertising on gas pumps is the most cost effective, other than social media, to reach a captive audience.

an advertisment @ the pump offers the ability to get a more complicated message across.


i watched a debate in Colorado regarding cannabis and on the panel was a guy who had the most sensable responses to the ones opposing cannabis.......he knew their propoganda and articulated responses that made them squirm. im not sure what this guy's name is but he was a w/m ~50 and i think he represented the group Americans or Students for a Sensable Drug Policy....someone like this guy would be a good leader.

lets hope if any pac, super pac or 501 c4 Non-Profit gets started that its not headed by the usual idiots unable to be quick with an educated articulate response. its time to get credible leaders to transition Cannabis into the mainstream.

collaborate with farmers, leap, norml, aclu or any other organizations that might be of benefit.

Truth over Propoganda PAC

Maybe a HemPAC...focus on national hemp for growth legalization and as a side effect it might legalize pot also...if it was a standard cannabis PAC then the focus might be on oil to apply to cancer or other skin related conditions. This is what NORMAL was suppose to do originally but now they are just a club with little action and big donations...so be careful on how you set up the rules and goals...money kin folk ya...

I've only read the first page here, and I have some opinions.

First, there is NO WAY I would participate in a PAC that uses seed sales as its basis for funding. Who here really thinks that the PAC would be allowed to use the monies garnered for those sales to support a candidate or legislation?

Second, I see no reason why someone in a non-medical state shouldn't head up something like this. In fact, it's a better choice, IMO.

Third, be careful what you wish for. Many PACs lose focus, begin to broaden their scope, and next thing you know they're like every other superPAC. Do you want to end up funding lobbying for corporate interests? I don't, and I can easily see it ending up in that direction. Great care must be taken when deciding on a mission statement and goal to address such concerns, IMO.

Crusader Rabbit said:

Using seed sales from this site to finance a political operation, is probably the quickest way to get it targeted and shut down that I could imagine.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't think the monies can legally be used for PAC funding.


Who invoked Karl Rove? One of the triumvirate? <facepalm> He *is* effective, though, gotta give ya that.

MC ROVE! [YOUTUBEIF]KdvHwtRdg_I[/YOUTUBEIF]

MadBuddhaAbuser said:

Also a very key part of the anonymity in a superpac involves setting up a 501 (c)(4), so you would also have to set-up the non-profit. A superpac alone has to disclose. Another issue with the 501, is that the primary purpose should not(or can not, not entirely sure yet, these are murky waters) have as its main purpose political fundraising. which in theory means it would actually have to engage in charitable acts.(maybe helping out familys of locked up growers, or community improvement or whatever) So there is that aspect.
*EDIT- the way it works basically is, the anonymous donations go to 501, then those go to SuperPAC anonymously.

Click to expand...

SeaMaiden said:

First, there is NO WAY I would participate in a PAC that uses seed sales as its basis for funding. Who here really thinks that the PAC would be allowed to use the monies garnered for those sales to support a candidate or legislation?I honestly don't think the monies can legally be used for PAC funding.

Click to expand...

I was thinking about the subject of seeds funding the PAC.

If we setup the 501(c)(4), maybe seed money could still be used.

I'm not saying this is a critical step, but it would be an easy way to get people HERE involved financially.

Care would have to be taken that the seed fund was setup to "donate to charitable organizations of our own choosing" and then we "choose" to donate to the 501, which then donates the money to the PAC, so nobody knows where the money actually came from.

I don't see how doing this could impact the PAC's eligibility to do whatever it wanted.

(But I'm also not a lawyer.)

We'd need to come up with a set of bylaws so that members of the board (whoever they may be) would not have the power to change the focus of the PAC, once we decide what it is.

i was thinking just like POTM we could vote here online every month or two. we could compile a list of proposed causes in a thread that must be cannabis related and the top 5 will go up for a vote.

does this sound like a fair process .

were there more than a couple hundred members who actually care enough to post a comment, i'd think this would have a chance.
when most of the community is afraid to expose themselves through an avatar on a secure server, it gives me pause to wonder why...and leads one to believe that it is just graffiti on a passing freight.

love the concept though too.

...spokesperson should not be a grower or user (but could be a caregiver) to deny the opposition any opportunity to smear.

Great thread Anti!

I nominate Marc Emery; he knows the system and is a good front man known worldwide. with any luck, second strike could net him 12 years. but we'ed be on the world map

Couple have pointed on the simple issue of a well defined goal-focus... Well, seemingly simple... ;-)

Can't say I have been to dozens of meetings or the like, but from the sidelines... There are 3 or so main players like am for safe access... And they work platforns in varying medical states as is... Would suggest to start by lookin at them and seeing what-how they work.

Kinda notice that each has an idea for the 'best' way forward, and each lobbies for what they feel has the best chance of passing... Making concessions to address the varying issues as they come up... Right down to guaging the voter base in each area-market-state. Just to point out that consensus isn't that easy... Esp across varying states.

And ultimately... You have those most tied into the system... And an air of respectability comes to play... Get the ear of whichever politician that can effect change... And it always appears that certain interests are protected for, at the cost to others. Again, consensus for how to make change seems difficult... And some reason that if they are going to do all this work, put up all that money, take the risk... Then they had better be a way for them to get theirs at tyhe end of the day. All of a sudden, starting from a good place-idea... It becomes a conmpetition of the varying supporters to protect their personal interests... Esp as it gets closer to actually happening.

They will all say that these consessions are nec to make the draft passable... And perhaps this is very true...? It sure doesn't look easy from the outside. But legal firms, lobbyist, and biz entrepeneurs all come outta the woodwork... And it ends up reading like a tv drama. And who knows what really happens at the important meetings... Masters of the universe type shit is my guess... Or so they feel in the moment, is my guess.

Some of em decide that decreimi, legalization, rescheduling isn't practical at the moment, so let's offer up plan xyz... And we find these pseudo-illegal markets like colorado where some can be in the profit, yet others can keep feeding the criminal corporation of america. Maybe it the best that could pass... Maybe its been co-op'd by major business interests...? But what was that primary, all-unifying goal again? How should this all play out where all of us feel good about it? Can we all grow? Can we all buy? Can everyone have a chance to make a living at this? Can all of us feel satisfied and safe under the model?

Not to mention the amount of time, effort and resources required to do all of this... Even at a state level. That's going to require professional-level players... I see suits... And what's the fair compensation on that? And how do we get such talent? What about one that is professional, well-connected, dedicated... And effective... And better yet, able to maintain some set of values and perspective of the whole deal... The jailing of otherwise non-violent, law-abiding citizens of this country...? And not just the money, or protecting interests, or what compromise that can be had...?

Its a great idea, until we start to actually try to define it. I'm for a change, no doubt... It just ain't so easy bein a gangsta, ya know? Even one in a suit

People I am really excited to be reading this thread...An open exchange of ideas with the people for the people is the best way to keep the focus on what needs to be done.
KISS the name maybe "The American CannaPac" or start smaller on a state by state level
"The California CannaPac" ect...
Keep the ideas flowing.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Anti said:

I was thinking about the subject of seeds funding the PAC.

If we setup the 501(c)(4), maybe seed money could still be used.

Click to expand...

Then you have more confidence in the IRS than I, my friend. I seriously doubt that model would work.

Straight up fundraisers should work, though. Grassroots style, like Ron Paul has done it. Of course, he doesn't have the big bucks, but this kind of PAC isn't going to get the big bucks, especially if we're competing for lobby dollars with the likes of ASA and NORML.

Anti said:

I'm not saying this is a critical step, but it would be an easy way to get people HERE involved financially.

Care would have to be taken that the seed fund was setup to "donate to charitable organizations of our own choosing" and then we "choose" to donate to the 501, which then donates the money to the PAC, so nobody knows where the money actually came from.

Click to expand...

Then leave the idea of seed sales as the beginning of the funding out of it completely.

Anti said:

I don't see how doing this could impact the PAC's eligibility to do whatever it wanted.

Click to expand...

Only impacted by the IRS. They are not fun to play with.

Anti said:

(But I'm also not a lawyer.)

We'd need to come up with a set of bylaws so that members of the board (whoever they may be) would not have the power to change the focus of the PAC, once we decide what it is.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but first a mission statement is the place to start, even before a name is arrived upon.

I've had some other ideas on what the PAC would really be doing, in order to gain effective changes to legislation pertaining to cannabis (because that's really what we're after, yes? reduction or elimination of criminal penalties at the very least). To that end, some of the people the PAC would want to fund would be JUDGES.

Great example is occurring in my county as I type, we've got two men up for one seat in the county supreme court. This is a *very* important position in terms of local law, ordinances, etcetera, please allow me to explain, I'm going to use our zoning ordinance as an example.

Board of supes recently passed a ZONING ordinance (this distinction is important in relation to state law) declaring all outdoor cultivation of cannabis beyond 12 plants per patient and 2 patients per parcel is prohibited, and it is a per se public nuisance. Let's say I decided to practice a little civil disobedience. How that would play out depends ENTIRELY on how the jurist who would ultimately finalize the fine structure implemented by the county, assuming I say fuck off and don't pay the fines, decides to rule on the matter.

This is important because this jurist can indeed say, "This is bad law, and I'm not enforcing it." Or that jurist can decide that the fine structure is good the way it is and go along with this BoS, who passed an ordinance that affects everyone in the county without truly taking into consideration the wishes of those who bothered to participate. There was no popular vote, only the board members present.

This is also important, and again I'm going to use my county as the example, because I've already linked one of the men who's up for this judge's seat with one of the supervisors, and rather closely (via public records, gotta love the Fair Political Practices Commission and the form 700!). So, if that guy gets in, do you think he's going to find in favor of a defendant who's defying an ordinance or law that one of "his boys" put into place?

Me, either.

Don't get stuck on seed sales, it really muddies the picture. This is intended to be a political organization, not a charity. Charities give you something for the donation, PACs give you laws and legislators in exchange for your donation.

Once the groundwork is laid on a local level, it becomes viral, then national. You can watch a documentary called Hot Coffee to get an idea of the angle I'm hitting this from. You not only won't need seed sales, but the more businesses that can be brought on board, the more groups who are passionate about their cause or work, the better and stronger the PAC will be.

The PAC should pay for advertising and market research as well, not just supporting candidates or legislation. Lobbying...? Slippery slope, but necessary.

from wiki --- there needs to be a hemp/canna pac

In the 2008 elections, the top nine PACs by money spent by themselves, a total of $25,794,807 via their affiliates and subsidiaries as follows:
1.International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC $3,344,650
2.AT&T Federal PAC $3,108,200
3.American Bankers Association (BANK PAC) $2,918,140
4.National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC $2,869,000
5.Dealers Election Action Committee of the National Automobile Dealers Association $2,860,000
6.International Association of Fire Fighters $2,734,900
7.International Union of Operating Engineers PAC $2,704,067
8.American Association for Justice PAC $2,700,500
9.Laborers' International Union of North America PAC $2,555,350

great idea you have Anti. You could start something big. I agree cannaPAC does sound a lot better then some cheech and chong, Im a dumbshit name. Good work I hope this moves forward.

How 'bout forementioned Sir Richard Branson ? Or a Cannadvocate ? NORML is doing it's thing, we'd be doing something else. Love the idea and I'm sub'd. When US changes théir *****stupid War on Mary Jane, all the other d***heads will follow.

Note, I'd go for Cannabis legalization, not just the smoking part. Enviromentally and agriculturally/economically we have só much to gain !

We should all be able to enjoy reefer, for recreational use.
I think California and Holland have shown, the recreational and/or medical part alone generates serious dollars, but the other possibilities of hemp/cannabis/marijuana are not to be neglected when advertizing for legalization...

People are starving, and we are making bio-fuel for our cars, made from corn !!!!
Enter hemp.

We make paper from trees, 15-18% cellulosis, using zillions of watt's to evaporate the water from the papermasses.
Enter hemp.( 65-70 % ?)

There are so many reasons pro Legalise and so few against, we can only win this !

I talked to a lawyer about the concept. He even suggested several people who might work as treasurers... for instance, he knows a former chief of police (now retired) that works with LEAP but doesn't even smoke.

That LEAP police chief would be much harder for them to fuck with, since there would be nothing illegal in their home and a history of working in law enforcement.

I have no further details at the moment, but I wanted to assure you that I am not languishing on this idea.