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

Anti said:

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.

Click to expand...

bentom187 said:

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 .

Click to expand...

spyro said:

Well, a bit of a good bump, and a quick intro....Hi! I'm a member on another board but have lurker here at IC for a good minute. I do grow (White Russian & Exodus Cheese, DWC & soon NFT), and I'm currently in a non-medicinal state. I've never felt a real need to post here (no offense, the attention span is limited!) till I read this thread.
First off, Bravo. Great ideas, and a great back-and-forth collaboration so far. But what happened?
Otherwise, here's some of my two cents:

-Name: I don't think that it should be based off the budding-grower stage so-to say...420, Cheech, BongsLuvers shouldn't be considered for lack of maturity, but is it really a big deal to make it named something simple, rememberable, and to the point? CannaPAC would be nice I think as a good example (though I can see some slower folk to get it confused with the neighboring country to the North, heh). Supposedly the word "Vagina" is taboo amongst grown men and women in Congress and maybe blatant MJ related words would be too, but if this SuperPAC is meant for informative discussion, public education, and legal reform then why not start off by pointing out that we keep the playing field serious, related, and that you must be this-mature-to-ride.

-Spokesperson/Figure Head: This isn't immediately crucial, but it is a primary concern. This person would ideally have experience with MJ and even better with various MMJ implementations. This person will most likely be heavily scrutinized, so clean is nice, not even partaking of the smoke might be nice (or conveniently have an MMJ card). I think it could be nice to get a known public figure, but a fresh face wouldn't hurt as well and backing from the current activists could still be garnered. Politicians, businesses, retired/active LEO, anyone could back the SuperPAC (potentially with monetary donations, who knows, it's all anonymous!), but there needs to be the platform in place for them to put effort and their voice behind.

-Seed Auctions: This will probably not happen for many reasons. 1) As an AMERICAN based organization, it's very dark as far as legal stipulations go even if run and perpetrated by IC/SeedBay. Not to relate moral issues but more so legal ones, it'd be similar to working with large scale pimps and sex slave traffickers to get donations from "client sales"...again, not morally the same, but in some places of the world that sorta deal isn't frowned upon, while here in the US of A it's very illegal and comes with more taboo. 2) IC/SeedBay will more than likely not want to get involved with foreign politics. I'm sure they'd have a vested interest in potentially being able to expand their user-base under newer legal policies, but it's still not their position to invest in this sort of issue. There may be more legal routes that also ease public tension, for instance, IC donating ad-space, or SB having an option for seed buyers to anonymously give a bit to the SuperPAC as well in addition to their order (This is how Paypal/eBay keeps out of murky waters while still allowing indirect donations through their service). Either way, this should really be a non-issue and not contemplated for a good minute and even then with extensive (professional) legal counsel even if IC/SB would want to establish any sort of relation.

Though, before forming a business of any sort (don't get this wrong, the financial and management strategies are the same), one usually has an idea of what they are going to do/provide/vend, how they are going to do it, the general operation of that business, and so on. This information varies on the type of business (service, retail, restaurant, etc), but here what needs to be figured out first before any real formation action is a Mission Statement, the Business Description, Primary Goals and Actions Planned, and Resources needed. Otherwise, it's just filling out a few forms, making sure they're air-tight, and using the resources to act out the planned goals.

-Mission Statement: This is pretty simple, the overall goal of the SpookyPAC. Generally about a paragraph to three long. This is where the general idea is formed, but also a few constraints. Where many businesses fail is in broad diversification...they were supposed to do this, but got over excited and went after a different set of ideas and goals to supplement the primary objective and in doing so, loose track of everything, and things quickly turn to chaos. For instance, CannaPAC is formed to INform and so on...now, when CannaPAC decides to open a few glass shops, get into vending growing supplies, etc that's when you know you've gone too far from the original idea...ideally if that's what really is available to do, then CannaPAC would start a whole new business, or a subsidy that would have it's own infrastructure, management, resources, and finances to operate independently of the SuperPAC that's just there to network and spread the word.

-Business Description: Tell everyone a little about yourself! This is pretty easy as well, a bit more in-depth on what the message is, how it was conceived, how it's distributed, future goals, and so on. Simple, though detailed, and still on-topic.

-Primary Goals and Actions Planned: This is generally the hardest (I say second hardest, you might doubt that but I'll explain) part for business staging. Once everyone's decided on the general idea, what are you going to do to make that idea a reality? Let's assume this "CannaPAC" is made to inform the public of current drug and health policies, issues brought on, and the ways we can make a change in this country. Some say that's broad, but let's impose some constraints...the issue of MJ reform comes up with many solutions, let's suppose there are three good options: Regulation, Legalization, and Decriminalization. How do we know what's best? Well, say a platform is created where CannaPAC's first stage is to inform people of their options, and to maybe provide a forum for alternate discussion. This platform also gauges user interest, user votes, inputs to potentially modify the options, and so on. CannaPAC now has a better idea of what the general public actually wants, and some input to process that as well and from there either a more solid set of options can be created, or a new blend of them into a more unified option. Either way, it would be nice to initiatively show a process for democratic discussion (not fecal flinging debate), and compromise. Before this extreme bi-partisanship, discussion and compromises were natural. Now it's seen almost as a sign of weakness, which is sad cause any intellectual will tell you otherwise and point out the social regression. Aside from that, with the potentially unified idea, it's much easily distributed and support is gained significantly easier with everyone on the same page working towards an equal goal of win-win instead of zero-sum lose-win.
This is a long read eh? Still with the Primary Goals and Actions Planned! What will CannaPAC do with this idea, this information, this data? Well, a series of marketing blasts on social media platforms, viral Internet ad campaigns, printed advertisement, and even if the Benjamins are plentiful, TV advertisement. The idea is to get the word out, and do so as well and as broad as you can, but the key will really be with the Internet platform...data and communications transfer costs have fallen through the floor, and a set of Google Adwords, and a good social website will cost less, and transfer more information to more people than an expensive 30-second ad. There are differences in the weight carried by these different forms of advertisement, but that landscape is changing with the new mobile frontier.
Ok, there are CannaPAC ads on IC and the like, Google has targeted adverts as well, the website has a few thousand users, maybe there's even a CannaPAC app! What's next? Is this going to be the bulk of a year to three's worth of work and organization? Or will it have more plans outlined? Gathering support from targeted financial backers, politicians, public figures, likely to be needed but at a later stage when this snowball's got a bit of momentum (though initial support shouldn't shy away!) Maybe CannaPAC starts to organize a video platform to have growers and caretakers spread trust-worthy information, knowledge, and experience from inside the industry? All possible, but all need to be formed into a coherent and planned set of ideas and formulated actions.

-Resources Needed: Whooo! Onto another section...this is what I think is the hardest part. Reason being, another big fault of start-ups is over-delegation of resources. K.I.S.S. is the rule, keep things down to operational necessities, and then once things are up and running you can go and add features with the resources gained in the time of basic operation. Fast, agile iteration. If you haven't picked up though, resources boils down to money. How much money/resources will be needed to setup and operate the various stages of the CannaPAC? A social, mobile, and Internet media campaign will most likely need a domain name (www.cannapac.com), a web server, SSL certificate, Google AdWords allowance, etc.

Otherwise, from there, once all this information is gathered, you can fill out the forms, get it running, and start collecting money!
Speaking of collecting money, anyone thought about a KickStarter fund? Maybe they have stipulations against raising money for a SuperPAC but I doubt it!

Here's to hoping this kindling fire is still alive with some more people...if so, I'd be more than happy to donate some of my resources, experience, and time to help initiate this process.

Click to expand...

webecat said:

How about this Judge as a spokesman.

http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com.

Click to expand...

DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

By TARINI PARTI | 7/16/12 7:38 PM EDT

Senate Democrats on Monday lost another attempt to pass legislation forcing donors of groups that bankroll most election ads to be revealed. But Democrats, led by New York Sen. Charles Schumer, pledged to hold the Senate floor hostage and continue the debate well into the night.

The DISLCOSE Act, which was dealt the same fate in the Senate in 2010, failed to overcome a key procedural vote on entirely partisan lines, 51-44. Democrats will push for another vote as early as Tuesday after holding a “midnight vigil” to protest the GOP filibuster of the measure.
Continue Reading

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was the only Democrat to vote “no” — a procedural move allowing him to bring it up again. Four Republicans and one Democrat did not vote on the bill, which would require unions, nonprofits and corporate interest groups that spend $10,000 or more during an election cycle to disclose donors who give $10,000 or more.

The new, stripped down version of the bill sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) no longer required sponsors of electioneering ads to have a disclaimer at the end and pushed the effective date to 2013. A discharge petition in the House to bring up the DISCLOSE act was also filed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) last week.

The push for the act comes as Democrats are lagging behind Republicans in fundraising. Critics of the bill argued that bringing up the measure was merely a political ploy.

“I just think it’s political theater at a time when we have real problems to solve,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also questioned the timing of the bill and argued that it would chill speech and lead to and potentially invite intimidation of donors whose identities were revealed. He and other Republicans said that although the language in the bill is the same for unions and corporate interest groups, in practice the measure would benefit unions.

“Senate Democrats want us to waste our time on the Disclose Act, a bill that has only two discernible purposes: To create the impression of mischief where there is none and to send a signal to unions that Democrats are just as eager to do their legislative bidding as ever,” McConnell said on the floor before the vote.

Democrats claim McConnell, the most vocal critic of the bill, has flip-flopped on disclosure after seeing how Republicans have benefited from outside spending groups. Schumer and others said the issue deserves continued attention now that voters are seeing and raising questions about the election ads that are taking over the airwaves

Click to expand...

Whitehouse wisely stripped down the bill. Gone are the NRA exemption, the too-soon starting date and the ban on contractor donations. Instead, Whitehouse's bill requires organizations that spend $10,000 or more during an election to identify big donors to the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours starting in 2013. It seems simple.

But it's not that simple. In a letter, the ACLU explained two big problems in the new bill: One, it strips donors to public-advocacy groups of their anonymity, "subjecting them to harassment and potentially discouraging valuable participation in the political process."

Californians may recall that some donors to the 2008 Proposition 8 campaign, which banned same-sex marriage, were subject to harassment.

Two, Whitehouse's bill has intrusive reporting requirements, even for "pure nonpartisan issue advertising that happens to mention a presidential or vice presidential candidate."

David Keating, president for the Center for Competitive Politics, believes that the reporting requirements are onerous. As he sees it, the Whitehouse bill means: "If you want to say anything about the government, you have to register with the Federal Election Commission to do it."

Also, because Whitehouse lengthened the reporting period, the ACLU warned of "a chilling effect on public criticism of the president or vice president, including truly nonpartisan criticism on specific policy issues, during more than a fourth of a president's first term."

Click to expand...

SuperSilverHaze said:

i would rather have full disclosure b/c greater harm is being done to our country by allowing politicians to be bought via re-election donations in excess of 6-7 figures.

politicians need $$$ to spread a message to get elected so my vote is not relevant if large doners feel this other candidate will vote in line with their interest so who are they going to be loyal to?

edit: 10 yrs ago Mitch McConnell and other (R) leaders were calling for disclosure in political donations and now the roles are reversed. i guess its all fair in politics when its the other side in the cross hairs.

Click to expand...