The Future of Drug Policy Reform
Can you move forward after the election without a movement? From Laura Kriho <cohip@levellers.org> Colorado Hemp Initiative Project December 9, 1998"Voter Revolt" Fraud:
Ralph Nader describes Bill Zimmerman as a "turncoat"Write or call AMR's funders
and ask them to defund AMR and fire Bill Zimmerman
Fellow reformers:
As you may know, many activists around the country have been very critical of the tactics used by Americans for Medical Rights in their medical marijuana ballot initiative campaigns this year. AMR employed a strategy of dividing and demoralizing grassroots organizations in most of the states they worked in. We criticised this as being a serious threat to the reform movement. Our analysis of the AMR strategy is available online at: http://www.levellers.org/inits98anal.htm
AMR has been mostly silent about these criticisms, refusing to answer even the simplest questions about their initiatives, until recently. Bill Zimmerman, the head of AMR, spoke at the NORML conference on November 12. Some of his comments are transcribed below.
Surprisingly, Bill Zimmerman confirmed many of the criticisms that activists around the
country have been making against AMR for over a year. But he also continued the
pattern of lies used by AMR, when he said "AMR never, ever tried to shut down local
activists."
Partial Transcript of the panel on medical marijuana initiatives at the NORML conference in Washington, D.C. on November 12, 1998 This conference session is available online at: http://www.legalize-usa.org/TOCs/video7.htm (76 minutes)
Q and A part of session:
Author Chris Conrad asked a question about how the differences between activist/grassroots organizations and the funded groups could be resolved.
Bill Zimmerman replied:
"We did not run grassroots campaigns in the states where we ran initiatives."
...
"We came in with outside money. We bought the signatures and we didn't use
volunteers to get them. We had television advertising. We had sophisticated
press strategies" that were not targeted at the activists but at the mainstream
public.
...
"We did that because we were playing an electoral game, not a movement-building game
and there's a big difference."
...
"You cannot build a mainstream campaign, generally, unless there is first an activist
movement that brings the issue that you're trying to mainstream to the public..."
"But once you're ready to move from an activist, movement-building stage...to mainstreaming an issue ... you've got to go about it in a different way."
"Election campaigns...are focused on the people in the middle because they're the people whose votes can be moved..."
"Who are those people? They're the people that don't give a shit about most
things."
...
"So you're stuck in a bad dynamic when you work on elections and that dynamic is
you've got to talk to people who are least informed. That's exactly the opposite
dynamic than when you're trying to build a movement. When you're trying to build a
movement, and you're trying to recruit activists and you're trying to get people to do
something more than just punch a hole in the ballot on election day, then you've got to
educate people; you've got to talk to what's best in people. You don't manipulate them,
you educate them because you know there's time and there's commitment and there's energy
to learn things, develop new knowledge, read magazines, read books, get educated, come to
meetings, talk to people, all those things."
...
"So those of us that work on movement building and developing activism and
coordinating grassroots movements, have a set of requirements or procedures or biases that
are very different from those of us who work on election campaigns."
"We shouldn't be enemies because neither of us can work without the other. You can't bring an issue to the ballot unless there has been, in the years preceding your bringing it to the ballot, a great deal of activism. We can only do elections standing on the shoulders of the activists that came before us."
----------------
Don Wirtshafter, of the Ohio Hempery, asked whether AMR had learned anything from the campaign in Washington state where the Killian brothers had been able to get the activists and the funded people to work together on a common goal. Bill Zimmerman replied, "No," he had not learned anything.
Don Wirtshafter also asked if AMR had purposefully tried to alienate the activists in the states that they worked in. Bill Zimmerman replied, "AMR never, ever tried to shut down local activists or prevent them from talking. What we did instead was ignore them."
<End partial transcript>
Commentary and Request for Comments
This last statement is a continuation of a pattern of lies AMR has employed to justify
the faulty strategies they applied in their campaigns this year. Because the cannabis
reform movement is based largely on exposing the lies employed by the government to
justify cannabis prohibition, I feel compelled to expose lies wherever I see them.
Fact: AMR did try to shut down activists across the country. It was part of
their strategy.
Alaska: AMR introduced a ballot initiative in competition with the initiative being circulated by Alaskans for Cannabis Therapeutics, a local, grassroots organization of patients and patient advocates. The well-funded AMR initiative disrupted and destroyed ACT's initiative campaign. The AMR initiative, which contained provisions that were unacceptable to the ACT supporters, passed by 58% of the vote.
Maine: AMR introduced a ballot initiative in competition with the initiative being circulated by Maine Citizens for Medical Marijuana, a local, grassroots organization of patients and patient advocates. Proponents of the MCMM petition had already gathered a third of their signatures when AMR introduced their initiative, which, like the Alaska petition, contained provisions that were unacceptable to the local patients and patient advocates.
AMR spent $250,000 in Maine, but failed to collect enough signatures to have the initiative placed on the ballot. The MCMM petition campaign was disrupted by the influx of AMR money, and MCMM supporters were not able to collect enough signatures to have their initiative placed on the ballot either.
Washington, D.C.: AMR introduced a ballot initiative (I-60) in competition with
the initiative (I-59) being circulated by ACT UP/DC, a local, grassroots organization of
patients and patient advocates. ACTUP was the only local organization that was able
to successfully overcome AMR's interference and get their own initiative on the
ballot. See: http://www.levellers.org/patients.htm and http://www.levellers.org/locals.htm
Fact: It was part of AMR's strategy to "shut down" the local activists. They thought that by showing their opposition to the "legalizers" and trying to distance themselves from the grassroots, that they would appear more conservative and thus more appealing to voters. This has been part of their strategy since the Prop. 215 campaign in California where Dennis Peron, father of the medical marijuana movement, was consistently trashed in the press by Bill Zimmerman and AMR.
Bill Zimmerman said, "AMR never, ever tried to shut down local activists or prevent them from talking. What we did instead was ignore them." But then he said that you can only run an election campaign "on the shoulders of the activists that came before us."
We have been saying since last year that AMR purposefully went into the states with the
most organized cannabis reform movements since those were the states with the highest
polling numbers. AMR had previously said that the work of local activists had
nothing to do with the pre-existing support for cannabis in those states. Now we see
AMR admitting that they didn't ignore the activists and patients, they -used- them.
Bill Zimmerman stood on the shoulders of activists and patients and used the groundwork
that they had made over many years of activism and public education to achieve symbolic
election wins, but destroy the grassroots efforts.
Bill Zimmerman thinks "election" campaigns are somehow different from
"movement-building" campaigns and in order to win an election, you need to
manipulate voters, not educate them. In order to win an election, you need to stop
trying to build a movement.
Bill, you won three elections with this philosophy (AK, OR, NV), but you LOST three other states because of this philosophy (CO, DC, ME) where you didn't even get your initiative on the ballot. Election campaigns and building movements are not mutually-exclusive. In fact, most successful elections have strong movements behind them.
Election-winning and movement-building are completely dependent on each other. I
know that there are differences in the strategies employed, but you can't just ignore the
movement for sake of an election win. Do you honestly think that this is progress,
when you have passed a law that has no organized grassroots support to create further
reforms after the campaign or, worse, when you have passed a law that has divided the
existing grassroots support, or worse yet, when you divide grassroots support and then
fail to pass any law at all? How do you move forward after the election without a
movement?
Fact: All the states that passed medical marijuana legislation would have
passed with virtually no campaigning, no advertising, no "sophisticated press
strategies." These initiatives passed because people are ready for
change. Heck, they were even willing to vote for a bad medical marijuana initiative
in many of these states.
Fact: AMR could have had election wins in 8-12 states this year instead of only
four by:
1) Providing funds to gather signatures and hire local organizers in the states with the
highest polling numbers, instead of wasting money on lawyers, consultants, and PR firms.
2) Not alienating grassroots support.
3) Spending the bulk of the money on the other states that had marginal polling results to
educate people and get out the vote.
AMR spent $800,000 in Colorado, $250,000 in Maine, and an estimated $100,000 in D.C. on
failed attempts to get an initiative on the ballot. I don't know what they spent on
their successful campaigns and on their salaries. So that's over $1 million dollars
that could have been used to help support those local organizations, instead of fighting
against them. You only need to look at the successful campaign of ACTUP on
Initiative 59 in D.C. to see that local organizers will give you more bang for your buck
than any hired "professionals" will. I'm confident that you'd never see
any grassroots reform organization that I know of spend $1 million and not be successful.
GOOD NEWS The good news to come from Bill Zimmerman at the conference is that AMR may not be refunded for the next election cycle.
The keynote speaker of the conference, Ethan Nadelmann of the Lindesmith Center, controls most of the funding for AMR from billionaire George Soros. Mr. Nadelmann stated during his speech that he wasn't sure which direction to take the funding to in the future: if he should put it back into AMR to do more ballot initiatives or if he should try some other strategy. He said he was open for suggestions.
I'd like to encourage people to send Mr. Nadelmann your comments. Surely, there are hundreds of ideas about what particular campaigns would be the most effective, but we are more concerned with the strategy employed to win these campaigns.
Like I've said many times over the past year, you can "buy" an election, but that won't create any long-term reform if you don't have a strong grassroots to carry on after the election. And when an organization steps on activists and patients to accomplish their goal, and demoralizes and deceives them in the process, that organization will destroy the movement, not advance it. You need the grassroots before, during, and after an election. They are an essential part of reform, not some stepping stone on the way to election day.
Please write or call Mr. Nadelmann and let him know that you are concerned with the future and urge him to abandon strategies that include dividing the grassroots and introducing competing initiatives. Encourage him to adopt strategies that bring all reformers together to work on a common goal. Encourage him to hire a campaign director who, unlike Bill Zimmerman, is able to accomplish these goals without alienating grassroots support.
Ethan Nadelmann, Director
The Lindesmith Center
400 West 59th Street
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 548-0694
Email: enadelmann@sorosny.org
Web: www.lindesmith.org
Send a copy to Bill Zimmerman: 76322.1165@compuserve.com
And to the activists in Maine, Alaska, Colorado and D.C. who have been affected by the AMR
strategy this year c/o CO-HIP: cohip@levellers.org
Imagine if you had spent years of your time and energy on writing and circulating a ballot
initiative, only to have well-funded outsiders come in at the last minute with a competing
initiative which disrupted your years of hard work. This happened to activists in
Maine, Alaska, and D.C. this year. Will it happen again? Will activists
constantly have to be looking over their shoulders in case AMR or some other outside
organization comes in to their state to disrupt their local campaigns? Or will we
have a new commitment to honesty and unity in the cannabis reform movement?
The power to answer these questions is in the hands of Mr. Nadelmann and the funders he
represents. Please take a minute to encourage him to adopt strategies that unite,
not divide.
Laura Kriho
December 9, 1998
Colorado Hemp Initiative Project
P.O. Box 729
Nederland, CO 80466
Vmail: (303) 448-5640
Email: cohip@levellers.org
Web: www.levellers.org/cannabis.html
POST SCRIPT "Voter Revolt" Fraud: Ralph Nader describes Bill Zimmerman as a "turncoat"
We have just been made aware of information of how Bill Zimmerman has "used" grassroots organizations in the past.
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights is a nationally-recognized, California-based, non-profit education and advocacy organization. The Foundation's Executive Director and founder is Harvey Rosenfield, one of the nation's foremost consumer advocates. A public interest lawyer and protégé of consumer advocate Ralph Nader, Rosenfield authored Proposition 103 and organized the campaign which led to its passage by California voters in 1988.
According to documents on their web page (www.consumerwatchdog.org), written in 1997, Bill Zimmerman worked briefly on the campaign for Prop. 103, but quit because the organization could not pay him.
Harvey Rosenfield says about Bill Zimmerman that "it quickly became clear that financial concerns drove Bill as much as anything else. Over the years, I tried to give Bill a greater role in Voter Revolt and to permit him to earn some money if there was a way we could pay him. But his financial needs led to a number of serious blunders and ultimately his financial failures bankrupted the organization. In retrospect, it seems clear that had we been able to compensate Bill, he would not have needed to switch sides and join the Alliance."
The Alliance to Revitalize California hired Bill Zimmerman to promote three ballot initiatives in 1995 (Prop. 200, 201, and 202) that were supported by the insurance industry but opposed by consumer groups. Bill Zimmerman purposefully linked the name "Voter Revolt", which was associated in the public's mind with Ralph Nader and consumer advocacy, with these three initiatives, which were opposed by Ralph Nader and every major consumer advocate group in California.
The documents on consumerwatchdog.org state, "Long before election day rolled around, it became clear that the use of the Voter Revolt name had been part of a deliberate strategy to win passage of the initiatives by misleading voters as to the identity of the true supporters of the three March initiatives: Wall Street, large corporations and financial interests, including the insurance industry. (Attachment #3)."
"An internal memorandum from the Alliance to Revitalize California that was released by opponents to the press explained the strategy succinctly: 'If voters believe that consumer groups are affiliated with both sides of the battle, the prospects for adoption of no-fault insurance are very favorable...This observation underscores the critical importance of Voter Revolt being put forward as an equal partner in the fight for no fault and other initiatives.' (Attachment #4)."
The documents also state:
"Zimmerman refers to himself as the Alliance's campaign manager. But Zimmerman also attempts to cloak himself in the garb of Voter Revolt. He routinely refers to himself as Voter Revolt's 'Political Director.' Once again, however, the use of the Voter Revolt name is a deception. Zimmerman is not employed by Voter Revolt, and has no official tie to it."
"Zimmerman, Johnson and Westermeyer were apparently taken off-guard. Acknowledging to reporters that the 'Voter Revolt' organization had previously opposed as anti-consumer the very proposals the group was now sponsoring, they repeatedly referred to their credentials as consumer advocates and leaders of 'Voter Revolt.' They told reporters that they and the organization had changed their minds. As for Voter Revolt now working with the business and financial interests it had often combated, this, William Zimmerman explained, was the new model for the '90s. 'It's time to overcome the worn-out polarization between consumer groups and business leaders, and find ways to work together for the benefit of all,' the press release stated."
"The purchase of Voter Revolt may prove cost-effective for insurance companies and other supporters of anti-consumer tort law restrictions. Recently, testifying before Congress in support of Newt Gingrich's 'tort reform' measures, Michael Horowitz invoked Voter Revolt's 'support' of the contingency fee initiative as evidence that consumer groups back such measures. (No legitimate consumer group supported any of the Gingrich/business-backed tort proposals). Horowitz told the congressional panel that Voter Revolt was a 'Nader' organization. Ralph Nader responded in a letter disavowing the characterization and describing Zimmerman and Johnson as 'turncoats who now provide their services for anti-consumer initiatives.' See Exhibit 24."
Do we want someone who Ralph Nader described as a "turncoat" working on drug policy reform? Bill Zimmerman clearly goes where the money is. What if next time the money comes from enemies of drug policy reform? Will Bill Zimmerman take all that he has learned working on medical marijuana initiatives and use it to work for the other side? With a history like this, one has to wonder.
Please write or call Ethan Nadelmann and ask him to fire Bill Zimmerman.
Ethan Nadelmann, Director
The Lindesmith Center
400 West 59th Street
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 548-0694
Email: enadelmann@sorosny.org
The quotes above were taken from these documents provided by:
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights
1750 Ocean Park Blvd. Suite 200
Santa Monica CA 90405
prop103@consumerwatchdog.org
Fax: 310-392-8874
"VOTER REVOLT!" is a FRAUD!
Voter Revolt: How Political Consultants Use The California Initiative Process -- And A
Non-Profit Organization -- To Fool the Voters and Make Themselves Rich
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/ftcr/fs/fs000355.php3
Therapeutic Model
Law Enforcement Model Back to List of States Back to Top of Levellers Cannabis Page