Who is funding current anti-cannabis campaigns in the USA?

A well-financed and largely opaque campaign is currently insinuating itself into the debate surrounding the legal cannabis in the Massachusetts and the Maine, as voters in both states face referendum initiatives that could call into question recreational markets approved nearly a decade ago. At the heart of these efforts lies SAM Action Inc., a national organization opposed to the legalization of cannabis that injects millions of dollars into referendum campaigns, without revealing where this money comes from.

These campaigns are raising questions not only because of their funding sources, but also because of several accusations that voters were misled when they signed petitions. As the complaints mount, election officials in both states believe that, under the first amendment, There's not much they can do.

A single hedge-funded group finances several anti-cannabis campaigns

In the Massachusetts, 1.55 million raised to date to support an initiative to put an end to to the sale of cannabis for recreational purposes all come from SAM Action Inc., a 501(c)(4) organization that is not required to reveal the identity of its donors. This same group is also the sole funder of a similar campaign in the Maine, where he donated at least $2 million to a citizens' initiative to put an end to sales for recreational purposes and impose new demands on the medical market.

According to ProPublica, financial information for the campaign shows that SAM Action reported nearly $16 million in revenue in 2024, sufficient means to influence political struggles at the state level, far from its Virginia base. While campaign representatives insist that the efforts in Massachusetts and Maine are «not a coordinated action», both rely on the same funding source, pursue almost identical political goals and are taking place simultaneously.

SAM Action describes itself as affiliated with Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an anti-legalization group co-founded by former congressman Patrick Kennedy, former White House drug policy advisor Kevin Sabet and the conservative commentator David Frum. The organization opposed the president's recent decree Donald Trump reclassifying cannabis under federal law, which signaled a softening of the federal position despite the continued ban.

Allegations of voter deception during signature collection

In both states, the road to the ballot was marked by accusations that signature gatherers had misrepresented the real purpose of the petitions.

In the Maine, Many voters say they were told the initiative was aimed at improving testing standards or eliminating harmful chemicals from cannabis products. Only later did they learn that it would completely eliminate recreational sales.

«I felt completely fooled and downright deceived by this person,» said Liza Rowland, owner of a small business that supports medical and recreational cannabis.

Similar stories emerged across the state, prompting a wave of complaints to the Secretary of State Shenna Bellows. His answer was straightforward.

«You have a First Amendment right to lie,» Bellows told lawmakers, adding that she didn't have the power to control what the people circulating the petitions say, only whether the documents themselves meet legal requirements.

In the Massachusetts, Opponents of the initiative filed formal objections, claiming that voters had been informed that they were signing petitions relating to affordable housing, public parks, fentanyl prevention or road safety. The State Election Commission is currently examining whether these signatures were obtained «by fraud», a decision which could give rise to legal proceedings.

Polls suggest widespread confusion in Massachusetts

A new survey reinforces these concerns. According to a survey of more than 2,300 Massachusetts residents who signed the petition, nearly half of them say they would not have done so had they known that the initiative was aimed at banning the commercial sale of cannabis.

The survey, conducted by the Committee to Protect Cannabis Regulation, revealed that 1,163 respondents felt misled about the purpose of the petition. Many thought they were supporting causes unrelated to cannabis, such as public education or housing.

The campaign behind the initiative, the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, rejected these claims. Spokeswoman Wendy Wakeman denied encouraging deceptive tactics, while campaign adviser Patrick Strawbridge argued that even if some voters were confused, their numbers wouldn't be enough to invalidate the petition under state law.

Massachusetts officials have already certified over 78,000 signatures, which is enough to move the proposal forward, unless it is disqualified by legal action.

What electoral measures would really change

Despite differences in details, both states' initiatives share a fundamental goal: to dismantle recreational cannabis markets approved by voters in 2016.

In the Massachusetts, The proposal would abolish the commercial system for adults, while leaving the medical program intact. Adults would still be allowed to possess limited quantities, but home cultivation would be abolished and civil penalties expanded.

In the Maine, The initiative would put an end to commercial cultivation, manufacture and sale from 2028, while allowing personal possession of up to 2.5 ounces. It would also impose new rules for monitoring and controlling medical cannabis, a measure long opposed by some members of the medical community.

The two states recorded billions in legal sales since legalization. Massachusetts alone recorded more than 10 billion dollars of adult purchases since launch, with tax revenues used to fund public health programs, drug treatment and local budgets.

A broader debate on money and democracy

The cannabis referendums take place against a backdrop of a record number of referendum questions expected in Massachusetts in 2026, fueled by unprecedented spending by wealthy donors and national interest groups. More than $11 million has already been raised for all the initiatives, with signature gathering alone often costing campaigns hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Critics argue that the system increasingly favors well-funded players, able to hire professional circulators and influence policy through direct democracy, even when local support is uncertain. Supporters counter that referendum initiatives remain a legitimate means of circumventing legislative inertia.

For election officials like Bellows, the dilemma is structural. In the absence of a clearly empowered authority to combat misinformation, the onus is ultimately on voters to read what they sign.

As she put it, «we really encourage citizens to think about what they're signing, why they're signing it and what it means».

Whether these measures ultimately come to a vote or survive the scrutiny of voters could determine the future of the legal cannabis in New England and set a precedent for how national groups will influence state drug policy debates in the years to come.

Other states, such as Oklahoma and Arizona, are also facing attempts to call into question cannabis for adult use or medical cannabis.