GOP EFFORT TO LET DRUG CZAR PROPAGANDIZE AGAINST REFORM STALLED IN HOUSE COMMITTEE

An effort by House Republicans, led by Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), to
explicitly enable the Office of National Drug Control Policy
(http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov) to use its billion-dollar
anti-drug advertising campaign to engage in partisan campaigns against
political candidates or voter initiatives that favor drug legalization
has run into a buzzsaw of opposition on Capitol Hill. The measure,
part of the authorization bill for ONDCP spending, was supposed to
have been voted on in the House Government Reform Committee Thursday,
but has now been delayed at least until after the Memorial Day recess
after GOP and Democratic members could not reach a compromise on the
controversial language.

The authorization bill also contains language that would strip federal
anti-drug funds from law enforcement in states with medical marijuana
laws and transfer those funds to the DEA. That language may not
survive, said reformers who are monitoring the legislation.

Lobbyists from the Marijuana Policy Project (http://www.mpp.org) and
the Drug Policy Alliance (http://www.drugpolicy.org), who led the
effort to defeat the propaganda measure, declared Thursday's action a
victory -- of sorts. "We've headed off the evil empire for the
moment," said MPP director of communications Bruce Mirken.

"This was an initial victory," said DPA director of legislative
affairs Bill Piper. "That they postponed the vote was significant," he
told DRCNet. "They had the bill on a fast track, but with all the
noise we made, all the phone calls members got, they couldn't push it
through, and now we think we will get a change in the language."

Under the propaganda provision, authored by incorrigible drug warrior
Souder, the existing law that bars ONDCP from using its $195 million
per year anti-drug media campaign for partisan, political purposes
would not apply when ONDCP is acting "to oppose an attempt to legalize
the use" of any illegal drug. With open wording like that, the drug
czar could legally campaign against sitting office-holders, such as
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who has sponsored federal medical marijuana
legislation or any candidate who campaigns on reforming the drug laws.

Stealthily tucked into the voluminous ONDCP authorization bill, the
language went unnoticed until spotted by reformers. Some Democratic
members felt "sandbagged," said DPA's Piper. "This has upset a lot of
Democrats, who suddenly realized that if it passed, the Bush White
House would have $195 million to use in partisan political campaigns
next year," he said. "Any party would have a blank check to run
taxpayer-funded ads against their opponents -- all they have to do is
claim they're fighting drug legalization."

"While there were other issues at play here," said MPP director of
government affairs Steve Fox, "the sticking point was the ad campaign
and whether the drug czar could use those ads for political purposes.
Thanks to the efforts of MPP and DPA, as well as a nicely-timed front
page story yesterday in Roll Call, there is a strong and growing
awareness of this issue among the members," he told DRCNet.

Feeling the heat, Souder earlier this week agreed to seek compromise
language with committee Democrats, but that effort failed as the
committee adjourned without a vote. The compromise language would have
barred ONDCP from "expressly" advocating for or against a candidate or
ballot measure, a move that would have allowed Walters to say
"Candidate Smith supports making drugs available to children," but not
"Vote against Candidate Smith because he supports making drugs
available to children."

That wasn't enough to calm down the Democrats. "Some members felt
there wasn't even anything to compromise on, this bill was so
egregious," said DPA's Piper.

The propaganda provision's genesis presumably lies in last fall's
initiative campaigns. Drug czar Walters campaigned against a Nevada
initiative sponsored by MPP that would have legalized the possession
of up to three ounces of marijuana by adults, prompting the group to
file state and federal complaints alleging that Walters violated
Nevada campaign finance laws and federal anti-electioneering laws. One
GOP committee staffer told Roll Call the language merely sought to
protect the drug czar. "What we are simply trying to clarify is that
the regular operation of the media campaign, when it gets into things
that some people want to claim and construe as political, is not
political," the aide said.

"Because of this ongoing legal battle between MPP and the drug czar,
there is real concern among the Republicans that the drug policy
reformers will win in court somewhere -- maybe even in the court of
public opinion -- and their campaigns will be crippled," said Piper.
"They are also concerned that their regular anti-marijuana ads could
be construed as campaign ads even if they're not talking about a
specific candidate or initiative."

The battle will be rejoined within a matter of weeks, and reformers
are increasingly confident they can block the propaganda provision.
"We have a strong chance of removing this," said Piper, "although we
may end up with language explicitly saying that the anti-marijuana ads
are okay, they're not campaign ads."

"We're going to keep up the pressure," said MPP's Fox. "We'll be
reaching out to other groups outside the drug reform community. When
you're doing this sort of lobbying, step one is creating public
awareness. That has happened now, especially with everyone on the Hill
reading the Roll Call article. Now we have to keep on top of this and
see what sort of new language they try. If it's more bad language,
we'll fight that, too."

While the authorization bill provides funds for the anti-marijuana
media campaign, there is little evidence the campaign is serving its
stated purpose. The presidential budget submission for the 2004 fiscal
year noted that "The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign has not
demonstrated the results sought and does not yet have adequate
performance measures and related goals." Walters himself admitted
earlier this year that "this campaign isn't reducing drug use."

That's right, said DPA's Piper. "All they're really doing is stating
explicitly that this campaign is not about reducing teen drug use but
about advancing a political agenda. Interestingly, one provision that
was stripped out of the bill was one that required local treatment and
prevention contact information on the ads. Taking the two provisions
together tells us they've given up on using the ads to reduce teen
drug use and will turn the ads into a blatantly political operation."