MOVE WOULD LET DRUG CZAR CAMPAIGN

House Republicans are attempting to lift long-standing restrictions on
a $1 billion anti-drug advertising program in a move that would allow
the White House to use taxpayer funds to engage in partisan political
activities and campaign against candidates or ballot measures favoring
the legalization of drugs.The provision was quietly tucked into a bill
reauthorizing the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
and is set for markup today before the House Government Reform
Committee.Currently, the office and its director, who is commonly
referred to as the drug czar, are barred by law from using their
annual $195 million anti-drug advertising budget for partisan,
political purposes.

Under language included in a reauthorization bill authored by Rep.
Mark Souder (R-Ind.), the prohibition would be lifted when the ONDCP
director is acting "to oppose an attempt to legalize the use" of any
illegal drug. The measure was approved last week by the Government
Reform subcommittee on criminal justice, drug policy and human resources.

As written, the provision would allow partisan radio, print and
television ads if the purpose were to oppose the legalization of drug
use.

Critics said that any candidate or political party that adopts a
position promoting such reforms as allowing the medical use of
marijuana or reducing drug sentencing provisions could face a
government-sponsored advertising campaign against them in the
electoral battlefield.Last year, for example, Rep. Barney Frank
(D-Mass.) sponsored legislation that would limit federal intervention
aimed at states or localities that adopted ballot measures less
restrictive than current law in dealing with marijuana use.

Under the eased advertising restrictions, the drug-control office
could presumably use television ads against Frank, critics of the
proposal said.The provision would also allow the drug czar to campaign
against state and local ballot initiatives seeking to ease
restrictions on various aspects of drug policy."In plain English, the
subcommittee has created a political slush fund with a billion dollars
of our tax money," said Steve Fox, director of government relations
for the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that favors reform of laws
that criminalize the use of marijuana."If this provision stands, it
means that the drug czar can use our tax dollars to fund partisan
political campaigns anytime he can justify it as 'opposing drug
legalization.' Any administration of any party will have a blank check
to run taxpayer-funded attack ads against their opponents, and all
they have to do is claim they're opposing drug legalization."

Bill Piper, associate director of national affairs at the Drug Policy
Alliance, said "this would be like the [Internal Revenue Service]
running ads against tax-cut proposals and the candidates that support
them. Using public money to tell people how to think and feel about
policy is the definition of propaganda."A GOP committee aide defended
the proposed revision as an effort to protect the federal drug
prevention advertising campaign from being classified as political
activity in states or locales where ballot initiatives related to the
legalization of marijuana are being considered.

"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.Last
fall in Nevada, John Walters, the current director of the drug policy
office, campaigned against a ballot initiative that would have largely
decriminalized marijuana possession for adults.

After the initiative was defeated, the Marijuana Policy Project filed
a complaint with state election officials against Walters for failing
to comply with Nevada's campaign finance disclosure laws, which
require "the reporting of contributions and expenses for every person
or group of persons organized formally or informally who advocates the
passage or defeat of a question or group of questions on the ballot at
any election."

In an April 21 opinion which found that Walters was likely immune from
complying with state campaign laws as a federal official, the state's
attorney general, Brian Sandoval, nonetheless concluded that "it is
unfortunate that a representative of the federal government
substantially intervened in a matter that was clearly a State of
Nevada issue.

The excessive federal intervention that was exhibited in this instance
is particularly disturbing because it sought to influence the outcome
of a Nevada election."

The GOP aide said Souder was expected to offer an amendment during
Thursday's markup to "tighten" the provision by including an"express
advocacy" test that is even now at the center of a major
constitutional battle in the litigation over the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act.The aide, who did not make a copy of the amendment
available, said it would make clear that advertising that "does not
expressly advocate support for or defeat of a candidate or ballot
initiative in any election" would be allowed.

This would mean that the heated legal dispute over what constitutes a
genuine issue ad, as opposed to an electioneering ad, would be thrust
into the drug-control policy debate.

The Supreme Court test to define express advocacy - known in the
campaign finance world as the "magic words" that forthrightly state an
electoral position after the 1974 Buckley case - is at the center of
the fight between speech and reform advocates. The aide acknowledged
difficulty with such a definition. "The problem is that the whole area
is so slippery when you try to define it. And the campaign finance
people have this problem."

But Piper said that the modified provision would still be just as bad.
"It's still allowing the White House to use taxpayer money for issue
ads. At the end of the day it really doesn't make that much difference
if you go into a district and say, 'Congressman Smith has the wrong
position on drugs.' If you do it a month before the election, voters
understand what you mean."