Politics

Self-funded candidates and dark money cloud Illinois politics

Published

9 months ago

January 10, 2024

[ad_1]

CHICAGO — There is still bad blood, and perhaps some anger, over Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s decision to “meddle” in last year’s Republican primary.
Pritzker’s $24 million contribution to the Democratic Governors’ Association led to a hefty ad buy that painted Republican primary candidate Darren Bailey as “too conservative for Illinois” — a crafty strategy aimed at actually fortifying Bailey’s standing among conservative Republicans. It ultimately boosted Bailey’s candidacy over former Aurora Mayor Richard Irvin, a moderate whose candidacy was backed by millions from billionaire Ken Griffin.

The strategy worked. The more “extreme” a candidate is, the easier to defeat, Pritzker’s camp correctly predicted. But with the millions spent to boost Bailey, the Democratic governor — who has staunchly spoken out about the dangers former President Donald Trump posed to democracy — elevated a MAGA candidate who has repeatedly pushed a narrative that election fraud is rampant.

The tactic was used successfully by Democrats in eight of 15 Republican primaries last year, according to a Washington Post analysis. And it’s certainly not new. Former Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner in 2018 used it in a different way, running ads and robocalls early in the Democratic primary to hit the candidate he knew he would be facing after the primary: Pritzker and his war chest of millions.

Jerry Nowicki

Capitol News IllinoisFormer Illinois State Sen. Darren Bailey urges a full repeal of the SAFE-T Act criminal justice reform at a news conference with county sheriffs.

It’s just one example of the influence of money in Illinois politics — and the disingenuous ways in which it’s sometimes used. It’s not always about what’s best for voters and their own political beliefs and values. It’s about winning. And to the power players and their camps, it’s “just politics.”

In the Land of Lincoln and across the country, money is power, and some candidates are using every legal loophole they can find to win, especially in light of a 2010 Supreme Court decision that allowed individuals and corporations to funnel unlimited funds to super PACs.
The Chicago Sun-Times, WBEZ and the University of Chicago are examining the challenges to American democracy as part of the Democracy Solutions Project. Primary meddling, dark money and self-funding loopholes are among some of the most influential campaign finance actions affecting the state. But there are also solutions — like fighting big money with small donations.
An attempt at reform

Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s conviction in 2011 was tied in part to his planned solicitation of hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. Exactly a year after Blagojevich’s arrest, former Gov. Pat Quinn signed into law a measure that changed the way Illinois campaign finance works, supported by the Democratic leaders in the Illinois General Assembly: Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan and Illinois Senate President John Cullerton.

The law that went into effect in 2011 limited individual donors to giving $5,000 in elections; corporations and unions to $10,000 per election and political action committees to no more than $50,000 per election. At the time, Illinois was far behind other states in enacting campaign finance reform legislation.

The legislation included no cap on in-kind contributions from legislative leaders to candidates in primary races. And it had a provision for self-funding candidates — which would soon become the future of Illinois politics.

In statewide races, contribution caps could be sidestepped if a candidate or family member gave more than $250,000 to their own campaign or to a super PAC that then spent money on their behalf. In non-statewide races, the amount to sidestep the cap was $100,001.

Republicans, including then-Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin, voted against the measure over multiple concerns, including that the caps on leaders didn’t apply to general elections.

A federal judge in 2012 struck down two provisions of that law, finding that limits for super PACs and the number of PACs an individual can establish were unconstitutional.

That led Quinn to sign into law a follow-up bill in 2012 that allowed candidates to get around contribution caps if a super PAC contributed more than $250,000 to an opponent in a statewide race or more than $100,000 to an opponent in a local or legislative race.

A reform workaround emerges

Tyler LaRiviere

Chicago Sun TimesIllinois Governor Bruce Rauner (left) listens as State Representative Jim Durkin speaks to members of the media about the Illinois state budget for fiscal year 2019.

The initial aim was to give equal opportunity to both wealthy and non-wealthy candidates — and to protect those who are opposed to independent expenditure groups, also known as super PACs. But it has since then been used as a bank account for legislative leaders to take in donations from mega-donors and special interest groups, and to spread the wealth to their preferred candidates.

One small caveat for the little guys: Once the caps are exceeded, all candidates in the race can benefit — not just the ones who can loan themselves $100,000 or more, or receive that amount from a super PAC.
Durkin in 2016 received a $101,843 contribution from Turnaround Illinois, a super PAC backed by Rauner, which allowed him to take in $12 million from Rauner and his wife, Diana. It opened the floodgates to receiving more than $17 million — and the power to give $14.3 million to other statehouse Republican candidates.

Madigan in 2018 similarly broke the caps, then transferred almost $6 million to the Illinois Democratic Party and the Democratic majority committees he controlled.

Durkin, who stepped down as Republican leader in January, still defends blowing the caps. He called it “self-preservation” for himself and his caucus — and the only way to go up against Madigan.

“The money that would be piled into his campaign accounts is astronomical. I could never keep up with them,” Durkin said. “But there was a couple of years under Gov. Rauner that if I’m going to compete, I have to play by this. I’m going to use the same laws that he’s utilized. I didn’t like it. But it’s just a question of self-preservation and making sure that I’ve got to do everything I can to raise money to make my candidates and my incumbents competitive.”

Durkin acknowledged the money in legislative races is getting “worse and worse.

“But I’ll just say this. If they don’t, they’re foolish,” Durkin said of blowing the caps.
Reform not meant to be a ‘millionaire’s loophole’

Brian Rich

Chicago Sun TimesFormer Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn speaks to reporters in the lobby at City Hall in 2022.

Quinn says that he did not anticipate that candidates would loan themselves cash to break the caps when the bill was crafted. But Illinois was behind other states when it came to campaign finance reform, and the impetus was on Quinn and the legislative leaders to do something, anything, in light of Blagojevich’s arrest.

He also denies that it’s a “millionaire’s loophole.”
“It wasn’t put in to give millionaires a break. It was really designed to make sure there was a level playing field,” Quinn said. “…That provision was put in to at least have fairness. And again, to put it in perspective, I may be the very last person, I hope not, I may be the last middle-class person ever elected governor in Illinois.”

Indeed, Illinois has been led by wealthy, self-funding governors since Rauner took office in 2014. Rauner, a multimillionaire, spent $136 million of his own funds on his two campaigns for governor. Pritzker, the billionaire heir to the Hyatt fortune, has poured $323 million into his two campaigns.

Quinn — sworn in after Blagojevich’s impeachment — said there was no alternative “if you wanted a fair system or at least somewhat fair system.” The former governor created the Illinois Reform Commission as his first official act as governor, which ultimately led to the 2009 legislation.

Quinn said he pitched a similar commission to Pritzker after he took office in 2018. Quinn told Pritzker there should be a reform commission at least once every decade, appointed by the governor, to propose “far reaching reforms.”

“You know, we got a lot done there,” Quinn said of the 2009 commission. “We didn’t get everything done by far, but on campaign finance, we finally did something big. Getting limits.”

Campaign finance reform and red-light cameras

For his part, Pritzker in July signed into law a measure that banned red light camera companies from donating to candidates for public office, both at the state and local level. That was in response to a slew of convictions of public officials tied to red light cameras.

Last year, the governor signed into law a measure that caps contributions to judicial candidates to $500,000 from “any single person.” Pritzker, however, gave $500,000 each from his campaign fund to two Democratic candidates for Illinois Supreme Court, Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien — and another $500,000 to each from a personal trust fund.

Republicans accused Pritzker of skirting limits he himself had signed into law. But the Illinois State Board of Elections said the contributions were allowed.

Quinn thinks Pritzker, and legislators, should also take action to ban political contributions from utility companies. A federal jury in May convicted four former political insiders— Michael McClain, former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore, ex-ComEd lobbyist John Hooker and onetime City Club President Jay Doherty — of a nearly decade-long conspiracy to bribe Madigan. The former speaker is set to face his own trial in April 2024 on charges of racketeering.

‘Who has their ear?’

Lawmakers have resisted changing laws that would allow taking away legislative retirement checks if politicians engage in statehouse-related wrongdoing after leaving office — as now-convicted lobbyist Michael McClain did.

City and statewide races have seen an outpouring of “dark money’ in recent years — including in the latest Chicago mayoral race and in races for the state Supreme Court. Dark money refers to funds from groups that are not required to disclose their donors, such as nonprofit political advocacy groups.

On the federal level, corporations cannot donate to races. But in Illinois, it is not uncommon for state corporations to donate through an LLC or whatever corporate entity they have. Corporations in Illinois can break the self-funding loophole by making contributions to super PACs that aren’t coordinated with a campaign, leading to extremely large contributions — with no requirement to report where the money is coming from.

Super PACs do have to disclose their donors, but those donors do not have to disclose the source of the contributions they have received.

“That’s a big problem because voters don’t know who their candidate or their elected official is beholden to,” said Alisa Kaplan, executive director for the campaign finance watchdog group Reform for Illinois. “Who has their ear? And they don’t know who’s supporting them and trying to influence the elected official or frankly, trying to influence the voters with TV ads and any kind of political advertising.”

A potential fix

Kaplan believes there’s a fix to the system — enacting legislation that would require donors who contribute to super PACs to disclose where significant amounts of money came from. Similar bills have passed in Rhode Island, California and Massachusetts.

Rhode Island’s 2012 law was in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010, which enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections. The Rhode Island law requires disclosure of spending by outside groups. The law requires groups spending $1,000 or more on ads to disclose donors that gave at least $1,000 to fund the ads, among other provisions.

“This isn’t something that’s impossible to get past,” Kaplan said. “I feel like there’s often this sense of Illinois exceptionalism, like we can’t do those things here because we have this entrenched system and what not. And that’s just nonsense. Anything they can do in another state, we can do here.
Voters dissatisfied with big money in politics

A Pew Research study released in October showed voters’ widespread dissatisfaction with the role of money in American politics. In one question, 85% of respondents said the cost of political campaigns made it hard for good people to run for office. That answer was split between Republican and Democratic respondents. In another question about spending limits in campaigns, 72% said there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend on political campaigns.

Cities like Seattle and New York City have created public campaign financing programs to make regular voters feel like they’re part of the process. The programs use public funds to match low-dollar contributions to candidates.

The Democracy Voucher Program in Seattle, created in 2015 via a public referendum, was aimed at increasing transparency and accessibility in Seattle elections. Run by the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, eligible residents are distributed “Democracy Vouchers” and can assign those vouchers by writing in candidates’ names. The commission verifies signatures before releasing funds to campaigns, and all contributions are published online.

Seattle’s first-in-the-nation program, which costs the average homeowner about $8 a year, according to the city, was funded after voters approved a property tax bump of $3 million per year to fund the program for 10 years. Mayoral candidates participating in the program must abide by individual contribution limits of $550, with $100 of that coming from “Democracy Vouchers.”

Small-donor public financing in New York City allows eligible voters to donate $50, with the city kicking in eight times that amount — another $400. Candidates participating in the program must also honor spending limits.

In October, Evanston became the first city in Illinois to adopt a public financing program. Under the program, candidates for mayor would receive a 9-to-1 ratio for donations of up to $150 from city residents.

Both Kaplan and Quinn believe a similar system should be enacted in Chicago and the state of Illinois. Kaplan said a study in New York found that political giving increased by up to 24 times in minority communities with the implementation of their program.

“It enables candidates to run who aren’t either personally wealthy themselves, or don’t have access to wealthy friends or special interests, or don’t want to have to rely on those sources of funds,” Kaplan said.

A similar program in Arizona is funded by increasing criminal and civil fines. Still, Kaplan calls the programs “comparatively very inexpensive.”

“They’re really like a tiny, tiny portion of the budget,” Kaplan said. “Especially in comparison to the potential benefits.”

Ashlee Rezin

Chicago Sun TimesLast year, Ald. Matt Martin (47th) resurrected the idea of publicly funding city elections in Chicago, but his proposed ordinance never gained traction.

There have been efforts in the city and state to enact a similar program, including a measure that cleared the Illinois Senate in 2017, but was not taken up in the Illinois House. A proposed ordinance introduced to the Chicago City Council last year by Ald. Matt Martin (47th) called for providing a 6-to-1 public match — up to $3.6 million for mayoral candidates, $180,000 for candidates for city clerk and city treasurer and $150,000 for City Council candidates. A hearing was held on the proposal, but it never moved forward.

“People acknowledge that money in politics is here to stay and that you actually need a critical mass of money to run a competitive election and to get your message out,” Kaplan said. “The concern is, yes, the amounts of money can get completely grotesque, but if we can enable candidates to run a competitive campaign, even if they can’t raise a kajillion dollars, if they can raise enough to get their message out, that could go a long way to restoring some balance to the system.”
This story is part of the The Democracy Solutions Project, a partnership among WBEZ, the Chicago Sun-Times and the University of Chicago’s Center for Effective Government. Together, we’re examining critical issues facing our democracy in the run-up to the 2024 elections.

[ad_2]

Source link

Politics

Poll: Support for Missouri abortion rights amendment growing

Published

1 month ago

August 29, 2024

Natural Bridge

[ad_1]

A proposed constitutional amendment legalizing abortion in Missouri received support from more than half of respondents in a new poll from St. Louis University and YouGov.That’s a boost from a poll earlier this year, which could mean what’s known as Amendment 3 is in a solid position to pass in November.SLU/YouGov’s poll of 900 likely Missouri voters from Aug. 8-16 found that 52% of respondents would vote for Amendment 3, which would place constitutional protections for abortion up to fetal viability. Thirty-four percent would vote against the measure, while 14% aren’t sure.By comparison, the SLU/YouGov poll from February found that 44% of voters would back the abortion legalization amendment.St. Louis University political science professor Steven Rogers said 32% of Republicans and 53% of independents would vote for the amendment. That’s in addition to nearly 80% of Democratic respondents who would approve the measure. In the previous poll, 24% of Republicans supported the amendment.Rogers noted that neither Amendment 3 nor a separate ballot item raising the state’s minimum wage is helping Democratic candidates. GOP contenders for U.S. Senate, governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer and secretary of state all hold comfortable leads.“We are seeing this kind of crossover voting, a little bit, where there are voters who are basically saying, ‘I am going to the polls and I’m going to support a Republican candidate, but I’m also going to go to the polls and then I’m also going to try to expand abortion access and then raise the minimum wage,’” Rogers said.Republican gubernatorial nominee Mike Kehoe has a 51%-41% lead over Democrat Crystal Quade. And U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley is leading Democrat Lucas Kunce by 53% to 42%. Some GOP candidates for attorney general, secretary of state and treasurer have even larger leads over their Democratic rivals.

Brian Munoz

St. Louis Public RadioHundreds of demonstrators pack into a parking lot at Planned Parenthood of St. Louis and Southwest Missouri on June 24, 2022, during a demonstration following the Supreme Court’s reversal of a case that guaranteed the constitutional right to an abortion.

One of the biggest challenges for foes of Amendment 3 could be financial.Typically, Missouri ballot initiatives with well-funded and well-organized campaigns have a better chance of passing — especially if the opposition is underfunded and disorganized. Since the end of July, the campaign committee formed to pass Amendment 3 received more than $3 million in donations of $5,000 or more.That money could be used for television advertisements to improve the proposal’s standing further, Rogers said, as well as point out that Missouri’s current abortion ban doesn’t allow the procedure in the case of rape or incest.“Meanwhile, the anti side won’t have those resources to kind of try to make that counter argument as strongly, and they don’t have public opinion as strongly on their side,” Rogers said.There is precedent of a well-funded initiative almost failing due to opposition from socially conservative voters.In 2006, a measure providing constitutional protections for embryonic stem cell research nearly failed — even though a campaign committee aimed at passing it had a commanding financial advantage.Former state Sen. Bob Onder was part of the opposition campaign to that measure. He said earlier this month it is possible to create a similar dynamic in 2024 against Amendment 3, if social conservatives who oppose abortion rights can band together.“This is not about reproductive rights or care for miscarriages or IVF or anything else,” said Onder, the GOP nominee for Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District seat. “Missourians will learn that out-of-state special interests and dark money from out of state is lying to them and they will reject this amendment.”Quade said earlier this month that Missourians of all political ideologies are ready to roll back the state’s abortion ban.“Regardless of political party, we hear from folks who are tired of politicians being in their doctor’s offices,” Quade said. “They want politicians to mind their own business. So this is going to excite folks all across the political spectrum.”

[ad_2]

Source link

Politics

Democrat Mark Osmack makes his case for Missouri treasurer

Published

1 month ago

August 29, 2024

Natural Bridge

[ad_1]

Mark Osmack has been out of the electoral fray for awhile, but he never completely abandoned his passion for Missouri politics.Osmack, a Valley Park native and U.S. Army veteran, previously ran for Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District seat and for state Senate. Now he’s the Democratic nominee for state treasurer after receiving a phone call from Missouri Democratic Party Chairman Russ Carnahan asking him to run.“There’s a lot of decision making and processing and evaluation that goes into it, which is something I am very passionate and interested in,” Osmack said this week on an episode of Politically Speaking.Osmack is squaring off against state Treasurer Vivek Malek, who was able to easily win a crowded GOP primary against several veteran lawmakers including House Budget Chairman Cody Smith and state Sen. Andrew Koenig.While Malek was able to attract big donations to his political action committee and pour his own money into the campaign, Osmack isn’t worried that he won’t be able to compete in November. Since Malek was appointed to his post, Osmack contends he hasn’t proven that he’s a formidable opponent in a general election.“His actions and his decision making so far in his roughly two year tenure in that office have been questionable,” Osmack said.Among other things, Osmack was critical of Malek for placing unclaimed property notices on video gaming machines which are usually found in gas stations or convenience stores. The legality of the machines has been questioned for some time.As Malek explained on his own episode of Politically Speaking, he wanted to make sure the unclaimed property program was as widely advertised as possible. But he acknowledged it was a mistake to put the decals close to the machines and ultimately decided to remove them.Osmack said: “This doesn’t even pass the common sense sniff test of, ‘Hey, should I put state stickers claiming you might have a billion dollars on a gambling machine that is not registered with the state of Missouri?’ If we’re gonna give kudos for him acknowledging the wrong thing, it never should have been done in the first place.”Osmack’s platform includes supporting programs providing school meals using Missouri agriculture products and making child care more accessible for the working class.He said the fact that Missouri has such a large surplus shows that it’s possible to create programs to make child care within reach for parents.“It is quite audacious for [Republicans] to brag about $8 billion, with a B, dollars in state surplus, while we offer next to no social services to include pre-K, daycare, or child care,” Osmack said.Here’s are some other topics Osmack discussed on the show:How he would handle managing the state’s pension systems and approving low-income housing tax credits. The state treasurer’s office is on boards overseeing both of those programs.Malek’s decision to cut off investments from Chinese companies. Osmack said that Missouri needs to be cautious about abandoning China as a business partner, especially since they’re a major consumer of the state’s agriculture products. “There’s a way to make this work where we are not supporting communist nations to the detriment of the United States or our allies, while also maintaining strong economic ties that benefit Missouri farmers,” he said.What it was like to witness the skirmish at the Missouri State Fair between U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley and Democratic challenger Lucas Kunce.Whether Kunce can get the support of influential groups like the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which often channels money and staff to states with competitive Senate elections.

[ad_2]

Source link

Politics

As Illinois receives praise for its cannabis equity efforts, stakeholders work on system’s flaws

Published

1 month ago

August 29, 2024

Natural Bridge

[ad_1]

Medical marijuana patients can now purchase cannabis grown by small businesses as part of their allotment, Illinois’ top cannabis regulator said, but smaller, newly licensed cannabis growers are still seeking greater access to the state’s medical marijuana customers.Illinois legalized medicinal marijuana beginning in 2014, then legalized it for recreational use in 2020. While the 2020 law legalized cannabis use for any adult age 21 or older, it did not expand licensing for medical dispensaries.Patients can purchase marijuana as part of the medical cannabis program at dual-purpose dispensaries, which are licensed to serve both medical and recreational customers. But dual-purpose dispensaries are greatly outnumbered by dispensaries only licensed to sell recreationally, and there are no medical-only dispensaries in the state.As another part of the adult-use legalization law, lawmakers created a “craft grow” license category that was designed to give more opportunities to Illinoisans hoping to legally grow and sell marijuana. The smaller-scale grow operations were part of the 2020 law’s efforts to diversify the cannabis industry in Illinois.Prior to that, all cultivation centers in Illinois were large-scale operations dominated by large multi-state operators. The existing cultivators, mostly in operation since 2014, were allowed to grow recreational cannabis beginning in 2019.Until recently, dual-purpose dispensaries have been unsure as to whether craft-grown products, made by social equity licensees — those who have lived in a disproportionately impacted area or have been historically impacted by the war on drugs — can be sold medicinally as part of a patient’s medical allotment.Erin Johnson, the state’s cannabis regulation oversight officer, told Capitol News Illinois last month that her office has “been telling dispensaries, as they have been asking us” they can now sell craft-grown products to medical patients.“There was just a track and trace issue on our end, but never anything statutorily,” she said.

Dilpreet Raju

Capitol News IllinoisThe graphic shows how cannabis grown in Illinois gets from cultivation centers to customers.

No notice has been posted, but Johnson’s verbal guidance comes almost two years after the first craft grow business went online in Illinois.It allows roughly 150,000 medical patients, who dispensary owners say are the most consistent purchasers of marijuana, to buy products made by social equity businesses without paying recreational taxes. However — even as more dispensaries open — the number available to medical patients has not increased since 2018, something the Cannabis Regulation Oversight Office “desperately” wants to see changed. Johnson said Illinois is a limited license state, meaning “there are caps on everything” to help control the relatively new market.Berwyn Thompkins, who operates two cannabis businesses, said the rules limited options for patients and small businesses.“It’s about access,” Thompkins said. “Why wouldn’t we want all the patients — which the (adult-use) program was initially built around — why wouldn’t we want them to have access? They should have access to any dispensary.”Customers with a medical marijuana card pay a 1% tax on all marijuana products, whereas recreational customers pay retail taxes between roughly 20 and 40% on a given cannabis product, when accounting for local taxes.While Illinois has received praise for its equity-focused cannabis law, including through an independent study that showed more people of color own cannabis licenses than in any other state, some industry operators say they’ve experienced many unnecessary hurdles getting their businesses up and running.The state, in fact, announced last month that it had opened its 100th social equity dispensary.But Steve Olson, purchasing manager at a pair of dispensaries (including one dual-purpose dispensary) near Rockford, said small specialty license holders have been left in the lurch since the first craft grower opened in October 2022.“You would think that this would be something they’re (the government) trying to help out these social equity companies with, but they’re putting handcuffs on them in so many different spots,” he said. “One of them being this medical thing.”Olson said he contacted state agencies, including the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, months ago about whether craft products can be sold to medical patients at their retail tax rate, but only heard one response: “They all say it was an oversight.”This potentially hurt social equity companies because they sell wholesale to dispensaries and may have been missing out on a consistent customer base through those medical dispensaries.Olson said the state’s attempts to provide licensees with a path to a successful business over the years, such as with corrective lotteries that granted more social equity licenses, have come up short.“It’s like they almost set up the social equity thing to fail so the big guys could come in and swoop up all these licenses,” Olson said. “I hate to feel like that but, if you look at it, it’s pretty black and white.”Olson said craft companies benefit from any type of retail sale.“If we sell it to medical patients or not, it’s a matter of, ‘Are we collecting the proper taxes?’ That’s all it is,” he said.State revenue from cannabis taxes, licensing costs and other fees goes into the Cannabis Regulation Fund, which is used to fund a host of programs, including cannabis offense expungement, the general revenue fund, and the R3 campaign aiming to uplift disinvested communities.For fiscal year 2024, nearly $256 million was paid out from Cannabis Regulation Fund for related initiatives, which includes almost $89 million transferred to the state’s general revenue fund and more than $20 million distributed to local governments, according to the Illinois Department of Revenue.Medical access still limitedThe state’s 55 medical dispensaries that predate the 2020 legalization law, mostly owned by publicly traded multistate operators that had been operating in Illinois since 2014 under the state’s medical marijuana program, were automatically granted a right to licenses to sell recreationally in January 2020. That gave them a dual-purpose license that no new entrants into the market can receive under current law.Since expanding their clientele in 2020, Illinois dispensaries have sold more than $6 billion worth of cannabis products through recreational transactions alone.Nearly two-thirds of dispensaries licensed to sell to medical patients are in the northeast counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake and Will. Dual-purpose dispensaries only represent about 20 percent of the state’s dispensaries.While the state began offering recreational dispensary licenses since the adult-use legalization law passed, it has not granted a new medical dispensary license since 2018. That has allowed the established players to continue to corner the market on the state’s nearly 150,000 medical marijuana patients.But social equity licensees and advocates say there are more ways to level the playing field, including expanding access to medical sales.Johnson, who became the state’s top cannabis regulator in late 2022, expressed hope for movement during the fall veto session on House Bill 2911, which would expand medical access to all Illinois dispensaries.“We would like every single dispensary in Illinois to be able to serve medical patients,” Johnson said. “It’s something that medical patients have been asking for, for years.”Johnson said the bill would benefit patients and small businesses.“It’s something we desperately want to happen as a state system, because we want to make sure that medical patients are able to easily access what they need,” she said. “We also think it’s good for our social equity dispensaries, as they’re opening, to be able to serve medical patients.”Rep. Bob Morgan, D-Deerfield, who was the first statewide project coordinator for Illinois’ medical cannabis program prior to joining the legislature, wrote in an email to Capitol News Illinois that the state needs to be doing more for its patients.“Illinois is failing the state’s 150,000 medical cannabis patients with debilitating conditions. Too many are still denied the patient protections they deserve, including access to their medicine,” Morgan wrote, adding he would continue to work with stakeholders on further legislation.Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government. It is distributed to hundreds of newspapers, radio and TV stations statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation, along with major contributions from the Illinois Broadcasters Foundation and Southern Illinois Editorial Association.

[ad_2]

Source link