Behind the Scenes of Cannabis Lobbying: How it REALLY Works ft. The Liaison Group

Behind the Scenes of Cannabis Lobbying: How it REALLY Works ft. The Liaison Group

Erin Moffet: Why is this a change that's needed? Why is it important? And why is this the right way? All of that is educating — and cannabis is such a unique area to be lobbying in because there is such an education gap. It's a nascent industry, it's so new, and we have every single policy area touching cannabis in different ways. Bryan Fields: What's up guys, welcome back to another episode of The Dime. I'm Bryan Fields, and with me as always is Kellan Finney. This week we've got a very special guest, David and Erin of The Liaison Group. David and Erin, thanks for taking the time — how are you doing today? David Mangone: Great, thank you for having us. Erin Moffet: Yeah, happy to be here. Bryan Fields: Kellan, how are you doing? Kellan Finney: I'm doing really well, really excited to talk to David and Erin and kind of get the inner workings of the National Cannabis Roundtable lobbying as a whole, and kind of what are some of the big things going on on the Hill that are driving national cannabis legislation. And you know, as the only West Coaster on the podcast, I'm here to just kind of hold the West Coast down for everyone. How are you, Bryan? Bryan Fields: I'm doing great. Yes, Kellan, you're right, you're the only West Coaster here, and obviously we don't even need to do an East Coast/West Coast battle — we know what's going on with DC there. But I think it's super important today to understand kind of how lobbying works. I think that's a topic everyone throws around and thinks they have an understanding of, but I don't really think they understand it. So today I'm really excited to dive deep into the inner workings. I think the easiest way to get started, David, is if you kick us off with a little background about yourself and how you got into this space. David Mangone: Sure. My name is David Mangone. I've been with The Liaison Group for five years this September. Before that, I served as general counsel and director of government affairs for a group called Americans for Safe Access — they represent medical cannabis patients nationwide. I did some state-level work, some national work, before my entrance into cannabis. I worked on Capitol Hill briefly, then as an attorney in private practice. My colleague Erin spent a lot more time on the Hill than I did, so I'll turn it over to her. Erin Moffet: Yes, I'm a recovering Hill staffer, so it's an interesting pathway. I think David's and my background kind of shows how you can get into lobbying and what can be helpful. I come from ten years on the Hill, then I spent time working for the State of Florida for the Agriculture Commissioner, being her deputy chief of staff and doing her federal affairs. I stayed very involved in cannabis — I actually met David when he was with ASA and I was doing cannabis policy as a staffer on the Hill. So when I decided to leave the public sector, this is of course an area I've always been interested in. Having that policy experience, thought about it from the inside, and wanted to work on it now from the outside looking in on how we can move cannabis policy forward on the federal level. Bryan Fields: It's perfect. And I want to stay with you, Erin — lobbying, what is it, how does it work, and take us through the inner workings of an example of how something like that happens. Erin Moffet: Yeah, so I think probably about ten years ago there were a lot of scandals around lobbying and people thought it was a bad thing, but actually my first job was with a group called the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest. Lobbying means you have a coordinated effort to reach out to your officials — whether it be on the local, state, federal, or even international level — to push for policy changes that help your community and your cause. So it's not this terrible thing, it's something that's integral to our democratic process: to have a voice and a place where folks can come together and educate decision-makers and assist them in moving policies forward by being those eyes and ears on the ground. Congress can be a bit of an echo chamber, a bit disconnected from the day-to-day. It's also a little older than the general population, and something like cannabis policy is something we see break along generational lines more so than political lines these days. So you can individually lobby for something you care about, or a lot of folks hire a lobbyist, and that's where David and I come in — using our expertise and connections, having worked on the Hill and in the space, to know who the leading voices are, who the people in positions of power are in the relevant places that need to be educated, hearing from them what their concerns are, so you can meet them where they're at. I'd say much more than people think, it's not just pushing policy — it's educating. It's not just members of Congress and the industry communicating; it's explaining why this change is needed, why it's important, and why this is the right way. All of that is educating, and cannabis is such a unique area to lobby in because there's such an education gap — it's a nascent industry, it's so new, and every single policy area touches cannabis in different ways. That's how I became a cannabis staffer — we were trying to decide in our office who should handle cannabis priorities: is it under healthcare, is it under Veterans Affairs, is it under banking for safe banking, is it under Judiciary for criminal justice reform? It touches every aspect of every issue. Having that educational expertise is really what we're doing on the Hill — changing thoughts and minds one person at a time, finding out do they have veterans in their district who need access, do they have a family member who's used cannabis as medicine, is there a processing facility in their district creating good-paying jobs. All those are different ways you have to approach an issue when helping policymakers — not just members of Congress but also agency officials — understand the impact of the decisions they're making when they either change a policy or don't. Kellan Finney: That's such a nuanced example — I don't think people recognize just how complicated that is, because each state operates completely differently, so having those available data points has to be more educational-focused than direct-sales-based. You can't just do a one-time pitch. It has to be a continued process over time. So how do you have those conversations where you feel them out, gauge their thoughts on cannabis, and then walk them through information at the right time? I'd imagine timing and place are super important in showing them data points. So David, how do you balance information and timing to get the right message across at the right time? David Mangone: Yeah, I wish it were a situation where we could do one touch with these members or their offices and have them be completely good on the issue. I'll give an evolving example: we've had repetitive polling in Pennsylvania showing changing dynamics around potentially moving an adult-use bill through their state house. You bring those polling numbers to the Pennsylvania delegation, and what that looked like six months ago isn't what it's going to look like in a couple of weeks — those dynamics change. So even with people we consider very much our friends on the issue, there's still that education piece of showing how things are evolving in their state. That said, staffers handle hundreds of issues every day, so you have to find your angle to be both relevant and, frankly, not annoying. There are a lot of single-issue staffers on things that aren't cannabis — they may handle health policy, tax policy, or solely a senator's judiciary nominations — but when you get into a niche issue like ours, you have to recognize that the news of the day may dictate whether or not you reach out on a particular point. In the last few weeks we've seen the change at the top of the Democratic ticket, an assassination attempt, a new candidate emerging — that's dominated the news cycle. So a lot of it is self-awareness: if I reach out right now about safe banking, I'll probably be ignored, but if there's a story about a break-in at a dispensary and cash being taken, that's very relevant to the news of the day. That's a lot of what lobbying is — understanding the crest of the wave to target conversations so people are already thinking, or will continue thinking, about the issue in a meaningful way. Bryan Fields: How do you balance the relationships and touch points you have while still driving home the messaging and educational standpoint? Because it can't all be flooding them with what you want. David Mangone: I think our team does a fantastic job of doing the work for staffers — we'll say, here's an entirely written-out set of talking points, here are the very specific statistics about job numbers or employment in your district, let's make this as easy as possible for you to get on board. A lot of times we go into offices, either staff or members themselves, and we never actually ask for anything — we just say we're here for you as a resource. You build a level of trust where they can come to you as experts in an area they may not spend a lot of time developing policy on. You say, here's what we can present in terms of our members in your district, our operations, and you have us as a resource. Then when we need to ask for support — signing a letter, for example — we've built that relationship by showing we can be a good resource time after time. From a broad lobbying standpoint, whether you're a citizen lobbyist or part of a paid lobbying organization, you can't go in without any relationship and ask a member of Congress to do something for you. It just doesn't work — you'll get ignored, or at best a polite "sure, that sounds good." Assuming you can ask a favor without building the relationship first is where a lot of people new to this space falter, particularly on the citizen advocacy side. It's great to tell your story and how legislation might impact your life, but presuming a member will act just because they're hearing about it for the first time is usually very ineffective. Erin Moffet: I'll add to that — it's having that trust, proving we're valid as a resource. We're honest brokers, we're going to help you get that information, provide background, overview, and polling so you don't have to look for it yourself. It's trust but verify, and we've established that with a lot of folks having worked this issue for a long time. The other thing is you can't expect to always ask and get an answer if you're not also willing to give something — it's a relationship. With our membership, we have a presence in about half of the legal states, so chances are if your boss wants to really understand cannabis, one of the best ways is to visit a cannabis facility in their district or state — or here in DC if not — so they can see this isn't what they picture from Breaking Bad. It's a clean, highly compliant industry with track-and-trace systems, good-paying jobs, scientists, agriculturalists, marketing people — it's a normal industry like any other. Seeing that firsthand, and the diligence around compliance, really helps them understand what they're supporting when they move cannabis reform forward. We also work with several banks that have cannabis banking programs established, so when members of Congress want to understand safe banking, they can get on the phone with one of those banks directly, hearing it from folks involved on the ground rather than just from us. David Mangone: I'd just add — finding the appropriate messenger is a big part of what we do, because we're not always going to be the person who relates most to a staffer's or member's story or experience. Whether that's bringing in combat veterans to talk about how cannabis helped with various ailments, or folks from the business side, a lot of our strategy is thinking about who can give the most compelling message to this person. If that's us, fantastic; if not, we look to find the right business or person to fill that role and tell the most effective story. Bryan Fields: From my understanding, it seems like you're a facilitator, understanding the dynamics of the relationship rather than a hard salesman. It's a slow-moving educational process. I wonder — is there an internal system tracking different members' interests, so you know, say, this person has a family member affected by illness, so medical cannabis matters to them? And can a good relationship with one member help influence others — like, this typically conservative member is moving forward here, can you use that to help educate colleagues? David Mangone: Absolutely. I'll give a great example — there's a Republican from Ohio, Congressman Dave Joyce, who a lot of listeners are probably familiar with. He's really leaned into being the conservative cannabis champion, approaching it from a states' rights and free-market angle. Dave is an incredibly likable member who gets along with folks on both sides of the aisle, so he's become a really effective messenger, and by extension, us as a conduit. We can say, if this is good enough for Congressman Joyce, it should be good enough for you, even if you haven't weighed in on this policy before, because you trust guys like him. We do this on the Democratic side too — for example, with Senator Booker's evolution on safe banking, explaining where other members were and what was happening in his district, making sure members know who they want to align themselves with while keeping their own integrity intact. Erin Moffet: I can go a bit further — I'm the queen of organization on our team. My approach to outreach as a lobbyist is the same as when I was on the Hill doing outreach to get other members to support my own boss's bill. With roughly 433 members of Congress, I keep them organized by what committees they serve on, what state they're from, whether they're adult-use or medical states, whether they have low-THC laws, how they've voted on research, veterans' equal access, whether they're a co-sponsor on full descheduling, whether they're a military member or represent a high number of veterans even if it's not on their committee's docket. Then it's about approaching them — hey, you're from New York, would you join your seven other New York colleagues in signing onto this bill? Or, you're on House Financial Services, thirty members are already on safe banking, you could be one more. There's always FOMO for members of Congress just like anyone else — if they see their whole delegation or committee getting behind something, that matters. They might say, I don't know how I feel about this, but my colleague's on it, so maybe I'll ask why — and hearing it's because it creates good-paying jobs in their district builds trust. So it's not a wall, it's a spreadsheet — we keep running lists of when we met them, how they responded, what they said, so we can be more effective and also respectful of their time. If someone says their boss will never support something, we respect that and move on, while still offering to be a resource. It's about the right messenger and right message for each person, building a case with support from like-minded colleagues. Bryan Fields: Erin, how do you balance the negotiation aspect, where someone says "I'll move forward but this needs to change," while having these conversations with many people simultaneously? Erin Moffet: Everything's a negotiation. Nothing's perfect — you're never going to get one hundred percent of what you want, because if you did, there wasn't a real negotiation, and it wouldn't get the lasting support it needs. Even when you have supermajorities in Congress, if something passes with only one party's support, it's likely to get reversed because it wasn't done thoughtfully bringing all parties together. It's about having great relationships with the primary bill sponsor — if another office raises concerns, we pass that along, and sometimes concerns have already been addressed in a previous Congress, but they need to hear it directly from the lead member, not just from us. Right now we're in a situation where things being negotiated around cannabis have nothing to do with cannabis itself, which is frustrating because it's not our fight, and we just have to make sure we're not forgotten when everything else is happening. David Mangone: And when you can't find common ground, sometimes it's finding someone to draft an amendment that makes people comfortable without losing support elsewhere. A good saying on the Hill is that a bill that gets signed into law has everybody a little bit mad about it — and if everybody's a little mad, it means everybody was paying attention and there was real buy-in throughout the process. Not everyone gets everything they want, especially in a Congress this divided, roughly evenly split in both chambers, and I don't see the days of forty-vote House majorities or fifteen-vote Senate majorities coming back anytime soon. Bryan Fields: It seems like cannabis is sometimes used as a pawn, and sometimes piggybacked on other issues. Do you find yourselves working with other lobbyists to help bills move forward together? David Mangone: We know that if safe banking hit the floor of the Senate or House this Congress, it would pass — but Congress doesn't work that simply. There's a lot of procedure, a lot of thresholds, and a lot of horse-trading. When Leader Schumer is outspoken about wanting something, others will extract concessions to get what they want too. Unfortunately, cannabis reform often gets tied to other things. We'll take any vehicle offered, though we'd prefer to stand on our own, and we try not to get too caught up in what we get tied to — that's not our job. Our job is maintaining support for safe banking itself. There have been things floated this year about pairing safe banking with other items, and we look to other outspoken industry voices — groups like the American Bankers Association, insurance trade associations, Wall Street voices that have been vocal on safe banking — and if they get upset about what it's paired with, that's a bad sign, because you don't want to lose a coalition of support over a bad pairing. It's more about defensively not letting conversations drift into something that could hurt more than help — do no harm first. Bryan Fields: If only your job were as simple as being the only ones competing for their attention — there's the opposition, groups like SAM competing with counter-information, plus alcohol, tobacco, big farming all having their own opinions. How do you find that middle ground when members hear conflicting data points from different sides? David Mangone: It's easy — we don't lie to members of Congress. In all seriousness, the information we present comes from sources like state regulators, the Department of Taxation, the government's own data. For example, in the rescheduling process, HHS looks at whether cannabis is a precursor to a known controlled substance — I pulled that exact language from the 2016 scheduling petition, in the DEA's own words. When I put together fact sheets, I can say DEA has already determined there's no precursor issue with cannabis, because it's the DEA's own words. I'm always big on citing sources — even in conversation, we're not pulling things out of thin air. There are certainly some lobbyists who are aspirational about how things should be, but we back it up with data. When we compare information with a group like Smart Approaches to Marijuana, we know there's a list of members who will never be friendly to cannabis reform, and no amount of compelling data will change that — so I focus my attention elsewhere. There are a lot of ways to do the math to reach 218 votes in the House or 60 in the Senate, so if a certain audience will never be persuaded, that's fine, I'll focus on people who can be. On the regulatory side, it's about laying out the most compelling case for why change should happen, knowing the other side will raise concerns — it's not our job to assuage all of them, just to make the strongest case. Kellan Finney: When it came to rescheduling, was there a wildcard around information validation from a science standpoint — like research published in other countries — or was it strictly what HHS itself determined using its own science? David Mangone: This has been such an interesting conversation, because up until this point, the folks now crying foul that this process ran afoul, or that HHS stepped out of its lane, never once questioned HHS's ability to be the arbiter of science before — not when cannabis was scheduled in 2016, not with the rescheduling of hydrocodone or fentanyl analogues. This sudden "HHS is right until it's not" mentality doesn't really sit well with me. To your international point, yes, the Controlled Substances Act limits the availability of data that can be considered, so a lot of compelling international studies weren't included in the strict definition of "currently accepted medical use." But you can't go through this process with blinders — when you look at over forty countries around the globe that have moved forward with some form of medical cannabis program, that's compelling real-world data, and this isn't a vacuum decision. HHS made a very compelling scientific case, backed by a growing body of evidence — thousands of years of combined research all pointing to the same conclusion: cannabis never should have been scheduled the way it was, which was largely a political decision, not a scientific one. Erin Moffet: It's also a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem — there's less domestic research because it's Schedule I, and the same people demanding more domestic research before rescheduling are often opposing the move that would actually enable more research, since moving below Schedule III also removes the 280E tax burden. Beyond that, the research that comes out of this, even with a standalone research bill, is still complicated, because people remain wary of legal risk or losing federal funding for other research. To say it shouldn't move to Schedule III when that's where the evidence points, while also wanting more research, doesn't add up — moving to Schedule III doesn't mean the sky is falling. Nothing really changes about how the current US cannabis market operates; the thirty-eight states will still be operating outside of federal law, and Congress and DOJ aren't going to go after them — we've already seen that even when enforcement deferral policies were repealed, nothing changed on the ground. What will change is that good-actor businesses adhering to state law can reinvest in themselves rather than paying an eighty percent effective tax rate — which means better treatment for employees, access to employee retention tax credits, better benefits, more energy-efficient operations, and access to opportunity zone tax credits that other businesses in underserved areas already get. Bryan Fields: The most staggering part is that you're not asking for special favors — you're asking to be treated like every other industry. But this can't be an easy conversation, because you've got safe banking, the Farm Bill, rescheduling, and everything else members deal with. How do you balance getting information to members at the right time, Erin, without overloading them, especially with something as complicated as the Farm Bill? Erin Moffet: It's all about timing and targeting. When we do fly-ins, organizations come into DC with a list of priorities, but the staffer they're meeting with may not even handle all those issues — I also used to handle postal issues, pensions, healthcare, delivery days on the Hill, and those were often different staffers entirely. So we're mindful going into an office of who they are and where their focus is — if we're meeting with someone on the Ag Committee, we'll talk about unregulated intoxicating hemp products; if it's Financial Services, we're not going to bring up the Farm Bill, because they'll just tune out a five-year Farm Bill about to become a seven-year window. You have to go in with an ask that's pertinent to who they are and where they sit — whether it's leading a standalone bill, supporting something in the Ag Committee, talking to colleagues about safe banking, or pushing leadership for a floor vote. It's not about copy-pasting the same message into every office — that wastes everyone's time. Sometimes it means not going into an office at all if they'll never move, though we'll still check in if their state goes medical or adult-use, just to make it harder for them to stay complacent. We're not going to argue with a brick wall — we use our time efficiently and respect theirs. Bryan Fields: I wanted to dig into that because the Farm Bill is extremely complicated, and I'd assume your team's members sometimes have competing policy interests. How do you balance that internally, David? Erin Moffet: Sorry, David's laughing because the Farm Bill is my baby, my headache — I worked in agriculture policy for about four years. David Mangone: The nice thing about the National Cannabis Roundtable is that we're a consensus-driven organization — if we put forward a policy position, that means every one of our members, from single retail operators up to some of our largest MSOs, has bought in and agreed to the same policy. So while we shift and stay dynamic in messaging to specific members and staff, as an organization we present a united front — from the smallest operator to the largest, this is the policy that makes the most sense for the industry. That's really compelling; not every group, in cannabis or outside of it, has the luxury of saying their entire membership is united on a position. It may take longer internally to reach that unified policy, but externally it makes us a much more effective organization, and it makes members more comfortable putting themselves out there, knowing our whole organization stands behind it rather than risking backlash between small and large, or plant-touching and ancillary members. Bryan Fields: How do you two measure wins and momentum, given how slowly federal cannabis legislation moves? David Mangone: From the outside, you don't necessarily see the education and momentum we've built over the last decade. When Erin and I both started, a lot of offices wouldn't take you seriously at all — you'd get dismissed immediately. Now, even opponents of the issue ask very specific, targeted questions about public health, labeling, packaging requirements — you're not getting laughed out of the office anymore, and that in itself is a measure of success. Not a lot is getting passed on Capitol Hill generally right now, cannabis or otherwise, so the quantifiable metrics look different than in other industries. But in the last five years, we've passed safe banking out of the House seven times, the Senate Majority Leader has introduced a cannabis legalization bill, we're having meaningful policy discussions about appropriations provisions, and we're sitting a week after the comment period closed on the first-ever move to reclassify cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act — those are all real metrics of winning and momentum. At the state level it's more quantifiable — another state added to the medical or adult-use list. At the federal level, it's about keeping the conversation top of mind and shifting it in a way that ultimately leads to passage through both chambers and something reaching the president's desk. Erin Moffet: For government time, especially DC time, we're moving fast, even if not as fast as people predicted after President Obama's administration, which people expected the next administration to build on. Instead we had arguably the most unfriendly cannabis attorney general in US history, which put things on pause, and then COVID put everything on pause again. So we're picking back up now. To David's point on momentum, it's every time someone who voted yes last Congress puts their name on the bill again, every time someone who previously said no takes a meeting, every time staff show up to an educational event they hadn't engaged with before. Our executive director, Saphira Galoob, said something recently that's really important to remember — that this rescheduling momentum is not the end but the beginning of this movement. We're finally at the point where cannabis policy reform is happening, but the first real step hasn't been taken yet. Everything we've done over eleven years of safe banking efforts, and since 1996 with states legalizing medical cannabis, was all Olympic qualifying — now it's game time, and what we do moving forward is what will shape US cannabis policy ten years from now. Bryan Fields: What do you think are the most important conversations that need to happen over the next six months to keep this momentum going, especially with the election? David Mangone: It's recognizing that this is an issue that wins with voters time after time — on the state level, ballot initiatives outperform Senate and House candidates of both parties. It's something voters are engaged on and interested in, and if I were an elected official, I'd want to be on the right side of it, given the polling support — Democrats typically higher, but a majority of both parties support full legalization, and medical support runs upward of seventy-five percent, even among traditional primary voters of both parties. That's an issue I could run on with seventy-five percent-plus popularity and not take advantage of it would be a mistake. Pew reported earlier this year that about seventy-seven percent of Americans live in a county with a regulated dispensary, so even if you're not personally participating in an adult-use or medical marketplace, you know someone who is, and perceptions have changed. Oklahoma, for example, is a state where every county voted for Donald Trump in 2016, and they passed a medical initiative by almost ten points — this is no longer purely a red-state or blue-state issue. There will always be a subset of members opposed for personal reasons — family history with addiction, religious reasons, particularly on the Evangelical right — but for most people, they simply haven't formed an opinion because they haven't had to. With thirty-eight medical states now, and likely twenty-five or more adult-use states after this election, it's become an issue politicians can't ignore. My hope for the next six months is that those who haven't gotten on the train get on it, and those already on board put it full speed ahead. Erin Moffet: I'd focus less on the election and more on what happens in the six months after the comment period closes on this historic rescheduling — how it shakes out, what the timing looks like, what else the administration must do. Moving cannabis in the CSA has limited impact on its own; it doesn't fix everything. We still need safe banking — rescheduling doesn't provide banking access. We still desperately need criminal justice reform — cannabis crimes were written into the code out of animus, and moving from Schedule I to Schedule III doesn't even change how most people are charged. It doesn't address regulatory structure or how we maintain a safe, regulated market — we've seen the chaos that resulted from how hemp was legalized in the Farm Bill and the public health damage unregulated products can cause. None of that gets fixed by rescheduling alone, because rescheduling is just about how DEA and FDA handle a drug's classification. There's a great bipartisan bill from Congressman Dave Joyce called the PREPARE Act, which prepares agencies now for that inevitable moment — whether cannabis becomes federally legal or descheduled — so that when it happens, it's done thoughtfully rather than with ideas thrown at the wall without understanding real impacts. It should defer to the leadership already shown by the states while ensuring baseline safety standards for consumers, whether for medical or adult use, and ensuring fairness for the industry — there are things foreign cannabis companies can access in the US that domestic cannabis companies still can't. In the next six months, regardless of the election outcome, there are things this administration can still do before President Biden leaves office, and whoever comes next can build on that — but it's well beyond time for Congress to pass safe banking before the end of the year and put in place things like the PREPARE Act so we're better prepared for this inevitable transition. Bryan Fields: I love it. I can't imagine how difficult your jobs are — I could ask you questions for ten hours trying to understand all the nuance, and I know some questions just don't have easy answers. I appreciate you both taking the time. Thank you for all you do, and I'm looking forward to having you back when we get some eventual progress. David Mangone: Sounds great, happy to come back. Bryan Fields: Thanks so much, thanks guys.