Marijuana.com

Herb Ninja

National drug office claims immunity in campaign finance case

4-4-2005 | BOB ANEZ | AP

HELENA -- The national drug czar's office has claimed immunity from a complaint asserting the agency and one of its officials violated Montana's campaign finance laws last year.

The Marijuana Policy Project claimed the czar's office should have reported how much it spent to fight a Montana ballot measure legalizing marijuana for medical use.

In a letter to state Political Practices Commissioner Gordon Higgins, a lawyer for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy said the deputy director's visit to Montana last year and his comments against the initiative were part of his official duties, and he does not have to obey state campaign laws.

"As a result, Deputy Director (Scott) Burns and the Office of National Drug Control Policy respectfully decline to respond to the complaint ...," wrote Edward Jurith, general counsel for the agency.

Higgins could not be reached for comment Monday.

The complaint was filed with Higgins' office in late February by the Marijuana Policy Project, the national organization that successfully promoted Initiative 148. It passed with 62 percent of the vote.

The group said that Burns and his federal office failed to comply with campaign finance laws by not reporting what was spent on Burns' visit to Montana last October when he voiced opposition to the measure.

Steve Fox, spokesman for the national marijuana group, chastised the federal agency's response.

"The drug czar's office has moved from ignoring the law to actively defying it," he said. "Claims that Burns was just doing his job by speaking out about the dangers of marijuana are absurd and insulting. He campaigned against I-148 overtly and energetically, most likely spending many thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money in the process."

The organization filed similar complaints in Montana, Alaska and Oregon at the same time.

Higgins wrote to Burns in March, asking for information about his official responsibilities that would be the basis for any claim of immunity. He said the response would help determine whether he has jurisdiction over the alleged violations in the complaint.

Jurith said Burns is not subject to Montana's election laws because he was a "federal official acting within the scope of duties, including speaking about the dangers of illegal drugs, delegated to him and the Office of National Drug Control Policy by the president and Congress."

The same complaint was filed in Nevada two years ago against John Walters, then the director of the office, after he campaigned in that state against a ballot measure to legalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults.

Nevada officials later decided against taking action, raising the same objections contained in Jurith's letter to Higgins.

__________________
Ron Paul for the Long Haul

 

gob

"immunity" typical neocon reply, since when do federal officials thumb their nose at state laws, especially election laws.

__________________
End Prohibition

RL in IL

How can they get away with violating any laws at all? Especially in what looks to be such a public and media-accessible position?

The media could pounce on this like no tomorrow. Federal officials not following state laws and influencing the outcome of elections and voting?

Am I just naive or does this kind of stuff go on all the time in different areas of US government?

The Mighty Quin

Be that as it may, the media cannot touch such matters because they view it as, a) unimportant, and b) dangerous, for the media is afraid of alienating conservative viewers by reporting on such a divisive issue.

That is not to say it could not be reported upon, but modern media is more concerned with getting people to watch, and, unfortunatly, not with informing people about what is going on in the country.

__________________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just gonna ask where there going and hook up with 'em later.

R.I.P. Mitch Hedberg 2/24/68 - 3/29/05
You will be missed.

www.mitchhedberg.net
www.hedburgh.com

PotShot

Prohibition is far more dangerous. Legalization and regulation is the only way to make drugs safer.

Of course, these people are "just doing their job", even if that means lying

__________________
Posting Guidelines

Carl Sagan Goodness Richard Dawkins Goodness

 

Mamabudz

Dear RL...

There is no Santa Claus...no Easter Bunny...no Tooth Fairy...and yes, the Federal Government can claim that They supersede the rights of the people under their own State's laws because, being the United State's Country's Government, Their Power supersedes the States' own laws....

...under certain circumstances...

Now the Question to the Court (the Judiciary branch of the Government) is: Is this One of Those Circumstances?

The Federals will of course say YES! and they did! (what a suprise ) and claimed it was "acting/executing (this is the Executive Branch) within their Federal Duties"

As mentioned a similar case was brought in Nevada but dropped but I have a feeling this case will not be dropped. The reason I think that? Montana's Pro Pot Bill past...by 62% (a healthy majority).


The AP (Associated Press) headline dosen't even mention pot, but instead the spin is on the naughtiness and belligerant attitude of the Federal Government.

This will be a great case to watch.