Campaign regs lead to two groups fighting Pueblo marijuana prohibition

The city and county are both facing a prohibition ballot question, but only one opposition issue committee is registered.

A grassroots effort to oppose two marijuana prohibition ballot questions in Pueblo is on the rise, filling a campaign void left by Colorado campaign regulations that prevent Growing Pueblo’s Future, the main prohibition opposition force, from campaigning easily against both the city and county question.

State campaign regulations dictate that issue committees, such as Growing Pueblo’s Future, may oppose multiple ballot questions, but only in one jurisdiction. And because GPF registered with the state as opposing county question 200, it has been recommended the group leave off any mention of city question 300, for legal reasons.

“In this instance, for the group to support or oppose municipal ballot measures, they would also need to register (or) set-up a separate account with the municipal clerk,” according to the Colorado Secretary of State’s office, which handles the campaign registrations.

Registering GPF as an issue committee with the City of Pueblo was never really a question or discussion the group had, according to Jim Parco, a volunteer with GPF.

Part of the reasoning, Parco said, was that GPF had already registered as associated with 200 early on, before the city question was submitted.

But also, there is a lot more to lose in the county if prohibition is passed. The county reports the industry has created at least 1,300 jobs, significant revenue and a construction boom in 2015 that resulted in $15 million spent on new buildings.

Parco added that GPF is completely in favor of another group opposing both questions.

“The more the merrier,” he said in a recent phone interview, adding that GPF has been adamant about following campaign regulations.

“Our industry is regulation driven,” Parco said. “So it’s important we follow the rules in a campaign, too.”

Where GPF’s campaign ends is where the grassroots effort begins.

Brooks Allan, who works with edible manufacturer Platinum Foods, has become the leading force behind the grassroots effort, which is still in early stages, he said.

Allan is still trying to organize support from the marijuana industry that exists within Pueblo city limits, but has been running a robust Facebook page, Pueblo City Cannabis Culture, opposing both 200 and 300.

With only 181 likes, the page easily gets over 20 shares on the multiple posts per day.

“If people don’t hear no on 300, that’s just scary to me,” Allan told Partake.

He started volunteering with GPF because he supported the group’s efforts, and still does, but said he realized the campaign couldn’t fight for his cannabis manufacturing business in Pueblo city limits because of the campaign regulations.

While GPF has been advised not to include oppostion 300 language on any of the group’s literature. Both groups are clear that the split isn’t a division.

Allan said he isn’t completely abandoning the fight against 200 — many of the posts on his group’s Facebook include opposition to 200 — but wanted there to be some sort of focus on the 300 question, especially with two city marijuana questions that have already been dubbed as confusing.

Allan said he looked into registering the cannabis culture group as an issue committee with the city, but it was encouraged by the city clerk’s office to have an attorney file the paperwork.

Without filing, the grassroots effort cannot legally accept donations or spend any money, according to Pueblo City Clerk Gina Dutcher.

The group leading the effort on the prohibition questions, Citizens for a Healthy Pueblo, has filed issue committees in both jurisdictions to with the to campaign favorably for both 200 and 300.