Pubdate: Wed, 04 Jun 2003
Source: Roll Call (DC)
Copyright: 2003 Roll Call Inc.
Contact:  http://www.rollcall.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/372
Author: Damon Chappie, Roll Call Staff
Cited: Office of National Drug Control Policy ( www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov )
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/campaign.htm (ONDCP Media Campaign)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)

DRUG CZAR AD BUDGET DEAL SOUGHT

House Republicans will try again this week to transform a federally funded 
$1 billion ad budget into a campaign war chest for the White House drug 
czar to use against candidates and ballot measures seeking to legalize 
marijuana.

The controversial provision is part of a broader bill reauthorizing the 
National Drug Control Policy Office. A May 22 markup in the Government 
Reform Committee fell apart amid objections to the provision by Democrats.

A markup has been scheduled for Thursday. However, it is unclear whether 
any progress had been made in reaching a compromise.

Currently, the drug control office and its director, commonly referred to 
as the drug czar, are barred by law from using an annual $195 million 
anti-drug advertising budget for partisan, political purposes.

Under language in a reauthorization bill offered 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 substance.

"We are negotiating," said committee spokesman Dave Marin. "We're confident 
that come markup on Thursday we'll have bipartisan support for language 
that makes it clear that no media campaign funds can advocate support for 
or defeat of any candidate or ballot initiative."

Several Democrats, however, expressed skepticism about a compromise.

"I certainly hope that this provision will be deleted," said Rep. Carolyn 
Maloney (D-N.Y.). "Taxpayer money should not be used for partisan, 
political purposes. It's just bad policy."

Marin declined to reveal the specific language being negotiated. But 
another committee aide described it as an express advocacy test akin to the 
controversial rules governing the regulation of political ads under federal 
election law. Express advocacy, as defined by the Supreme Court, means that 
the ad contains a phrase like "vote for" or "vote against."

The battle over the legalization is being fought in the states. But critics 
fear that even federal candidates who advocate legalization could be 
targeted in ads run by the drug czar.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager