Top 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates' Views on Legal Marijuana

2020 is a long time to wait, but that’s probably the earliest point before the legal marijuana

industry could see any positive changes at the federal level. As my readers know, I firmly believe that third parties need more inclusion in the political process for this to happen. However, that is unlikely to occur anytime soon. Therefore, let’s examine the top potential Democratic Presidential hopefuls for 2020 and see their stances.

Honorable Mention

Senator Bernie Sanders (VT-I)  

(Flickr - Gage Skidmore)

It seems unlikely that Sanders will get the Democratic nomination in 2020 even though he has the best shot at winning; he’s literally the most popular current politician in America. Sanders would have likely beaten Trump if he had received the nomination because he would have maintained the liberal base while receiving better voter turnout with the key demographics where Clinton was unpopular. 

It’s no secret that the DNC worked behind the scenes to block Sanders from winning the nomination. In fact, my last column with The American Conservative detailed the current lawsuit filed by some of his supporters against the DNC. Long story short, the DNC hasn’t openly denied many of the accusations that their group tried to suppress his campaign. Hence, there’s no reason to believe that the DNC will show any support for him in the next election.

Most Likely Candidates

It looks like something akin to the Watergate scandal is in the works. Jimmy Carter was an obscure Governor from Georgia when that took place. (He also publicly supported decriminalization of possession of up to one ounce of marijuana, which was a bold political stance in the 1970s.) However, it seems unlikely that a Governor will receive the nomination because the news cycle is entirely focused on Trump. 

There will probably be lengthy Congressional hearings and Democrats in related committees will get the face time that corresponds to votes. With that in mind, please note that James Garfield was the first and only sitting member of the House of Representatives to be elected President. Therefore, we’ll look at the most likely candidates currently serving in the U.S. Senate.

1 - Sen. Kamala Harris (CA)   

(Wikimedia Commons)

This fast-rising politician has rapidly gained a ton of political momentum. She was elected last year to her first term in the U.S. Senate and she already serves on some influential Senate Committees, including Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs and the Intelligence Committee. Harris served as the Attorney General of California before heading to Capitol Hill and, like most prosecutors, she predictably sided with the special interests of the prison industrial complex. She waged a famous crusade against BackPage.com and has remained a strong supporter of civil asset forfeiture. 

While serving as Attorney General in 2014, she literally laughed at the suggestion of legalizing recreational marijuana. However, Harris somewhat reversed course, but she isn’t in favor of legalization. Instead, she is now advocating for decriminalization, but her exact plan isn’t clear. In April of last year, she suggested that marijuana should only be changed from a Schedule I to Schedule II drug. Furthermore, as Tom Angell (Chairman of the Marijuana Majority) accurately points out, Kamala Harris continues referring to the drug war in the past tense as if it is a thing of the past.

2 - Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA)  

(Wikimedia Commons)

Elizabeth Warren has strong name recognition and has developed a reputation as a tough banking regulator. As far as her views on marijuana, she has seemingly shifted to tepid support of legalization. Two years ago, when questioned about her state’s ballot initiative for recreational marijuana she told MassLive:

“I’m open to it. I think we’ve learned more. A couple of states have legalized marijuana for recreational use.”

That was a reversal from the past. She had been openly against legalization and even attacked a rival Republican as late as 2013 for supporting legal recreational marijuana. However, she’s now acting as an ally to the legal marijuana industry. She has publicly challenged Jeff Sessions to respect states’ rights and is working to create legal banking options for the industry.  

3 - Sen. Cory Booker (NJ)    

(Wikimedia Commons)

Booker has a high level of name recognition, particularly with young voters. He served as the Mayor of Newark before heading to the U.S. Senate in 2013. He’s quickly made a name for himself by being a very accessible media figure.

Of these three potential candidates, Booker has been by far the most courageous advocate of legal recreational marijuana. In fact, he sponsored the “Marijuana Justice Act,” SB 1689, which is hands down the most comprehensive and progressive marijuana legalization bill in U.S. history.

Here are a few highlights:

• Every person presently incarcerated for a marijuana offense would be eligible to have that sentence reversed.

• It would remove marijuana entirely from the controlled substance list.

• It would provide federal funds for states to change drug policies if they have incarcerated minorities and low-income individuals disproportionally.

• It would provide a “Community Reinvestment Fund” with job programs and several other benefits in cities that have been particularly affected by the drug war.

Suffice it say, this is an incredibly ambitious bill and it has absolutely no shot of being passed at this time. Nonetheless, it’s a positive development that proposals like this are beginning to be introduced to the electorate at large.

Money Launderer Sentenced to Prison - Not Employed By a "Too Big to Fail" Bank

Twenty-eight states have legalized medical marijuana; recreational marijuana is legal in eight states and the District of Columbia. Nevertheless, the federal government has numerous money laundering regulations in place that block banks from servicing legal marijuana providers. Consequently, legal marijuana dispensaries are forced to do all transactions in cash. Hence, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), along with nine other Senators, recently wrote an official letter to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Center (FinCEN) in hopes of easing those banking rules. A spokesman for FinCEN told the Los Angeles Times that they’re reviewing the letter.

This gesture by this group of Senators was a plea for common sense. Providing banking options for legal marijuana businesses will reduce the risk of potential violent crime. Secondly, it would increase financial transparency, which would actually prevent possible money laundering. In other words, criminal organizations would view cash-only marijuana dispensaries as a better destination for laundering money, as opposed to dispensaries where there are electronic records for every transaction. 

Worst of all, this federal fiasco is all for show. These bureaucrats are most concerned with projecting an image of being “tough on crime.” It’s all style and no substance. Case in point, the “Too Big to Fail” banks have employed the most egregious money launderers. Regardless, none of these white collar criminals have gone to prison. Let’s take a look at a recent story involving a Denver woman that illustrates this dichotomy.

Last November, Marybell Delarosa-Quintana was sentenced to five years in prison for money laundering. In fact, the judge said that it would have been 15 years if she had not testified against several Mexican cartel members. As an insurance agent for a small business in Denver, Delarosa-Quintana laundered $281,000 for two Mexican drug cartels. The primary bank that she chose for her deposits was Wells Fargo. This was an ironic choice because Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia after it was involved in the largest money laundering case in U.S. history. Wachovia processed $373 billion in suspected drug money over a four-year period even though federal regulators warned the company about those particular transactions. Nevertheless, no employees of Wachovia were prosecuted and the company had to pay a penalty of $160 million, which was only a fraction of their profits. The takeaway here is that Marybell Delarosa-Quintana was guilty of not working for a “Too Big to Fail” bank.

London-based HSBC, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, eventually surpassed Wachovia’s record for the biggest money laundering scandal. The U.S. Department of Justice described HSBC as the “preferred financial institution for drug cartels and money launderers.” As much as $670 billion of potential drug money went unmonitored by their bank. In fact, drug cartels knew the exact dimensions HSBC bank teller windows. Accordingly, they stuffed boxes of cash through those windows on a daily basis. 

El Chapo's Sinaloa Cartel laundered money through HSBC branches. (Photo - Day Donaldson/Flickr)

Money laundering may not offend you personally if you don’t agree with the war on drugs. However, HSBC also knowingly did business with a Saudi Arabian bank, Al Rajhi, which had links with the 9/11 terrorists. Can you guess what the punishment was for HSBC? In 2012 the DOJ entered into a plea agreement in which HSBC was fined $1.9 billion, but none of their employees faced criminal charges. One year later, former Attorney General, Eric Holder, testified before Congress that the DOJ had been hesitant to pursue some of the largest banks because they were considered "too big to fail." However, a recent report by the House Committee on Financial Services’ Republican staff contradicted that claim. This report found that Holder and other top officials of the DOJ overruled their staffers’ recommendation to prosecute HSBC. As a matter of fact, HSBC negotiated a more favorable plea deal after Holder had personally issued a “take-it-or-leave-it” deadline.

The only plausible explanation for such glaring hypocrisy is the revolving door between government and the private sector. It’s one hell of a racket. Several government officials are succumbing to conflicts of interest while serving in law enforcement or as regulators. The payoff comes when they return to the welcoming arms of the private sector with lucrative salaries for services rendered. As for Eric Holder, he returned to the powerful law firm Covington & Burling in 2015. His salary was never announced publicly, but his former Assistant Attorney General, Lanny Breuer, returned to Covington & Burling in 2013 to reportedly $4 million annually in compensation. Hence, you can assume that Holder’s payday was even greater. Albeit, HSBC was never a client of Covington & Burling; consequently, there was no direct quid pro quo. However, their firm has represented several major banks. And that conflict of interest is the most apparent explanation for why every “Too Big to Fail” bank received the white glove treatment from the DOJ while Holder was in charge.

All in all, the money laundering aspect illustrates one of the many glaring examples proving that the drug war is a lie.