photo: El Tekolote (flickr)

The Public Policy Institute of California is out with their post election survey, and among the many issues they focus on is why Californians voted for or against Proposition 19, the initiative that would have legalized marijuana. This measure failed last month by a seven points, with 46.5% voting yes and 53.5% voting no.

According to the poll, Republicans where a main cause of Prop 19 failure. Only 27% of the Republicans who voted this year cast their ballot for Prop 19, while 73% voted against the measure. Democrats and independents supported the measure at near identical rates, 56% of Democrats and 55% of independents voted yes. This shows that at least some of Prop 19′s problems came down to bad timing. This 2010 midterm election had unusually high turnout among Republicans.

Most interesting, this poll provides an answer to why many voted against Prop 19:

The top reason given for voting yes on the measure, in an open-ended question, is that it would have allowed for the taxation of marijuana (29%). Yes-voters also say that marijuana use is a personal issue or not a big deal (12%), that it would have freed up the police/courts to do other things (11%), or that it would lead to less crime and drug violence (10%). Among no-voters, the top reasons given for opposition are that drugs should be illegal (33%), and that legalization is not good for the state (12%). Fewer cite child safety (8%), the potential conflict with federal law (7%), or that the initiative was poorly written (7%).

Having 7% vote no because they felt the initiative was poorly written was clearly very damaging to the campaign given that those voter were potentially persuadable and the fact that the measure in the end only lost by seven points.

The poll found that specific problems with the ballot measure itself, as opposed to the general idea marijuana legalization, likely cost Prop 19 important votes. While the measure failed 46.5% to 53.5%, the poll found the voters were evenly split 49%-49% on whether, in general, they think marijuana should be legal.

The data indicates the ultimate loss of Prop 19 was likely due to three factors: bad timing, failure of campaign messaging, and measure design issues.

With a few changes, Proposition 19 could likely have been drafted in a better manner from a purely politically perspective. I also feel the campaign didn’t do a sufficient job of pushing back against some of the opposition’s rather ridiculous attacks about the initiative’s design. While these issues likely cost the measure several points, the importance of the national trend of the election shouldn’t be ignored. It was just bad luck to have a measure oppose by 74% of Republicans on the ballot in an election with unusually high Republican turnout.

Overall, the poll is decent news for the marijuana reform movement going forward. With a ballot initiative that has a better design from a political perspective, a more nimble campaign prepared to respond quickkly to attacks on technical issues, and an election with a friendly turnout demographic; it is easy to picture how a marijuana legalization initiative in California could pass with a modest majority.

photo: mindfrieze (flickr)

‘Tis the season for the bloated defense authorization bill to begin its journey towards passage, and as usual if you look hard enough, the legislation is stuffed full of all kinds of goodies. Since defense authorization will always pass, it has become an omnibus wish-list bill for anyone who wants anything out of our government, and this year is no different. Considering the size of this legislation, I will focus in on a particularly egregious section that will most likely pass under the radar of most members of Congress unless action is taken.

Section 815 for S. 3454, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, has the innocuous title of “Reduction of Supply Chain Risk in the Acquisition of National Security Systems.” This section could essentially create “de facto” debarments of small businesses across DoD federal contracting programs, with potential for these “de facto” debarments to touch every corner of federal government contracting, thus creating a blacklist where businesses would be debarred from working with the government. The proponents of Section 815 have justified this blacklist as necessary to ensure national security and mitigate supply chain risk.

The beauty of Section 815 is that any firm placed on this blacklist is done so in secret; so much so that DoD officials are not required to notify the blacklisted parties. This gets even better based on the language which specifically states that only two Department of Defense (DoD) officials will get to determine if any contractor is a “national security threat” worthy of being blacklisted. This falls on the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration (ASD-NII) to make the recommendation to debar a company from contracting with DoD. Small business advocates are concerned that DoD’s decision may flood every government-purchasing agency with a negative impression of blacklisted companies, and thus lead to “de facto” debarments across the federal government.

The absolute best part about Section 815 is that it would protect the details of DoD’s decision from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), or an action brought in the federal court system, thus leaving no recourse for any firm that finds itself on the secret Pentagon blacklist.

So let us sum up here. Section 815 in the defense authorization bill is currently awaiting passage in the Senate and will allow two Pentagon officials to secretly blacklist any company from contracting with the government because of national security concerns, but the reasons why do not have to be made public, the blacklisted company does not have to be notified, and it expressly prohibits any action being taken in recourse through FOIA, the GAO or in the federal courts. [cont'd.]

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps

Here’s what the top telecom companies are saying about Julius Genachowski’s pretend net neutrality proposal.

Time Warner Cable: “We would like to commend Chairman Genachowski, and everyone at the Commission, who have worked tirelessly to craft what we believe to be a fair resolution to these complex and controversial policy issues. We also want to thank the many Members of Congress who, on a bipartisan basis, urged the Commission to take a less regulatory path in order to ensure that the Internet continues its vibrant growth and development.”

Comcast: “We believe Chairman Genachowski’s proposal, as described this morning, strikes a workable balance between the needs of the marketplace and the certainty that carefully-crafted and limited rules can provide to ensure that Internet freedom and openness are preserved.”

AT&T: “Based on our understandings, this measure would avoid onerous Title II regulation; would be narrowly drawn along the lines of a compromise we have endorsed previously; would reject limits on our ability to properly manage our network and efficiently utilize our wireless spectrum; would recognize the capabilities and limitations of different broadband technologies; would ensure specialized services are protected against intrusive regulation; and would provide for a case-by-case resolution of complaints that also encourages non-governmental dispute settlement.”

Verizon: “Verizon appreciates the efforts of Chairman Genachowski to seek a consensus on the contentious issue of net neutrality… [W]e urge the commissioners to recognize the limitations of the current statute and the rapidly changing conditions in the marketplace and make any rules it adopts interim, rather than permanent. Specifically, the commission should consider the framework of the Waxman proposal, including its sunset provision.”

In addition, Speed Matters, which is part of the Communication Workers of America and has habitually sided with anything that expands phone company profits, supports the proposal.

So there you have it. Watch your wallet.

On the other side, you have people who have advocated for an open Internet fro day one:

“It’s no secret that I am looking for the strongest protections we can get to preserve an open Internet, built on the most secure legal foundation, so we don’t find ourselves in court every other month,” Mr. Copps said. Noting that this is only the beginning of discussion about the proposal, which is likely to change before it becomes final, Mr. Copps added: “At issue is who will control access to the online experiences of consumers — consumers themselves or Big Phone and Big Cable gatekeepers.”

This at least offers some hope that Copps will move the proposal in a better direction. The Republican commissioners on the panel are opposed to doing much of anything, so Copps actually has some power here.

Not only is this proposal horrible because it allows telecoms to ration traffic and basically destroys the principle of net neutrality, but as Copps says, it’s not clear that it’s going to stick. Because of the court rulings, a failure to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service will always run into legal problems. FCC officials claim they have sufficient authority, but it’s very questionable.

Let’s see if Copps can stress this point.

More from Marvin Ammori, who is on fire over this, and who even posted Genachowski’s phone number (202-418-1000) in case you want to let him know about this.