Montana HB - 462: Worth your time Marijuana Taxes & Access

[Ben Lamb]

It was a very good hearing.

With $2.6 billion other ways to fund these good programs, there is no need to raid Habitat Montana. Chris Marchion & Bruce Knutson did great work tonight.

 

[Tomahawk]

It’s pretty crafty of the sponsor to divert the funds the way he did with the false dichotomy. Who could vote against funding to police, child abuse prosecutors, veterans etc. Someone must really want Habitat Montana defunded.

I saw lots of government bureau chiefs testify in favor of the bill, but did not see FWP testifying against it. Did I miss that? If they didn’t, why not?

Lastly, did RMEF testify?

 

[sacountry]

It’s pretty crafty of the sponsor to divert the funds the way he did with the false dichotomy. Who could vote against funding to police, child abuse prosecutors, veterans etc. Someone must really want Habitat Montana defunded.

I saw lots of government bureau chiefs testify in favor of the bill, but did not see FWP testifying against it. Did I miss that? If they didn’t, why not?

Lastly, did RMEF testify?

I was surprised that FWP didn't testify against it but then again it's GG's bill and Hank works for GG.

 

[Rhinocesaurus]

Fwp did not take a position. I’m not aware of RMEF making any statement on the bill. One of the representatives did mention he heard from a lot of constituents and not a single one supported the bill.

I’m glad Ben feels it went well because to me, it felt like the opponents arguments fell on deaf ears. I definitely got a ‘we know better than you’ vibe from many of them.

 

[sacountry]

Fwp did not take a position. I’m not aware of RMEF making any statement on the bill. One of the representatives did mention he heard from a lot of constituents and not a single one supported the bill.

I’m glad Ben feels it went well because to me, it felt like the opponents arguments fell on deaf ears. I definitely got a ‘we know better than you’ vibe from many of them.

Send followup emails to the committee. They didn't vote so there's still time. I already received a response to my follow-up email from one of the committee members.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

I didn’t think the hearing was going at all well until Mary Caferro pointed out that only Habitat Montana was being cut, and that Appropriations could maintain 20% funding, veterans could get twice as much, and there would still be plenty for the general fund. The fact that only HM was being defunded was lost in all the detail previous to that.

Multiple legislators pointed out that HM was NOT being defunded because it had its original funding source. Finally, at the end, one pointed out that a major reduction in funding was a form of defunding. Quite a revelation.

 

[Rhinocesaurus]

Send followup emails to the committee. They didn't vote so there's still time. I already received a response to my follow-up email from of the one committee members.

I sent an email to all of them earlier in the week, got a thank you for your email from one. Good idea to send a follow up.

 

[sacountry]

I didn’t think the hearing was going at all well until Mary Caferro pointed out that only Habitat Montana was being cut, and that Appropriations could maintain 20% funding, veterans could get twice as much, and there would still be plenty for the general fund. The fact that only HM was being defunded was lost in all the detail previous to that.

Multiple legislators pointed out that HM was NOT being defunded because it had its original funding source. Finally, at the end, one pointed out that a major reduction in funding was a form of defunding. Quite a revelation.

I think a follow-up message could be....no one is fully dependent on this money because it's new money.....every proponent in the room would still be funded if their funding was cut, which makes Bedey's justification a nonjustification.

I really wish just one proponent would have stepped forward and said "you know what I've changed my mind. Conservation deserves a seat at this table. the incremental money we have now is due to the wide net of beneficiaries included back when the initiative appeared on the ballot. Since it only passed by a thin margin, we'd all still be pissing in our small ponds if it wasn't for our collective funding appeal so don't remove conservation from the appropriation".....that would have taken some cajones.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

That was an orchestrated and well-staffed dog and pony show. I particularly liked the first guy from DOJ who said its request was very modest, but they would get only one shot at the exploding fentanyl crisis, and this bill was it. If that’s the case, we are in trouble.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

That was an orchestrated and well-staffed dog and pony show. I particularly liked the first guy from DOJ who said its request was very modest, but they would get only one shot at the exploding fentanyl crisis, and this bill was it. If that’s the case, we are in trouble.

The same DOJ run by famous conservationist and public lands advocate Austin Knudsen? I’m sure to believe anything he has a hand in. We’d sure hate for the FWP empire to expand. Maybe he can find a way to funnel some MJ dollars into subdivision creation. Unless something drastic happens, Knudsen is going to be governor after Gianforte and then we’re really screwed.

 

[RandanP]

The numbers in the fiscal note don’t add up to me. They project 81m in taxes for fy24 but that assumes over 400m in taxable revenue. I believe there was 200m in recreational sales this year and 100m in medical sales at a significantly lower rate. Are they assuming the medical rate gets eliminated? I would be skeptical that the total revenue grows 33%.

 

[mtnkid85]

Obviously some of the reps either flat out don't want to believe that people voted for I190 to fund conservation or truly never considered the idea. If you did vote for it for that reason, its important to send an email letting the commission know that you did. Furthermore the fact that HM is the only program seeing a significant slash while still funneling excess into the general fund.

 

[sacountry]

Obviously some of the reps either flat out don't want to believe that people voted for I190 to fund conservation or truly never considered the idea. If you did vote for it for that reason, its important to send an email letting the commission know that you did. Furthermore the fact that HM is the only program seeing a significant slash while still funneling excess into the general fund.

I would add that this HM funding is the only I190 funding that has a multiplicative effect based on the national grant that requires matching dollars as a qualification. I didnt know that going into this and I think it was lost in all the dialogue.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

I was add that this HM funding is the only I190 funding that has a multiplicative effect based on the national grant that requires matching dollars as a qualification. I didnt know that going into this and I think it was lost in all dialogue.

It’s actually illuminating to watch a whole hearing and see either lack of knowledge or full-on deception play out. Scott is right that leveraged Federal match money is one of the great advantages of HM, but one of the main strategies of the proponents and our “healthy and bountiful” governor is pointing out that multiplier effect, in the sense that the HM account has surplus money available. One committee member kept saying that it’s important to keep in mind that HM was NOT being defunded, since it still had its original funding source.

When I said yesterday was a coordinated dog and pony show, I was being half literal. The proponents actually had a demo with a drug dog. That was a little surreal, but the sponsor started off with a logical statement that a legalization bill should address legalization’s costs, like increased THC DUIs. That rationale moved fairly quickly into fentanyl, new LE training facilities, veteran’s cemetery needs, and other worthy but wholly unrelated causes.

GG’s budget guy said pointedly that members have to remember that the general fund turns right around and funds these same programs following Bill Mercer’s statement suggesting all marijuana tax revenue funds could go into the general fund. Mary Caferro then clarified, “But not Habitat Montana, correct?” Andrew McKean and I were texting back and forth like teenagers while Mary asked more HM questions, gradually leading up to the point that HM is the ONLY program being cut in 462:

“C’mon, Mary…”
“C’mon…”
“THERE IT IS!”

It’s abundantly clear that’s the nexus—that Habitat Montana is the only program being cut off—and something the Governor very much wants to bury. If Gianforte is feeling any increased goodwill toward hunters because of make-nice efforts and being invited to lead off Elk Camp, that sure wasn’t on display yesterday.

There was a lot of chatter along the lines of “aren’t we funding conservation elsewhere?” with the reply being, yes, we have a new bill supporting the conservation districts, and parks and trails retains its funding, etc. “Isn’t a third of the state already public land?”

Caferro emailed me last night with some questions: “Why does the Governor not like Habitat?” She shared that the sponsor’s one pager showed Habitat Montana “swimming in money”.

Here are some points I expressed to her:
1) Marijuana tax revenues are now projected by the Legislative Fiscal Division to be nearly twice as high as the projections of a couple of years ago. HB 462 would permanently exclude HM from that growing source of funds.
2) As others here have pointed out, MJ tax revenue is all new money. The bill proponents and Governor have created a false dichotomy saying we can either fund HM or these other important programs, when the fact is with a $1.7B surplus we can fund them all.
3) HM can do four great, popular things: provide hunting access, increase public land, protect habitat, and keep ranchers and farmers on their land through stress or succession. No other program does all that.
4) Public land drives rather than stifles economic growth. It’s what keep families here. Like it or not, it brings in newcomers and new companies and supports the outdoor economy.
5) The deep right’s loathing of public land purchases because of property tax loss is a red herring. FWP issues local governments payments in lieu of taxes.
6) The reason the HM account looks well-funded is that FWP under Worsech has been slow-pedaling the program and that the Gianforte appointees constituting the Land Board are a nearly total roadblock; they put the funk in dysfunction but have new and absolute power over acquisitions. The funds sitting there have nothing to do with lack of demand for the program, which is high.
7) If HM is cut off from tax revenue funding now and future legislation attempts to restore it because of demand and skyrocketing land prices, then it will be competing against other programs, unlike now.
8) Popular programs like HM bring Montanans together. Cutting off the program and ignoring the will of the voters as expressed in 190 will drive division and anger.

The FWP informational witness didn’t lie, but he certainly wasn’t advocating for the program. He spoke using the most conservative projections.

To end on a good note, one member stated that he had never received so many comments on a bill, and they were 100% opposed.

That was more or less balanced by Bill Mercer saying that there was a lot of talk about the state constitution being the be-all and end-all, and it states that voters can’t determine funding allocations. As I said to Mary, they weren’t doing that in 190, but they were making their values plain. If Rep. Mercer wants to ignore his Billings constituents (and Billings gave strong support to 190), that’s on him.

I don’t like referring to partisan politics, but my expectation is this will come down to a party line vote or close to it. Any of you who oppose 462 and with Republican representatives have the weekend to express their thoughts; you could make a big, long term difference.

 

[1896]

Only voted for it for Habitat.

 

[otter82]

I am finally posting on a forum after reading them for years. HB - 462 is the type of issue I am interested in.

I am a Montana Resident. Montana Voter. I hunt, fish, recreate throughout the state.

I watched the meeting thanks to you folks posting the link. The reason I voted for 190 was the revenue that was sold to us going to conservation. In the meeting a state employee stated they couldn't quantify that. Count myself and a few family members on the list that did vote for it for that sole reason.

My representative is not on this committee. Should I be contacting representatives outside of my district? Or just my representative?

 

[sacountry]

I am finally posting on a forum after reading them for years. HB - 462 is the type of issue I am interested in.

I am a Montana Resident. Montana Voter. I hunt, fish, recreate throughout the state.

I watched the meeting thanks to you folks posting the link. The reason I voted for 190 was the revenue that was sold to us going to conservation. In the meeting a state employee stated they couldn't quantify that. Count myself and a few family members on the list that did vote for it for that sole reason.

My representative is not on this committee. Should I be contacting representatives outside of my district? Or just my representative?

I suggest sending exactly what you just wrote to the entire committee, via their individual emails that Randy presented at the top of the thread.

Anyone who believes as otter82 does should do the same. There is still time to impact the outcome of this vote.

 

[longbow51]

After the votes on MJ in CO lead to the degradation of Denver we should have been smarter.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

I suggest sending exactly what you just wrote to the entire committee, via their individual emails that Randy presented at the top of the thread.

Anyone who believes as otter82 does should do the same. There is still time to impact the outcome of this vote.

That’s good advice. I would further suggest you include your reps (they do talk to one another) and the governor. Use bcc: to make it look like they are getting individual emails. Furthermore, I would urge you to contact any good friends who live in the districts of committee members to contact them and use your email as a go-by.

One striking element in the meeting was some members, e.g. Bill Mercer of Billings, dismissing the whole thought that voting against 462 equated to ignoring the will of the voters. It does. It is an example of top down government decision making—now that we are here, we know better than you do—that these same people criticize in other contexts. The sponsor chuckled about how much she had heard from constituents—somewhat dismissively, I thought.

@otter82, my recollection of that state employee’s statement was that he said there was no way to parse those voters who voted for 190 because of conservation—but my hearing is blown out by guns, chain saws, etc. Can you add any detail there?

 

[otter82]

That’s good advice. I would further suggest you include your reps (they do talk to one another) and the governor. Use bcc: to make it look like they are getting individual emails. Furthermore, I would urge you to contact any good friends who live in the districts of committee members to contact them and use your email as a go-by.

One striking element in the meeting was some members, e.g. Bill Mercer of Billings, dismissing the whole thought that voting against 462 equated to ignoring the will of the voters. It does. It is an example of top down government decision making—now that we are here, we know better than you do—that these same people criticize in other contexts. The sponsor chuckled about how much she had heard from constituents—somewhat dismissively, I thought.

@otter82, my recollection of that state employee’s statement was that he said there was no way to parse those voters who voted for 190 because of conservation—but my hearing is blown out by guns, chain saws, etc. Can you add any detail there?

Jock, that is how I recall the state employee's remarks also. They could not parse out voters like me who were influenced by the sales pitch a portion of the revenue would be allocated toward conservation. I learned a lot from this process. Thanks to this group for keeping me informed. I am going to try follow these types of issues more closely.

e-mail sent to the representatives this morning.