Individual legislator voting records for this vote are not currently available. Includes all politicians who were in office at any point during the 2011-2012 Legislature.

AB 2312 - An Act to Amend Sections 11362.775, 11362.81, and 11362.83 Of, and to Add Article 2.8 (Commencing with Section 11362.84) to Chapter 6 of Division 10 Of, the Health and Safety Code, and to Add Chapter 4 (Commencing with Section 7294) to Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Controlled Substances, and Making an Appropriation Therefor.

Controlled substances. 2011-2012 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
(1)Existing law provides that qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards who associate within the State of California in order to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, collectively or cooperatively, shall not, solely on that basis, be subject to state criminal sanctions for the… More
(1)Existing law provides that qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards who associate within the State of California in order to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, collectively or cooperatively, shall not, solely on that basis, be subject to state criminal sanctions for the possession, sale, transport, or other proscribed acts relating to marijuana.

This bill instead authorizes qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, to associate within the State of California as collectives, cooperatives, and other business entities to cultivate, acquire, process, possess, transport, test, sell, and distribute marijuana for medical purposes. The bill would provide that these persons shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or specified sanctions for possessing, selling, transporting, or engaging in other proscribed acts relating to marijuana, unless they are not in compliance with the registration requirements described in this bill.

(2)Existing law makes it a misdemeanor offense to, among other things, fraudulently use or obtain a medical marijuana identification card.

This bill also would make it a misdemeanor offense to knowingly produce, issue, utilize, or sell a falsified, forged, or fraudulent physician’s recommendation for medical marijuana. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure, prohibits prosecution for the possession or cultivation of marijuana of a patient or a patient’s primary caregiver who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. Existing law, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, exempts qualified patients who hold an identification card issued pursuant to the program, and the caregivers of those persons, from certain state criminal sanctions related to the possession, cultivation, transportation, processing, or use of limited amounts of marijuana, as specified.

This bill would establish the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Control Act for the purposes of regulating and controlling medical marijuana activities. The bill would establish the Board of Medical Marijuana Enforcement in the Department of Consumer Affairs, and require the board to perform specified duties relating to the regulation of medical marijuana facilities, as defined. The governing body of the board would consist of 9 members, appointed by the Governor, the Senate Committee on Rules, and the Speaker of the Assembly. The duties of the board would include, but not be limited to, issuing or denying registration applications, establishing fees for administering these provisions, adopting regulations in connection with these provisions, and issuing fines and penalties for the violation of these provisions.

The bill would preempt local laws regarding the regulation and control of medical marijuana and would prohibit a medical marijuana facility, as defined, from operating without state-approved registration, except as specified. The bill would generally require a city or county to permit no fewer than one medical marijuana dispensary, as defined, per 50,000 residents, provided that a city or county would be permitted to opt out of this requirement, pursuant to certain procedures. The bill would exempt from the bill’s provisions individual patients and caregivers cultivating marijuana at their residences who do not sell or charge for the cultivation.

The bill would require the board to make available mandatory registration application forms no later than July 1, 2013, and to make a thorough investigation to determine whether the applicant meets specified criteria. The bill would require that all registration applications be approved unless the applicant fails to meet the criteria. The bill would require a registration application to be approved or denied no later than 180 days after the application is filed with the board, and, if the board fails to act within this time, would require that the application be deemed approved. The bill would require a person applying for the renewal of an existing registration to apply no less than 60 days prior to the expiration, and would require the board to act upon a timely filed registration renewal application no later than 10 days prior to the expiration of the registration.

This bill would create the Medical Marijuana Fund and would require that all moneys collected pursuant to the act be deposited into the Medical Marijuana Fund and would, except for moneys derived from penalties, continuously appropriate moneys in the fund for the purposes of implementing, enforcing, and administering the program.

(4)Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of a county and the governing body of a city to levy, increase, or extend a transactions and use tax at a rate of 0.25%, or a multiple thereof, at a combined rate not to exceed 2% if approved by the required vote of the board or governing body and the required vote of qualified voters.

This bill would additionally authorize the board of supervisors of a county and the governing body of a city to levy, increase, or extend a transactions and use tax on the retail sale of or storage, use, or other consumption of, medical marijuana or medical marijuana-infused products for general and specified purposes, as provided, at a combined rate not to exceed 5%.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide
 
Status:
The bill was voted on by the Assembly on May 31, 2012. 
Assembly Vote: On Passage

PASSED on May 31, 2012.

voted YES: 41 voted NO: 30
9 voted present/not voting

Other Votes:

An Act to Amend Sections 11362.775, 11362.81, and 11362.83 Of, and to Add Article 2.8 (Commencing with Section 11362.84) to Chapter 6 of Division 10 Of, the Health and Safety Code, and to Add Chapter 4 (Commencing with Section 7294) to Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Controlled Substances, and Making an Appropriation Therefor.

AB 2312 — 2011-2012 Legislature

Summary
(1)Existing law provides that qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards who associate within the State of California in order to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, collectively or cooperatively, shall not, solely on that basis, be subject to state criminal sanctions for the possession, sale, transport, or other proscribed acts relating to marijuana.

This bill instead authorizes qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, to associate within the State of California as collectives, cooperatives, and other business entities to cultivate, acquire, process, possess, transport, test, sell, and distribute marijuana for medical purposes. The bill would provide that these persons shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or specified sanctions for possessing, selling, transporting, or engaging in other proscribed acts relating to marijuana, unless they are not in compliance with the registration requirements described in this bill.More
(1)Existing law provides that qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards who associate within the State of California in order to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, collectively or cooperatively, shall not, solely on that basis, be subject to state criminal sanctions for the possession, sale, transport, or other proscribed acts relating to marijuana.

This bill instead authorizes qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, to associate within the State of California as collectives, cooperatives, and other business entities to cultivate, acquire, process, possess, transport, test, sell, and distribute marijuana for medical purposes. The bill would provide that these persons shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or specified sanctions for possessing, selling, transporting, or engaging in other proscribed acts relating to marijuana, unless they are not in compliance with the registration requirements described in this bill.

(2)Existing law makes it a misdemeanor offense to, among other things, fraudulently use or obtain a medical marijuana identification card.

This bill also would make it a misdemeanor offense to knowingly produce, issue, utilize, or sell a falsified, forged, or fraudulent physician’s recommendation for medical marijuana. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure, prohibits prosecution for the possession or cultivation of marijuana of a patient or a patient’s primary caregiver who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. Existing law, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, exempts qualified patients who hold an identification card issued pursuant to the program, and the caregivers of those persons, from certain state criminal sanctions related to the possession, cultivation, transportation, processing, or use of limited amounts of marijuana, as specified.

This bill would establish the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Control Act for the purposes of regulating and controlling medical marijuana activities. The bill would establish the Board of Medical Marijuana Enforcement in the Department of Consumer Affairs, and require the board to perform specified duties relating to the regulation of medical marijuana facilities, as defined. The governing body of the board would consist of 9 members, appointed by the Governor, the Senate Committee on Rules, and the Speaker of the Assembly. The duties of the board would include, but not be limited to, issuing or denying registration applications, establishing fees for administering these provisions, adopting regulations in connection with these provisions, and issuing fines and penalties for the violation of these provisions.

The bill would preempt local laws regarding the regulation and control of medical marijuana and would prohibit a medical marijuana facility, as defined, from operating without state-approved registration, except as specified. The bill would generally require a city or county to permit no fewer than one medical marijuana dispensary, as defined, per 50,000 residents, provided that a city or county would be permitted to opt out of this requirement, pursuant to certain procedures. The bill would exempt from the bill’s provisions individual patients and caregivers cultivating marijuana at their residences who do not sell or charge for the cultivation.

The bill would require the board to make available mandatory registration application forms no later than July 1, 2013, and to make a thorough investigation to determine whether the applicant meets specified criteria. The bill would require that all registration applications be approved unless the applicant fails to meet the criteria. The bill would require a registration application to be approved or denied no later than 180 days after the application is filed with the board, and, if the board fails to act within this time, would require that the application be deemed approved. The bill would require a person applying for the renewal of an existing registration to apply no less than 60 days prior to the expiration, and would require the board to act upon a timely filed registration renewal application no later than 10 days prior to the expiration of the registration.

This bill would create the Medical Marijuana Fund and would require that all moneys collected pursuant to the act be deposited into the Medical Marijuana Fund and would, except for moneys derived from penalties, continuously appropriate moneys in the fund for the purposes of implementing, enforcing, and administering the program.

(4)Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of a county and the governing body of a city to levy, increase, or extend a transactions and use tax at a rate of 0.25%, or a multiple thereof, at a combined rate not to exceed 2% if approved by the required vote of the board or governing body and the required vote of qualified voters.

This bill would additionally authorize the board of supervisors of a county and the governing body of a city to levy, increase, or extend a transactions and use tax on the retail sale of or storage, use, or other consumption of, medical marijuana or medical marijuana-infused products for general and specified purposes, as provided, at a combined rate not to exceed 5%.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Sections 11362.775, 11362.81, and 11362.83 Of, and to Add Article 2.8 (Commencing with Section 11362.84) to Chapter 6 of Division 10 Of, the Health and Safety Code, and to Add Chapter 4 (Commencing with Section 7294) to Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Controlled Substances, and Making an Appropriation Therefor.
Author(s)
Tom Ammiano
Co-Authors
Subjects
  • Controlled substances
Major Actions
Introduced2/24/2012
Referred to Committee
Passed Assembly Committee on Public Safety4/17/2012
Passed Assembly Committee on Appropriations5/25/2012
Passed Assembly5/31/2012
Bill History
Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
select this voteAssembly Committee on Public SafetyDo pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.4/17/2012This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Public Safety
4 voted YES 2 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on AppropriationsDo pass as amended.5/25/2012This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Appropriations
9 voted YES 5 voted NO 3 voted present/not voting
currently selectedAssemblyAB 2312 AMMIANO Assembly Third Reading5/31/2012This bill PASSED the Assembly
41 voted YES 30 voted NO 9 voted present/not voting
ActionDateDescription
Introduced2/24/2012
2/24/2012Introduced. To print.
2/26/2012From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.
2/27/2012Read first time.
3/19/2012Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and HEALTH.
4/10/2012In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
select this voteVote4/17/2012Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
4/18/2012From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (April 17). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
5/09/2012In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
5/10/2012From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Read second time and amended.
5/14/2012Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
5/16/2012In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
5/25/2012From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 9. Noes 5.) (May 25). Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
select this voteVote5/25/2012Do pass as amended.
5/29/2012Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
5/31/2012Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 41. Noes 30. Page 5197.)
currently selectedAssembly Vote on Passage5/31/2012AB 2312 AMMIANO Assembly Third Reading
6/04/2012In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
6/14/2012Referred to Coms. on B., P. & E.D. and RLS.
6/25/2012In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

Total contributions given to Assemblymembers from interest groups that…

6 Organizations Supported and 17 Opposed; See Which Ones

Organizations that took a position on
An Act to Amend Sections 11362.775, 11362.81, and 11362.83 Of, and to Add Article 2.8 (Commencing with Section 11362.84) to Chapter 6 of Division 10 Of, the Health and Safety Code, and to Add Chapter 4 (Commencing with Section 7294) to Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Relating to Controlled Substances, and Making an Appropriation Therefor.: AB 2312 AMMIANO Assembly Third Reading

6 organizations supported this bill

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 9). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Americans for Safe Access
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 9). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California NORML
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 9). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Drug Policy Alliance
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 9). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 9). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
UFCW Western States Council
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 9). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.

17 organizations opposed this bill

California District Attorneys Association
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 9). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Narcotic Officers' Association
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 9). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Police Chiefs Association
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 9). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California State Sheriffs' Association
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 9). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Taxpayers Association
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 9). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 16). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
City of Adelanto
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 16). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
City of Highland
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 16). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
City of Lake Forest
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 16). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
City of Ontario
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 16). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
City of Palmdale
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 16). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
City of Poway
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 16). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
City of San Joaquin
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 16). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Coalition For A Drug Free California
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 16). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Health Advocates Rejecting Marijuana
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 16). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
International Faith Based Coalition
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 9). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
League of California Cities
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2012, April 16). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.

Need proof?

View citations of support and opposition

Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Assemblymembers in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2011 – December 31, 2012.
Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

Contributions by Legislator

Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Katcho AchadjianRCA-33$2,000$30,100
Luis AlejoDCA-28$21,300$24,498
Michael AllenDCA-7$97,400$66,500
Tom AmmianoDCA-13$13,300$8,124
Toni AtkinsDCA-76$21,700$25,700
Jim BeallDCA-24$87,150$37,444
Bill BerryhillRCA-26$0$19,700
Marty BlockDCA-78$82,900$36,050
Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$33,900$28,100
Susan BonillaDCA-11$19,700$26,240
Steven BradfordDCA-51$25,100$15,000
Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$0
Joan BuchananDCA-15$29,650$24,200
Betsy ButlerDCA-53$67,700$90,600
Charles CalderonDCA-58$0$0
Nora CamposDCA-23$16,800$32,751
Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$0$0
Gilbert CedilloDCA-45$0$0
Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$16,800$14,450
Connie ConwayRCA-34$1,500$28,500
Paul CookRCA-65$0$0
Mike DavisDCA-48$0$0
Roger DickinsonDCA-9$39,300$19,150
Tim DonnellyRCA-59$0$7,000
Mike EngDCA-49$0$0
Mike FeuerDCA-42$0$0
Nathan FletcherRCA-75$0$0
Paul FongDCA-22$29,200$26,534
Felipe FuentesDCA-39$0$0
Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$0
Beth GainesRCA-4$0$9,000
Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$86,880$44,600
Martin GarrickRCA-74$0$0
Mike GattoDCA-43$40,700$35,950
Rich GordonDCA-21$8,800$24,650
Jeff GorellRCA-37$0$31,200
Shannon GroveRCA-32$0$3,500
Curt HagmanRCA-60$0$25,500
Linda HaldermanRCA-29$0$0
Isadore HallDCA-52$9,800$37,500
Diane HarkeyRCA-73$0$11,400
Mary HayashiDCA-18$0$0
Roger HernandezDCA-57$28,000$11,550
Jerry HillDCA-19$34,400$35,460
Alyson HuberDCA-10$0$0
Ben HuesoDCA-79$30,400$16,500
Jared HuffmanDCA-6$0$0
Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$0$0
Brian JonesRCA-77$0$3,000
Steve KnightRCA-36$0$15,200
Ricardo LaraDCA-50$37,400$24,900
Dan LogueRCA-3$1,000$11,000
Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$5,500$18,400
Fiona MaDCA-12$0$0
Allan MansoorRCA-68$0$7,800
Tony MendozaDCA-56$0$0
Jeff MillerRCA-71$0$27,400
Holly MitchellDCA-47$21,500$17,956
Bill MonningDCA-27$30,500$27,597
Mike MorrellRCA-63$6,025$8,749
Brian NestandeRCA-64$15,600$26,000
Jim NielsenRCA-2$0$5,500
Chris NorbyRCA-72$1,000$5,000
Kristin OlsenRCA-25$0$12,150
Richard PanDCA-5$70,721$33,321
Henry PereaDCA-31$2,000$34,200
John PerezDCA-46$99,100$79,300
Manuel PerezDCA-80$4,500$30,200
Anthony PortantinoDCA-44$0$0
Jim SilvaRCA-67$0$0
Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$22,100$27,705
Cameron SmythRCA-38$0$0
Jose SolorioDCA-69$0$0
Sandre SwansonDCA-16$0$0
Norma TorresDCA-61$12,300$27,953
David ValadaoRCA-30$0$0
Don WagnerRCA-70$0$1,500
Bob WieckowskiDCA-20$27,600$37,600
Das WilliamsDCA-35$56,400$45,450
Mariko YamadaDCA-8$23,075$14,153

Add Data Filters:

Legislator Filters
Legislator Filters
Show All
NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Katcho AchadjianRCA-33$2,000$30,100
Luis AlejoDCA-28$21,300$24,498
Michael AllenDCA-7$97,400$66,500
Tom AmmianoDCA-13$13,300$8,124
Toni AtkinsDCA-76$21,700$25,700
Jim BeallDCA-24$87,150$37,444
Bill BerryhillRCA-26$0$19,700
Marty BlockDCA-78$82,900$36,050
Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$33,900$28,100
Susan BonillaDCA-11$19,700$26,240
Steven BradfordDCA-51$25,100$15,000
Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$0
Joan BuchananDCA-15$29,650$24,200
Betsy ButlerDCA-53$67,700$90,600
Charles CalderonDCA-58$0$0
Nora CamposDCA-23$16,800$32,751
Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$0$0
Gilbert CedilloDCA-45$0$0
Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$16,800$14,450
Connie ConwayRCA-34$1,500$28,500
Paul CookRCA-65$0$0
Mike DavisDCA-48$0$0
Roger DickinsonDCA-9$39,300$19,150
Tim DonnellyRCA-59$0$7,000
Mike EngDCA-49$0$0
Mike FeuerDCA-42$0$0
Nathan FletcherRCA-75$0$0
Paul FongDCA-22$29,200$26,534
Felipe FuentesDCA-39$0$0
Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$0
Beth GainesRCA-4$0$9,000
Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$86,880$44,600
Martin GarrickRCA-74$0$0
Mike GattoDCA-43$40,700$35,950
Rich GordonDCA-21$8,800$24,650
Jeff GorellRCA-37$0$31,200
Shannon GroveRCA-32$0$3,500
Curt HagmanRCA-60$0$25,500
Linda HaldermanRCA-29$0$0
Isadore HallDCA-52$9,800$37,500
Diane HarkeyRCA-73$0$11,400
Mary HayashiDCA-18$0$0
Roger HernandezDCA-57$28,000$11,550
Jerry HillDCA-19$34,400$35,460
Alyson HuberDCA-10$0$0
Ben HuesoDCA-79$30,400$16,500
Jared HuffmanDCA-6$0$0
Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$0$0
Brian JonesRCA-77$0$3,000
Steve KnightRCA-36$0$15,200
Ricardo LaraDCA-50$37,400$24,900
Dan LogueRCA-3$1,000$11,000
Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$5,500$18,400
Fiona MaDCA-12$0$0
Allan MansoorRCA-68$0$7,800
Tony MendozaDCA-56$0$0
Jeff MillerRCA-71$0$27,400
Holly MitchellDCA-47$21,500$17,956
Bill MonningDCA-27$30,500$27,597
Mike MorrellRCA-63$6,025$8,749
Brian NestandeRCA-64$15,600$26,000
Jim NielsenRCA-2$0$5,500
Chris NorbyRCA-72$1,000$5,000
Kristin OlsenRCA-25$0$12,150
Richard PanDCA-5$70,721$33,321
Henry PereaDCA-31$2,000$34,200
John PerezDCA-46$99,100$79,300
Manuel PerezDCA-80$4,500$30,200
Anthony PortantinoDCA-44$0$0
Jim SilvaRCA-67$0$0
Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$22,100$27,705
Cameron SmythRCA-38$0$0
Jose SolorioDCA-69$0$0
Sandre SwansonDCA-16$0$0
Norma TorresDCA-61$12,300$27,953
David ValadaoRCA-30$0$0
Don WagnerRCA-70$0$1,500
Bob WieckowskiDCA-20$27,600$37,600
Das WilliamsDCA-35$56,400$45,450
Mariko YamadaDCA-8$23,075$14,153

Interest Groups that supported this bill

$ Donated
State & local government employee unions$1,252,526
Welfare & social work$28,175
Food service & related unions$0
Drug Legalization Advocates$0

Interest Groups that opposed this bill

$ Donated
Police & fire fighters unions and associations$1,293,027
Fiscal & tax policy$48,800
Municipal & county government organizations$31,800
Courts & justice system$15,858
Drug Prohibition Advocates$0
Loading…
Date Range of Contributions
Enter a custom date range