SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
How state marijuana legalization became a boon for corruption
In the past decade, 15 states have legalized a regulated marijuana market for adults over 21, and another 17 have legalized medical marijuana. But in their rush to limit the numbers of licensed vendors and give local municipalities control of where to locate dispensaries, they created something else: A market for local corruption.
Almost all the states that legalized pot either require the approval of local officials – as in Massachusetts -- or impose a statewide limit on the number of licenses, chosen by a politically appointed oversight board, or both. These practices effectively put million-dollar decisions in the hands of relatively small-time political figures – the mayors and councilors of small towns and cities, along with the friends and supporters of politicians who appoint them to boards. And these strictures have given rise to the exact type of corruption that got [Jasiel] Correia in trouble with federal prosecutors. They have also created a culture in which would-be cannabis entrepreneurs feel obliged to make large campaign contributions or hire politically connected lobbyists.
For some entrepreneurs, the payments can seem worth the ticket to cannabis riches.
For some politicians, the lure of a bribe or favor can be irresistible.
[...] It's not just local officials. Allegations of corruption have reached the state level in numerous marijuana programs, especially ones in which a small group of commissioners are charged with dispensing limited numbers of licenses. Former Maryland state Del. Cheryl Glenn was sentenced to two years in prison in July for taking bribes in exchange for introducing and voting on legislation to benefit medical marijuana companies. Missouri Gov. Mike Parson's administration is the target of law enforcement and legislative probes into the rollout of its medical marijuana program.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @06:05PM
and the shills that are against a such a pseudonym system that I mention above in the name of preventing vote buying are the same shills paid shills that are in favor of mail in ballots despite the fact that this also enables vote buying.
I'm against mail in ballots not because it may enable vote buying but because it makes vote stuffing more easy. Diluting my vote is a way of basically invalidating it.
I think the best way to protect against mass scale vote buying is to make it illegal and impose huge penalties for it against the entity buying the votes and smaller penalties against the entity who is having their vote bought. Perhaps even criminal penalties against the individuals buying the vote. So if a company buys votes and gets caught someone is going to jail.