The Lobbying Money: Which MSOs Are Buying Federal Cannabis Policy

The cannabis industry, in its public-facing marketing, tells a story about itself as the underdog. The federally illegal sector trying to operate under impossible regulatory burdens. The advocates working to undo decades of harm from prohibition. The grassroots effort that legalized cannabis in dozens of states through ballot initiatives funded by ordinary supporters.

Some of that story is true. Most of the policy outcomes that actually matter at the federal level are not driven by ordinary supporters. They are driven by a small number of well-funded MSO operators, working through professional lobbyists and industry trade associations, spending money on Capitol Hill and in regulatory rulemaking processes to produce specific outcomes that benefit their specific business interests.

This is the lobbying money. This is who is spending it. This is what they are buying.

How Cannabis Lobbying Spend Is Tracked

Federal lobbying expenditures are publicly disclosed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Companies, trade associations, and individual lobbyists must file quarterly reports identifying their clients, the issues they are lobbying on, and approximate spending levels. The reports are searchable through the Senate Office of Public Records and various third-party tracking sites including OpenSecrets.

Cannabis-sector lobbying spend has grown substantially over the past decade as the industry has matured and federal policy questions — banking, scheduling, tax treatment, interstate commerce — have moved closer to actual legislative action. Annual federal lobbying spend on cannabis-related issues now runs into the eight figures across all reporting entities.

The reporting captures direct lobbying expenses. It does not capture every form of political influence. State-level lobbying, indirect influence through campaign contributions, "thought leadership" funding through think tanks and academic centers, advocacy through trade associations whose member contributions are not disclosed, and various forms of relationship-building expense that don't formally trigger lobbying disclosure all happen outside the federal LDA reporting framework.

Within the disclosed reporting, several patterns are visible.

The Major Cannabis Lobbying Spenders

Curaleaf has consistently been one of the largest direct corporate lobbying spenders in cannabis, with quarterly disclosures running into the high six figures and, at peaks, exceeding $1 million per quarter. The company's lobbying agenda has prioritized federal banking access (SAFE Banking and successor legislation), federal cannabis rescheduling, Section 280E tax relief, and various trade and commerce issues affecting interstate cannabis movement.

Cresco Labs has maintained a sustained federal lobbying presence with a focus on banking reform and rescheduling. The company's lobbying spend has historically been in the mid-to-high six figures quarterly.

Trulieve has lobbied on rescheduling, banking, and Florida-specific federal issues affecting the state's medical cannabis market. The company's spend has been in the same range as peer MSOs.

Green Thumb Industries has lobbied on rescheduling, banking, and tax treatment issues, with a quarterly spend pattern consistent with peer MSOs.

Verano and Ascend Wellness have similar patterns of spend on similar issues.

The U.S. Cannabis Council, the National Cannabis Industry Association, and the National Cannabis Roundtable function as cannabis-sector trade associations that aggregate lobbying spend and political activity from member companies. Their disclosed lobbying spend often exceeds the disclosed spend of any individual member, because the trade associations function as the primary lobbying vehicle for many of the smaller industry participants whose individual lobbying spend would not warrant separate filings.

Outside the MSO category, sale-leaseback REIT Innovative Industrial Properties has its own lobbying presence reflecting its specific exposure to cannabis policy outcomes. Its tenant base is the MSO operators, so its policy interests substantially overlap.

What They Are Buying

The lobbying agenda of the cannabis industry, in recent years, has been remarkably consistent across the major spenders. Several specific outcomes are the priorities.

SAFE Banking Act passage. The single most-lobbied cannabis issue at the federal level for nearly a decade. SAFE Banking would provide legal protections to financial institutions serving state-legal cannabis businesses, ending the cash-on-premises problem that drives dispensary robberies and creating the path to credit card processing, depository banking, and traditional commercial credit access. The bill has passed the House multiple times and died in the Senate. The cannabis industry continues to lobby for passage.

Federal rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule III. A move from Schedule I to Schedule III would, among other things, eliminate Section 280E tax treatment for cannabis businesses. The DEA's rescheduling process has been in motion for several years, with the Biden administration directing the review and the process continuing through subsequent administrations. The cannabis industry has been actively lobbying both the DEA and Congress on rescheduling.

Section 280E elimination through Congressional action. Independent of rescheduling, Congressional action could eliminate or modify 280E's application to cannabis businesses. The cannabis industry has lobbied for both standalone 280E reform and 280E provisions attached to broader tax legislation.

Interstate commerce frameworks. Federal recognition of interstate cannabis commerce, even on a limited or pilot basis, would dramatically change market dynamics by allowing cultivation in low-cost states (e.g., California, Oregon) to supply demand in high-cost markets. The MSOs' interest in interstate commerce is mixed — some benefit from expanded market access, others are protected by the current state-by-state market structure.

State-by-state legalization expansion. Federal legalization is the largest long-term prize, but state-level expansion produces near-term revenue. Industry resources support state legalization initiatives, particularly in larger remaining unlegalized markets.

Regulatory complexity that benefits scale. Less publicly stated but observable in industry positions: the MSOs benefit when federal and state regulation is complex enough to be expensive to comply with. Compliance complexity is a moat against smaller competitors. When the industry advocates for "well-regulated" cannabis, it is often advocating for regulation that incumbents can absorb and new entrants cannot.

What They Are Not Buying

The absence of certain items from the lobbying agenda is as telling as the presence of others.

Mandatory equity provisions in federal cannabis legislation. When SAFE Banking has been considered in Congress, equity-focused legislators have proposed amendments that would condition federal banking access on industry equity performance — minimum percentages of equity-owned operators served, minimum levels of equity capital flowing to underrepresented operators, accountability mechanisms for measuring industry diversity. These amendments have generally been opposed by industry lobbying, on the grounds that they would slow passage or complicate implementation.

Mandatory expungement provisions. Federal cannabis reform could include provisions requiring or funding state expungement of past cannabis convictions. Industry lobbying has not made expungement a priority, despite the marketing emphasis on cannabis legalization as repair for prohibition harms.

Worker protection standards. Federal cannabis legislation could include workplace safety standards specific to cannabis work, recognizing the unique hazards of dispensary operations and extraction. Industry lobbying has not pushed for such standards.

Antitrust scrutiny of MSO conduct. The Ohio AG complaint alleges cartel conduct that, if true, would warrant federal antitrust attention. Industry lobbying has not invited federal antitrust focus on the cannabis sector — predictably, given that many of the largest spenders are themselves the named defendants.

Tax revenue allocation requirements. Federal cannabis legislation could include requirements that state-level cannabis tax revenue be allocated to disproportionately impacted communities, expungement programs, and reinvestment. Industry lobbying has not prioritized such requirements.

The pattern reveals what the lobbying agenda actually is. It is the protection and expansion of MSO commercial interests. It is not, despite marketing language to the contrary, the realization of the equity and repair promises that legalization was sold on.

The Trade Associations

Industry trade associations function as both legitimate advocacy organizations and as vehicles through which MSO lobbying agendas are amplified.

The U.S. Cannabis Council was formed through mergers of earlier trade associations and represents a substantial portion of the MSO operating base. Its policy priorities have closely mirrored the priorities of its largest funders.

The National Cannabis Industry Association has historically had broader membership including smaller operators and ancillary businesses, but has faced internal tensions between MSO members and smaller operators over policy priorities.

The National Cannabis Roundtable has emphasized federal policy with a focus on banking and rescheduling.

Smaller, equity-focused trade associations including the Minority Cannabis Business Association and Cannabis Workers Coalition advocate for different priorities but operate at substantially smaller budget scales than the MSO-funded associations.

The dynamic at industry conferences and policy events reveals which voices are amplified. The MSO-funded associations dominate the program agendas. The equity- and worker-focused associations are present but underfunded.

What This Means for Federal Policy Outcomes

The lobbying spending pattern produces predictable outcomes when federal cannabis policy moves.

SAFE Banking, when it passes, will be designed primarily for MSO benefit. The version that ultimately passes is likely to provide banking access without the equity conditions that equity advocates have proposed. The MSOs will be the largest beneficiaries because they have the largest banking needs.

Rescheduling, if completed, will primarily benefit large operators with accumulated 280E tax liability. Companies like Curaleaf, with the largest unpaid IRS balances, will benefit most from the elimination of 280E exposure. Smaller operators benefit too, but the largest beneficiaries by dollar amount are the largest operators.

Federal legalization, when it eventually arrives, will be structured around MSO operating models. Decades of policy work by MSO lobbyists will have shaped the regulatory framework that federal legalization implements. Smaller operators, equity-owned operators, and community-rooted operators will have to fit into a framework designed by and for industrial-scale operators.

Equity, repair, and worker protection provisions will be conditional on whether non-MSO advocacy can secure inclusion. They will not be the default. They will require active fight to be included.

What Other Industry Participants Should Do

If you are a smaller cannabis operator, an equity-focused operator, a worker advocate, a patient advocate, or a consumer who cares about the industry's long-term character, the lobbying landscape has implications.

Recognize that the trade associations you might naturally affiliate with may not represent your interests. The largest cannabis trade associations are funded primarily by MSOs. Their policy priorities reflect MSO priorities. Joining and paying dues to those associations may not advance your interests.

Support the equity-focused and worker-focused trade associations that exist. Minority Cannabis Business Association, Cannabis Workers Coalition, Last Prisoner Project, and similar organizations advocate for the priorities the larger associations do not.

Engage directly with your federal representatives on cannabis policy. Email and call. Show up to town halls. The MSO lobbying machine has scale, but constituent voices from your district matter, particularly to representatives who do not have a default cannabis policy position.

Track the lobbying disclosures. Quarterly LDA filings reveal what specific issues specific MSOs are working on at any given time. The information is public and free to access.

Support cannabis journalism that covers the lobbying landscape honestly. Trade publications that depend on MSO advertising have structural difficulties covering MSO lobbying critically. Independent publications that maintain editorial independence from MSO advertising can do the coverage that captive trade press cannot.

The Honest Picture

Federal cannabis policy is not being made by the people who suffered the most under prohibition. It is being made by Capitol Hill staff in conversations with Washington lobbyists who are paid by publicly traded multistate cannabis operators.

The outcomes those conversations produce will be the outcomes those operators paid for. The exclusion of equity, repair, and worker protection from those outcomes will not be accidental. It will be the result of those issues not being on the lobbying agenda of the operators paying for the conversations.

This is fixable, but the fix requires sustained advocacy by people who are not currently in the room. It requires journalism that tracks the lobbying honestly. It requires alternative trade associations that build advocacy infrastructure for the constituencies the MSOs do not represent. It requires consumers and voters who care about which version of cannabis policy emerges.

The cannabis industry that got built was the cannabis industry that got lobbied for. The cannabis industry that gets reformed will be the cannabis industry that gets lobbied for. The question of whose lobbying wins out is the question of whose money and whose attention is in the room.

The MSOs are in the room. The question is whether anyone else will be.

---

Cannabis.exposed maintains a tracker of cannabis lobbying disclosures and policy outcomes. Subscribe for ongoing coverage.

Internal links:

• The MSO Cartel: Inside the Price-Fixing Lawsuit →
• Cannabis Banking Is Still a Joke. Here's Who's Profiting →
• The Real Reason Your State's Social Equity Program Failed →