Who Is Behind Question 8? One Virginia Nonprofit Gave 98.6% of the Money to End Legal Pot Sales

Question 8, the measure that would end retail sales of recreational marijuana in Massachusetts, is backed by one committee, the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, Inc. Nearly all of that committee’s money comes from one national group. Through October 15, 2026, the coalition had raised about $3.78 million in cash, and $3.73 million of it, 98.6 percent, came from SAM Action Inc. of Alexandria, Virginia, according to campaign finance reports filed with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF). Only about $1,800 came from individual Massachusetts donors.

We pulled every report the coalition has filed since it organized on September 18, 2025, and added them up. Here is who is behind the question: the organization paying for it, the people running it and the firms being paid, plus who is paying to defeat it.

The money: SAM Action

How much. SAM Action gave $1.55 million in 2025, when the campaign was gathering signatures, and $2.18 million more in 2026, including $250,000 on October 14. The filings list the donor under two spellings of its name and two spellings of its city.
Who it is. SAM Action is the fundraising arm of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, or SAM, a national anti-legalization group founded in 2013 by former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug policy adviser, GBH News and NEPM reported. SAM’s website lists Sabet as its president and CEO.
What it is legally. IRS data compiled by ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer lists SAM Action as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, with $5.38 million in revenue, $1.58 million of it in contributions, and $14.0 million in assets for 2023, the latest year with summary data. A 501(c)(4) does not have to publicly disclose its donors, which is why critics call the money “dark money.” Massachusetts law captures SAM Action’s checks to the coalition, but not who gave SAM Action the money.
What SAM says. SAM’s website says it receives “NO funding from the alcohol, tobacco, opioid, or prison industry,” and that its support “comes from family foundations, other responsible organizations, and concerned citizens.” Sabet told NEPM the money comes from “families that have lived this nightmare,” and that SAM does not name donors to protect families who might be harassed. NEPM reported it found no evidence connecting Question 8 or SAM to the alcohol or tobacco industries.
The only other large donor. Americans Against Legalizing Marijuana, of Carmichael, California, gave $50,000.

Sabet told NEPM that SAM invested knowing the measure may not pass. “Sometimes you have to put the gun on the table to force the conversation,” he said.

The people

Chair and spokesperson. OCPF lists Wendy Wakeman of North Andover as the coalition’s chair. She is also its public spokesperson. The coalition’s reports list $16,500 in payments to Wakeman for communications and public relations consulting.
Treasurer. Steven Lewis of Beverly is the treasurer. The committee’s listed address, 100 Cummings Center in Beverly, is the same suite as Bulldog Compliance, the compliance firm it pays.
The petitioners. The measure was filed as Initiative Petition 25-10. The legislative record calls it the “Initiative Petition of Angie An-Chi Tso and others.” The Secretary of the Commonwealth certified that it was signed by ten qualified voters and backed by 78,301 additional certified signatures, according to House No. 5002. Cannabis Business Times reported that the original signers included four members of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee.

Where the money went

The coalition reported spending about $3.63 million through October 15 and had $154,983 left. Its largest payees:

Signatures, $1.82 million. Groundgame Political Solutions of Jefferson City, Missouri, was paid for signature gathering in 2025 and early 2026. Its reported subvendors included Let the Voters Decide of Kissimmee, Florida ($904,988) and Allied Data Services of Colorado for signature validation ($49,218).
TV and digital ads, $800,000. Barrel Placements of Alexandria, Virginia, was paid $800,000 for TV and digital ad placement, all of it in October.
Digital, mail and public relations, $584,904. Amplify Public Affairs of Charleston, South Carolina.
Polling, $88,000. Cygnal of Arlington, Virginia.
Strategy, $87,500. Ace Campaign Consulting, with a Dover, Delaware address.
Lawyers, $118,522. Consovoy McCarthy PLLC ($81,494) and First Street PLLC ($37,028), both of Virginia, for legal consulting.
Radio and billboards, $50,000. Beasley Media Group of Waltham.

The legal spending lines up with the court fight over whether Question 8 could appear on the ballot. In Pineau v. Attorney General, SJC-13927, decided June 12, 2026, four voters argued that the petition joined unrelated subjects, conflicted with the constitutional right to compensation for property taken for public use, and had an unfair summary. The SJC rejected all three arguments and held that the Attorney General’s certification and summary “comply with the requirements of art. 48.” Patrick Strawbridge, who is listed on Consovoy McCarthy’s website, submitted an amicus brief for the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts.

The message

The coalition’s first TV ads center on impaired driving. “Forty-two percent of drivers in fatal crashes test positive for THC,” both spots say, according to Marijuana Moment, which reported the ads after MassLive. “Put the brakes on commercial sales. Vote yes on Question 8.” Marijuana Moment noted that cannabis metabolites can stay in the body for weeks, so a positive THC test does not show that a driver was impaired at the time of the crash.

Who is paying to defeat it

Committee to Protect Cannabis Regulation. This is the main No committee, connected to the Stop the Repeal campaign chaired by Ryan Dominguez of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition, a trade group. It has raised about $2.80 million from more than 250 itemized donors, mostly cannabis businesses. The largest are INSA ($265,000), Ascend Wellness Holdings ($250,000), Curaleaf ($241,875), Verano ($150,000 under two names), Chicago Atlantic Admin ($125,000), Vireo Health ($125,000) and Fernway Holdings ($100,000 under two names). The Retailers Association of Massachusetts gave $100,000. Its largest payee is Nappens, LLC of Gulf Breeze, Florida, about $1.86 million for media buys and online ads. It had $169,314 on hand October 15.
Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Policy. This committee has raised $150,100, $150,000 of it from Todd Stiefel, and had $102,076 on hand.
Smaller committees. The Committee for Keep Cannabis Legal, Vote No on 8 has raised $11,278. Democratic Socialists Against Reactionary Rollbacks reports $50 in cash and $5,655 in in-kind support.

Neither side relies on small Massachusetts donors. The Yes side’s money is almost entirely one out-of-state nonprofit. The No side’s money comes mostly from companies, many of them multistate operators, that would lose their recreational business if the measure passed. In 2016, the legalization campaign itself was bankrolled largely from out of state: New Approach, a Washington, D.C. group, provided $5.46 million of the $6.8 million it raised, NEPM reported.

What the law requires them to disclose

Ballot question committees have no contribution limits, a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) and Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley (1981). Our guide to ballot question money explains why. What Massachusetts requires is disclosure:

Under G.L. c. 55, § 18, ballot question committees report on the fifth and twentieth of each month, complete as of the first and fifteenth, until the election. That puts the next regular report on November 5, two days after the vote.
The same section requires a committee that receives and deposits a contribution of $500 or more “after the eighteenth day, but more than 72 hours, before” the election to report it within 72 hours. That window opened October 16. As of October 25, OCPF’s report log showed no such report from the three largest Question 8 committees.

Frequently asked questions

Who is funding Question 8 in Massachusetts?

SAM Action Inc., the political arm of the national group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, has given $3.73 million of the roughly $3.78 million raised by the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, the committee backing Question 8, according to OCPF reports through October 15, 2026.

Who runs the Yes on 8 campaign?

OCPF lists Wendy Wakeman of North Andover as chair of the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts and Steven Lewis of Beverly as treasurer. Wakeman is also the campaign’s spokesperson. SAM’s president, Kevin Sabet, has spoken for the national group that funds it.

Who is against Question 8?

The main opposition committee, the Committee to Protect Cannabis Regulation, has raised about $2.8 million, mostly from cannabis companies such as INSA, Ascend Wellness Holdings and Curaleaf. A second committee has raised $150,100, nearly all from Todd Stiefel.

Does SAM Action have to disclose its donors?

No. SAM Action is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, which is not required to publicly disclose its donors. Massachusetts law requires the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts to disclose SAM Action’s contributions, but not the original sources of that money.

Sources: OCPF reports for the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts (CPF ID 95533), the Committee to Protect Cannabis Regulation (95539), the Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Policy (95559) and the other Question 8 committees, through October 15, 2026, pulled from OCPF’s public data October 25, 2026; ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (IRS data) for SAM Action; SAM’s website; House No. 5002 and No. 5403 at malegislature.gov; Pineau v. Attorney General, SJC-13927 (June 12, 2026), read on CourtListener; G.L. c. 55, § 18 read at malegislature.gov; GBH News and NEPM, Marijuana Moment and Cannabis Business Times. Totals are our count of itemized entries. General information, not legal advice.