Cannabis Cash Fuels Ads for GOP Lawmakers Who Opposed Legalization

September 15, 2026

Photo by visuals via Unsplash.

Nearly $1.8 million is now flowing into ads for 11 vulnerable House Republicans, courtesy of a PAC that shares a treasurer with Donald Trump's own super PAC. That's not a coincidence worth glossing over. America First Agriculture Action Inc. and MAGA Inc. both list Charles Gantt as treasurer, and the money trail behind this ad buy runs straight through the marijuana industry -- specifically $11.5 million donated in June by Trulieve, Curaleaf, Verano Holdings, Ascend Wellness Holdings and a handful of other multistate operators.

Here's the part that should raise eyebrows among anyone who follows cannabis policy closely: several of the lawmakers now benefiting from this cash, including Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, Scott Perry and Bryan Steil, have voted against federal legalization bills in the past. Their opposition wasn't a one-time thing, either -- it shows up across multiple sessions of Congress. Yet the ads themselves say nothing about cannabis at all. They tout votes on banning insider trading and eliminating taxes on tips, overtime pay and Social Security -- kitchen-table issues polling well with swing voters, not anything resembling a marijuana policy platform. That disconnect between where the money came from and what the ads actually say is the story here, and it's worth unpacking piece by piece.

Who's Getting the Ad Support

The 11 House Republicans getting ad support from America First Agriculture Action Inc. are Reps. Tom Barrett, Nick Begich, Rob Bresnahan, Juan Ciscomani, Gabe Evans, Brian Fitzpatrick, Jen Kiggans, Mike Lawler, Scott Perry, Bryan Steil and Derrick Van Orden. Every one of them is considered a vulnerable incumbent heading into a competitive next election, sitting in swing districts where a well-timed ad buy can make a real difference in name recognition and favorability before opponents even get their messaging out.

What's notable is the content of the ads themselves. They lean on votes that poll well across party lines -- banning insider trading by members of Congress, eliminating taxes on tips, eliminating taxes on overtime pay, protecting Social Security from taxation. These are popular, safe, kitchen-table talking points. Cannabis policy is nowhere in the script. There's no mention of banking access, rescheduling, or any of the industry issues that presumably motivated the underlying donations in the first place.

That absence is the tell. This isn't an industry group trying to persuade voters that these lawmakers are cannabis-friendly, because in several cases they aren't. It's a group with cannabis money using that money to build straightforward political capital with sitting members, wrapped in messaging that has nothing to do with the source of the funds.

The shared treasurer detail matters too. Charles Gantt handling the books for both America First Agriculture Action and MAGA Inc. draws a direct organizational line between this ad campaign and Trump's own political operation, even though the cannabis industry's relationship with Trump personally has been publicly warmer than its relationship with much of House GOP leadership.

Tracing the $11.5 Million Back to Cannabis Companies

In June, four major cannabis operators—Trulieve, Curaleaf, Verano, and Green Thumb—each donated $2.5 million to America First Agriculture Action, far outpacing smaller contributions from AYR ($1M) and Ascend Wellness ($0.5M).

Follow the money and it traces to a specific set of donations made in June. Trulieve, Curaleaf, Verano Holdings and Vision Management Services -- a subsidiary tied to Green Thumb Industries -- each gave $2.5 million, in a single month, to Trump-connected political vehicles. Arboretum Bidco, an entity tied to AYR Wellness, added another $1 million, and Ascend Wellness Holdings contributed $500,000 on top of that.

Add it all up and cannabis-linked donations to Trump-connected PACs now total at least $15.05 million. Of that pool, America First Agriculture Action is spending close to $1.8 million specifically on this House ad campaign -- a meaningful chunk, though far from the whole haul, which suggests more spending activity from these entities is likely still to come.

There's a second channel worth tracking separately. American Rights and Reform PAC, chaired by Curaleaf executive Matt Harrell, funneled $2.05 million directly to MAGA Inc. That's a distinct pathway from the agriculture-branded PAC running these House ads, but it points to the same underlying pattern: major multistate operators using multiple PAC structures simultaneously to build relationships across the Trump political network, rather than routing everything through a single obvious cannabis-industry vehicle.

For an industry that still can't access normal banking services in most states and remains classified under federal law alongside heroin, spending at this scale on federal political influence signals just how much these companies believe the next year or two of policy decisions will shape their financial future.

The Voting Records Behind the Names

Photo via Pexels.

Look at tenure and voting history among the 11 targeted lawmakers, and three names stand out for having the longest paper trail: Fitzpatrick, in Congress since 2017; Perry, since 2013; and Steil, since 2019. All three voted against Democratic-led federal marijuana legalization bills in both 2020 and 2022, putting them squarely in opposition to the cannabis industry's top legislative priority on two separate occasions.

Their records aren't uniformly hostile, though, and that nuance matters. Fitzpatrick and Perry both voted in favor of cannabis banking access legislation in 2019 and again in 2021. That's a meaningfully different vote than full legalization; banking access is the kind of incremental, business-friendly reform that multistate operators have prioritized for years precisely because it addresses their immediate operational headaches without requiring anyone to take a position on legalization itself.

Still, the mismatch is hard to ignore. These are lawmakers who've had multiple chances to vote for outright legalization and declined every time, now receiving ad support funded substantially by the companies that would benefit most from that legalization passing. It's a pretty clear signal that cannabis industry money is increasingly being deployed based on who holds power and who's vulnerable in the next election, not based on a scorecard of past cannabis votes.

For the newer members on the list -- Bresnahan, Evans and Kiggans -- there simply isn't much of a voting record to measure against industry priorities yet. Their inclusion looks less like a reward or an olive branch and more like straightforward incumbent protection, aimed at keeping the House majority intact regardless of where any individual member has landed or will eventually land on cannabis specifically.

Why the Industry Is Playing Both Sides

None of this is happening in a vacuum. Trump has pushed publicly for rescheduling marijuana out of Schedule I, but House GOP leadership hasn't gone along quietly. The House Appropriations Committee voted this year to block officials from taking further rescheduling steps, a direct institutional pushback against the White House's stated position. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise told Marijuana Moment this month that he still considers marijuana a gateway drug -- language that hasn't meaningfully shifted in Republican leadership circles in years, even as public opinion and state-level policy have moved steadily in the other direction.

More than 20 GOP senators, along with several House members, have sent letters urging the White House to halt reclassification altogether. Meanwhile, the DEA's rescheduling hearing wrapped up testimony in July 2026, and post-hearing briefs are still pending, meaning the actual regulatory outcome remains unresolved and could go either way depending on how the agency weighs the record.

Given that uncertainty, the industry's spending pattern starts to make more strategic sense. Companies like Trulieve and Curaleaf aren't just trying to reward friends -- they're trying to build goodwill with whoever ends up controlling the House majority and the committees that oversee DEA funding and drug scheduling policy, regardless of how any individual member has voted on legalization specifically. It's a hedge against a genuinely uncertain regulatory path, spreading money broadly enough that no likely outcome leaves the industry without allies in the room.

Whether that hedge pays off in the form of actual rescheduling, expanded banking access, or continued gridlock is still an open question. State-by-state, cannabis remains a patchwork of legal frameworks, and readers should always confirm current law in their own jurisdiction before assuming federal movement changes anything locally.

Strip away the ad copy about tax cuts and insider trading, and what's left is a fairly unsentimental strategy. This isn't about rewarding lawmakers for pro-cannabis votes -- several of the biggest beneficiaries have voted against legalization more than once. It's about buying access and goodwill with whoever holds the House majority, full stop, because that access is worth more to a multistate operator than punishing a member over a past floor vote.

That's a pragmatic, if slightly cynical, read on how Trulieve, Curaleaf, Verano and the rest are playing the rescheduling fight. With DEA briefs still pending and House leadership actively resisting the White House's own stated position, these companies seem to have concluded that the smarter play is spreading money across incumbents likely to remain in power, rather than trying to install a more sympathetic Congress from scratch. It's a long game, and it assumes that today's opponents could become tomorrow's swing votes if the politics shift enough.

Whether that bet pays off is worth watching closely over the next year. Keep an eye on how these 11 races actually play out in November, and pay closer attention to whether any of these lawmakers -- Fitzpatrick and Perry especially, given their mixed records -- shift their positions once the DEA's post-hearing briefs are finalized and a rescheduling decision finally lands. Money changing hands is one thing. Money changing votes is the part that actually matters.