MSO Political Donations 2026: Cannabis Money, Trump PACs and Anti-Cannabis Candidates

Executive summary

Cannabis multistate operators (MSOs) have directed millions of dollars to President Donald Trump's political action committees, and those committees now appear poised to spend part of that money supporting a staunchly anti-cannabis U.S. Senate candidate. MJBizDaily reported the tension on October 5, 2026, in a story asking why marijuana companies would fund an effort that could elect a Senate opponent of their industry.

The answer is not a contradiction once the incentives are laid out. MSOs are federally illegal under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.) and pay punishing effective tax rates under Internal Revenue Code Section 280E. They have concentrated their federal strategy on the executive branch, where the DEA, the Department of Justice and the White House control rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. Donations to a president's committees buy proximity to that decision. Whom those committees later back in individual Senate races is a secondary effect the donor does not control.

This hub tracks the money, the legal framework, the political risk and the business consequences. It covers four questions:

• Who is giving, and through which legal vehicles?
• What are MSOs trying to buy?
• What happens to the sector if a Senate opponent of cannabis wins in November 2026?
• What should operators and investors watch before and after the November 3, 2026 midterm elections?

We update this page as filings, reports and rulings arrive. We do not name the candidate here because the source report's name and spending figures should be read directly from MJBizDaily and from Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.

Why this matters

The stakes combine billions in tax liability, a stalled federal rulemaking and a Senate that will decide whether banking and interstate commerce reforms ever pass.

Three audiences have a direct interest.

Operators and shareholders

Section 280E bars businesses that "traffic" in Schedule I or II substances from deducting ordinary business expenses. Plant-touching MSOs therefore pay tax on gross profit rather than net income. Effective tax rates for large operators often run far above the 21% federal corporate rate, and tax payables are a recurring liability on MSO balance sheets. Moving marijuana to Schedule III would end 280E treatment for plant-touching businesses. That would be the single largest cash-flow event in the industry's history.

An illustrative example shows the scale. A hypothetical operator with $100 million in gross profit and $30 million in operating expenses has $70 million of pre-tax economic income. Under 280E it is taxed on the $100 million. At a 21% federal rate that means $21 million in tax rather than $14.7 million, before state taxes and before accounting for the compounding effect on cash. This is a simplified model, not any company's reported figures. It shows why a donation of even several million dollars looks small against the potential tax relief.

Patients and consumers

Federal posture shapes research access, FDA pathways, veteran access, banking and eventually pricing. The direction Congress takes affects both the roughly 40 states with medical programs and the 24 states plus D.C. with adult-use laws. A hostile Senate voice can slow banking reform and block interstate commerce proposals even if the executive branch acts on scheduling.

Voters and reform advocates

Donor money flowing to a candidate who opposes legal cannabis raises questions about whether the industry is funding its own opposition. It also tests whether donor and advocacy interests align across the industry. Medical patients, social equity applicants and craft operators have different interests from the large public companies that can afford federal-level political spending.

Background and history

The collision between MSO money and an anti-cannabis candidate is the product of 55 years of federal prohibition, a 2023-2025 rescheduling process, and a 2025 executive order that made the White House the industry's most important regulator.

1970: The Controlled Substances Act

Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, and marijuana was placed in Schedule I under 21 U.S.C. § 812. Schedule I status requires a "high potential for abuse," "no currently accepted medical use" and a lack of accepted safety under medical supervision. The placement was intended as temporary pending a commission's review. It has lasted more than five decades.

1996-2012: State medical and adult-use laws

California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, the first state medical marijuana law. Colorado and Washington voters approved adult-use legalization in 2012. State programs created licensed markets that operated in direct conflict with federal law, tolerated through enforcement guidance rather than statute.

1982 and 2014: Tax and appropriations constraints

Congress enacted Section 280E in 1982, aimed at drug traffickers. Cannabis operators later became its most prominent targets. In December 2014, Congress passed the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, now often called Joyce-Blumenauer, a spending rider that restricts the Justice Department from using funds to interfere with state medical marijuana programs. Congress has had to renew the rider in each appropriations cycle, so industry lobbying around spending bills is a constant.

2018-2019: Hemp legalization

The 2018 Farm Bill removed hemp, defined as cannabis with no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight, from the Controlled Substances Act. The change created a large intoxicating hemp market and, years later, a political backlash that helped drive a 2025 federal restriction (see below).

2023: HHS recommends Schedule III

In August 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services, responding to a request from President Biden, recommended that the DEA move marijuana to Schedule III. HHS, relying on FDA review, concluded that marijuana has an accepted medical use and a lower abuse potential than Schedule I and II substances.

2024: DEA proposed rule and the stalled ALJ hearing

In May 2024, the DEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to transfer marijuana to Schedule III. The agency scheduled an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Procedural disputes, including appeals over who could participate, caused the hearing to be postponed, and it did not proceed as scheduled in January 2025. The rulemaking sat in limbo into the new administration.

2024: Florida Amendment 3 and Trump's position

In August 2024, Trump said he would vote yes on Florida's adult-use Amendment 3. The measure received about 56% support in November 2024 but failed to meet Florida's 60% threshold. Trulieve, the dominant Florida operator, was a major funder of the campaign. The episode taught the industry that the president's personal views on cannabis were unpredictable but movable, which made access to him valuable.

2025: Hemp restriction and an executive order

In November 2025, a federal funding law redefined hemp to sharply restrict intoxicating hemp-derived products, with a one-year delay before the restriction took effect, around November 2026. In December 2025, Trump signed an executive order directing the attorney general to move expeditiously to complete rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III. The order also touched on CBD access. The action made presidential favor the rate-limiting step in federal cannabis policy and raised the value of access to the White House and its political operation.

2026: The donor trail

Through 2026, FEC filings and press reports have documented cannabis-linked contributions to Trump-aligned committees. According to MJBizDaily's October 5 report, those donations have reached the millions, and the committees appear ready to spend some of that money for a Senate candidate who is staunchly opposed to cannabis. The same dynamic shows up at the state level in ballot measure campaigns and state legislative races.

Key players

Five groups shape this story: the donor MSOs, the Trump political operation, the regulators who control rescheduling, trade associations and prohibitionist advocates.

Multistate operators

The largest U.S. MSOs include Curaleaf, Green Thumb Industries, Trulieve, Verano Holdings, Cresco Labs, Ayr Wellness, The Cannabist Company (formerly Columbia Care) and TerrAscend. Each has billions in market capitalization history, heavy 280E exposure and significant lobbying budgets. We do not attribute specific donation amounts to individual companies here without a filing. Readers should consult FEC records and the MJBizDaily report.

Trump-aligned political committees

Presidential PACs and affiliated super PACs can accept large contributions and spend on other candidates' behalf. Super PACs may accept unlimited sums from individuals and corporations, a principle established by Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and SpeechNow.org v. FEC (D.C. Cir. 2010), so long as they do not coordinate with candidates. Direct corporate contributions to federal candidates remain prohibited under 52 U.S.C. § 30118. Donations often come from executives personally or through affiliated entities, and disclosure details vary by committee type.

Federal agencies

The DEA holds the formal scheduling pen, the Department of Justice supervises it, and HHS and FDA supply the scientific and medical review under 21 U.S.C. § 811. The Treasury Department and IRS administer 280E. FinCEN governs the banking guidance that affects MSO access to financial services.

Trade associations

The U.S. Cannabis Council and the National Cannabis Industry Association lobby Congress and agencies on rescheduling, banking reform and tax relief. Their positions typically favor broader reform, including descheduling, over a Schedule III move alone. Each association has also argued for protections for small and equity operators.

Opposition

Smart Approaches to Marijuana, led by Kevin Sabet, has long opposed commercialization and has criticized rescheduling moves that benefit large companies. Anti-cannabis members of Congress, some public health groups and the sheriffs' and prosecutors' associations also oppose broad reform. A staunch opponent in the Senate matters because a single senator can place holds, block floor time or lead amendment fights on SAFER Banking and similar bills.

Legal and regulatory framework

Federal law allows corporations to fund super PACs but not candidates, treats marijuana as Schedule I until a final DEA rule says otherwise, and gives Congress, not donors, the final say on banking and commerce.

Campaign finance law

The Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq., sets contribution limits and disclosure rules enforced by the FEC. Corporations may not contribute directly to federal candidates (§ 30118). Individuals face per-candidate and per-committee limits that adjust each cycle. Super PACs may raise unlimited amounts but must disclose donors in periodic reports. Foreign nationals are barred from federal election spending under 52 U.S.C. § 30121, an issue MSO compliance teams consider because of cross-border capital structures, Canadian listings and foreign investors. Whether a given donation complies is a fact-specific question for counsel.

Lobbying disclosure is separate. The Lobbying Disclosure Act requires registration and quarterly spending reports. Cannabis companies and trade groups have registered lobbyists on SAFER Banking, tax and scheduling issues, and those reports are public.

Scheduling law

Under 21 U.S.C. § 811, the attorney general may reschedule a substance by rule after receiving a scientific and medical evaluation from HHS. Formal rulemaking under 21 U.S.C. § 811(a) requires notice and, where requested, a hearing on the record under the Administrative Procedure Act, which is why the ALJ process mattered. A final rule can be challenged in a federal court of appeals. An executive order alone cannot reschedule a drug. It directs agencies, but the final rule must survive procedural and judicial review.

What Schedule III does and does not do

Schedule III would likely end 280E treatment for plant-touching businesses, because the statute applies to Schedule I and II substances. It would not legalize state-licensed markets under federal law. Adult-use dispensaries would still operate outside the Controlled Substances Act's registration framework, and interstate commerce would remain prohibited. Banking access would improve only incrementally without Congress. Those gaps are why Senate composition remains important even if rescheduling is completed.

Federalism

States set their own licensing, tax and possession rules. Federal appropriations riders, Treasury guidance and DOJ enforcement policy provide the thin layer of federal tolerance. A hostile senator can threaten that layer by attacking the rider during annual appropriations.

State-by-state breakdown

Senate contests in states with large cannabis markets show why MSOs treat the 2026 map as a business risk, even though donor money flows nationally.

We do not link the anti-cannabis candidate in MJBizDaily's report to any state in this table. The table lists states with 2026 Senate contests where cannabis market policy is significant.

State	Cannabis status	Key date	2026 relevance
Illinois	Adult-use and medical	Adult-use sales began Jan. 1, 2020	Open Senate seat; large MSO footprint
Massachusetts	Adult-use and medical	Question 4 passed 2016; sales began Nov. 2018	Senate seat on ballot; mature market
Michigan	Adult-use and medical	Proposal 1 passed 2018; sales began Dec. 2019	Open Senate seat; price compression
New Jersey	Adult-use and medical	Question 1 passed 2020; sales began April 2022	Senate seat on ballot
Ohio	Adult-use and medical	Issue 2 passed Nov. 2023; sales began Aug. 2024	Special Senate election
Florida	Medical only	Amendment 3 failed Nov. 2024 (about 56%, needed 60%)	Special Senate election; Trulieve's home market
Colorado	Adult-use and medical	Amendment 64 passed 2012	Senate seat on ballot
Minnesota Frequently asked questions Why are cannabis MSOs donating to Trump-aligned political committees? MSOs depend on federal policy decisions, including rescheduling from Schedule I, relief from IRC Section 280E tax treatment, and banking access. Donating to committees tied to the president is a way to seek access and goodwill with the administration that controls those levers. MJBizDaily reported in October 2026 that these donations total millions of dollars. Why would cannabis money support an anti-cannabis Senate candidate? Donors generally give to a PAC, not to a specific candidate, and the PAC decides where to spend. MJBizDaily reported the Trump-linked PACs appear poised to spend some funds on a staunchly anti-cannabis Senate candidate. Industry donors may accept that tradeoff if they prioritize the overall relationship with the White House and party leadership. Is it legal for cannabis companies to donate to PACs? Generally yes. Federal law bars corporations from giving directly to federal candidates, but corporations can give to super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions, subject to FEC rules. State-legal cannabis businesses are not barred from political giving solely because marijuana remains federally illegal. Companies should confirm requirements with election counsel. What do MSOs want from federal policymakers? The industry's main federal priorities are moving marijuana out of Schedule I, ending the tax burden of Section 280E, and securing access to banking and capital markets, including through the SAFER Banking Act. Interstate commerce and uplisting on major U.S. stock exchanges are also long-term goals. How can I check which cannabis companies donated and to whom? Search Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings for contributions to PACs and super PACs, which are public. OpenSecrets and FEC.gov let you search by donor name, employer, or committee. Many committees file monthly or quarterly, so recent donations may not appear until the next filing deadline. What is the difference between a PAC and a super PAC? A traditional PAC has contribution limits and can give directly to candidates within legal caps. A super PAC (independent-expenditure-only committee) can accept unlimited contributions from corporations and individuals but cannot coordinate with candidates. Super PACs spend on ads and independent campaigns, which is how donor money can reach a race. Does donating mean a company endorses the candidates the PAC supports? Not necessarily. Donating to a PAC is not a formal endorsement of every candidate it backs, but it can draw criticism from patients, advocates, and employees when funds support opponents of legalization. Companies often frame giving as support for broad federal reform rather than for individual candidates. How does federal rescheduling factor into these donations? Moving marijuana to Schedule III would change the federal tax picture, likely easing 280E burdens, though it would not by itself legalize interstate sales or end state licensing regimes. Because rescheduling runs through executive-branch and DEA processes, MSOs see relationships with the administration as consequential. Which MSOs are involved in political giving? Large U.S. multistate operators such as Curaleaf, Trulieve, Green Thumb Industries, Verano, and Cresco Labs are active in lobbying and policy advocacy. For specific donations to specific committees, consult MJBizDaily's reporting and FEC filings rather than relying on secondary summaries. What are the Senate implications for cannabis policy? Any federal cannabis law, including banking reform or descheduling legislation, requires Senate action, and most bills need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. The makeup of the Senate after the 2026 midterms affects the viability of bills like the SAFER Banking Act. MSO donationscannabis politics2026 midtermsfederal reschedulingTrump PACs280E The CannIntel Daily The cannabis newsletter you forward to your team. Federal policy, market data, grower alerts, and the one story that matters today. Sent every weekday at 7am. Free. Subscribe Free No spam. Unsubscribe with one click. 21+ only.