For each lobbyist employed by a cannabis affiliate we examined their other funders and identified additional cannabis affiliates using the same inclusion criteria. Because the CDOS dataset does not include lobbying payments made without a connection to a specific bill, administrative rule, or is- sue, we expanded the dataset by manually appending payments from cannabis affiliates in months where no lobbying was conducted for a specific bill/rule. Including these “retainer ”payments allowed more accurate assessment of lobbying expenditures, because some funders make monthly payments to lobbyists rather than hiring them on an ad hoc basis. Funders also make payments to lobbyists before and after legislative sessions for work during the session. The completed search yielded a list of 1703 monthly payments from 89 cannabis affiliates with linked information on lobbyists they employed, positions on bills, and addresses. Each lobbying report available on the CDOS website included an “industry type ”field where lobbyists provide a description of the funder’s business. We coded these disclosures as “transparent ”if the name or description contained a reference to cannabis, marijuana, cannabis grow tray or hemp and “ambiguous ”if it did not. Cannabis industry affiliates could be represented by lobbying agencies, lobbyists, and subcontractors.

Cannabis affiliates may pay individual lobbyists or pay lobbying agencies  that funnel those payments to salaried lobbyists or subcontractors. Lobbying agencies sometimes list themselves as funders even though this practice was made illegal by the Lobbyist Transparency Act, 2019 . We excluded reported self-funding because it was impossible to identify the under- lying funder. To prevent double counting, we only included direct payments from cannabis affiliates and excluded payments to subcontractors and employees salaried by lobbying agencies. Our primary measure was lobbying expenditures, which we adjusted for inflation using consumer price index data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics . We coded for cannabis affiliation, date of payments, address of funders, names and addresses of lobbyists, self-reported industry type, industry type identified through business records, and positions on proposed legislation. We reviewed cannabis lobbying expenditures in Colorado over time using Stata 16 and then qualitatively reviewed lobbying positions on proposed legislation. Our analyses assessed total cannabis lobbying expenditures and the share drawn from national sources,the extent to which expenditures were clearly identified as associated with cannabis,vertical grow system and  alliances with other industries. We conclude with a case study of cannabis industry efforts to create cannabis consumption establishments.

We selected this issue because legislation on the topic was introduced multiple times over the course of three years and under two gubernatorial administrations, allowing insight into changes in lobbying practices over time. We collected data from audio recordings of legislative testimony and floor debate, legislative histories, fiscal notes, and lobbying reports for all legislation dealing with cannabis consumption establishments available through the Colorado General Assembly and Secretary of State websites. We present a narrative description of each bill’s legislative history, including information from lobbying re- ports and demonstrative quotations made in public testimony that indicate cannabis industry influence in the policy making process.