Two former campaign staffers of the failed Yes on 4 ballot initiative in Massachusetts have filed complaints with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance alleging violations of campaign finance law.
Part 1 of a series
Two former campaign staffers who helped lead the Yes on 4 ballot initiative that would have regulated psychedelic therapy and decriminalized psychedelic use and home cultivation in Massachusetts have filed a series of complaints to the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) alleging violations of campaign finance law.
Despite leading in the polls just a week prior to election day last fall, the Yes on 4 initiative ultimately fell short by nearly 14 points, leaving voters and supporters wondering what went wrong. Following stories in this series will look into possible reasons why the initiative failed, but former leaders of the Yes on 4 initiative first point to alleged irregularities in the financing of the campaign.
Former Yes on 4 staffers Graham Moore and Jamie Morey say that they went public with their complaints because they did not want other state campaigns supporting reform of laws regulating psychedelics to face the same alleged issues as the Yes on 4 referendum committee – formally known as Massachusetts for Mental Health Options (MMHO).
In one of the complaints that he filed to the OCPF, Moore alleges that he “uncovered what appears to be over $700,000 of MMHO-related spending that was not properly disclosed to the OCPF as in-kind contributions.”
After the conclusion of the campaign, Morey and Moore started a new advocacy venture, Mass Healing, to build on the groundwork laid before and during the Yes on 4 operation. The nonprofit is instrumental in crafting ten of the twelve psychedelics-related bills that were filed by state lawmakers in January.
Morey and Moore’s complaints to the OCPF about alleged campaign finance violations focus on the Yes on 4 initiative ballot question committee that they formerly helped lead, not Mass Healing. According to Morey, the Yes on 4 digital campaign assets were transferred to Mass Healing at the conclusion of the campaign, but Mass Healing received no funding from the committee.
The Yes on 4 initiative was first proposed by Washington, D.C.-based New Approach PAC which led prior statewide psychedelic ballot initiative efforts in Oregon and Colorado, respectively. “Mass Healing was formed completely independently from the campaign and received no financial compensation or support from New Approach or the Yes 4 Campaign, other than a single year subscription to Squarespace,” said Morey. “I requested Jared [Jared Moffat, New Approach Policy Director] transfer the digital campaign assets (website list and social media accounts) which he agreed to.”
The complaints about the Yes on 4 campaign were first filed anonymously and then, on June 13, Moore and Morey stepped forward as the co-authors. In a joint statement provided to Lucid News and the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism (BINJ), Moore and Morey said, “We came forward to prevent the same misconduct from derailing access in other states and because we strongly believe the psychedelic reform movement must be safeguarded by those with a commitment to ethical integrity.”
Asked whether they filed the complaints to OCPF to improve their fundraising position for Mass Healing, Morey said that this was not their motivation. “We decided to speak out for the reasons previously mentioned in our joint statement.”
The complaints specifically allege that New Approach and Massachusetts for Mental Health Options (MMHO), utilized nonprofit organizations Open Circle Alliance (OCA) and Heroic Hearts Project (HHP) in consultation with “grasstops” political consulting firm Dewey Square Group – as extensions of their political operation, allowing the campaign to raise and spend money without the transparency required by law.
According to their organization’s website, Open Circle Alliance was created “to enhance public understanding of psychedelic substances, build a supportive network, amplify existing work, promote safety and collaboration, and advocate for the best possible psychedelic policies for Massachusetts.”
The Heroic Hearts Project says on its website that it “has helped hundreds of veterans overcome their suffering from PTSD”—providing veterans access to psychedelic-assisted therapy outside of the US, along with supporting psychedelic research and advocacy efforts at the state and federal level.
Moore and Morey also allege that the campaign benefited from resources of OCA and HHP which are nonprofit organizations that are supposed to remain politically neutral. According to the complaints, the nonprofits raised funds for their stated missions, but these funds were used to help finance Yes on 4 campaign activities. Such spending, if proven to have gone unreported by OCA and HHP, would constitute prohibited campaign activity for 501(c)(3)s.
Watchdog Groups Comment On the Allegations
“These allegations should be concerning for the public,” says Heather Ferguson, director of state operations for Common Cause, a campaign finance watchdog organization based in Washington, D.C. in a statement provided in response to the allegations.
“When donors give to a tax-exempt organization it is imperative that the organization only use those funds for public education about an issue and that the organization does not violate their trust by spending those funds for electioneering. 501(c)(4) organizations [like New Approach] with the primary purpose of electioneering are legally not allowed to coordinate their activities with a 501(c)(3) as this complaint alleges between Open Circle Alliance, [Heroic Hearts Project] and [the Yes on 4 campaign].”
At the federal level, the IRS notes on its website that “a section 501(c)(3) organization may make a contribution to a ballot measure committee,” but 501(c)(3)s, “must include such contributions in its lobbying calculations for purposes of determining whether a substantial part of its activities consist of attempting to influence legislation.”
“During our time working on the psychedelics campaign and in the months after its failure, we became aware of a pattern of mismanagement that wasted the money of individual donors and supporting organizations, contributed to the failure of the ballot question, and delayed lifesaving access to healing for the citizens of our state,” said Moore and Morey in their statement.
Nonprofits Named In Complaint Asked To Comment
Lucid News has reached out several times to the nonprofits named in the OCPF complaints for comment on the allegations. In a statement provided via email, Heroic Hearts Project founder Jesse Gould acknowledged, “we are aware that a complaint has been filed. We don’t comment on pending complaints or ongoing matters under review. OCPF hasn’t elevated these isolated claims or issued any findings or determinations, so we will respect that process. We always remain committed to transparency and integrity in all of our activities and will continue to move forward with the important work of serving veteran families.”
Representatives from New Approach, Open Circle Alliance, and Dewey Square Group have not responded to multiple requests by Lucid News and BINJ for comment.
What The Law Requires and What is Alleged
Massachusetts law requires organizations that raise and spend money to support ballot initiatives to publicly register and disclose their financial activities. Donations to 501(c)(3) organizations are tax-deductible, while contributions to ballot question committees are not. By moving donations through Heroic Hearts, the whistleblowers allege that New Approach provided its donors with two benefits they would not have otherwise received: a tax deduction and anonymity, as 501(c)(3) donors can remain private while ballot question committee donors must be publicly disclosed.
According to Moore and Morey’s complaints, the PAC’s arrangement with HHP allegedly created a “slush fund” for New Approach to use without oversight. According to the IRS, if the more than $500,000 spent by Heroic Hearts on the ballot question – which is documented in the complaints – exceeds 20% of its total expenditures, the organization’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status could be jeopardized.
The complaints also claim that New Approach Policy Director Jared Moffat directed payments from HHP to individuals working on the campaign, which could be considered a “contribution that was made in a way that conceals its true origin.” For example, one email cited in the complaints allegedly shows Moffat informing campaign staff member Morey that, “HHP already has money set aside for this, yes but not ‘for the campaign.’”
“If an entity raises money to support or oppose a question, it must organize as a ballot question committee,” OCPF Education Director Jason Tait wrote in response to a request for comment. “‘Raises money’” he said, “is the key [term].”
“Entities can also use their general treasury to support or oppose a question,” Tait continued. “No ballot question committee is required.”
“Bottom line: everything is disclosed, if money is raised or spent. In-kind contributions are things of value that are not money, such as goods and services.”
In response to Moore’s filings, the OCPF acknowledged receipt of the complaints and confirmed the information provided was forwarded to their legal department. According to Tait, any future updates on the status of the complaints won’t be known anytime soon. “Those resolutions are not made public until the case is resolved,” said Tait.
Close Relationship Between Open Circle Alliance and the Campaign
Further allegations cited in the complaints highlight the close relationship between the Yes on 4 campaign and Open Circle Alliance.
Moore’s initial complaint notes that “Open Circle Alliance directors Stefanie Jones and Rebecca Slater were asked to coordinate a ‘weekly MA psychedelic outreach meeting’ with Moffat, referendum committee chair Danielle McCourt, [Grassroots Campaign Director for the Yes on 4 Campaign Emily] Oneschuk, and two other campaign staffers.” Moore alleges that “no in-kind contributions from Open Circle Alliance were reported to OCPF.” Moore also points out that Oneschuk simultaneously served as the Director and Treasurer of the Open Circle Alliance, giving her control over the charity’s finances while also supposedly leading the campaign.
OCA’s website highlights that the group’s founders were “brought together after learning of the 2024 ballot initiative that would create regulated access to psychedelic therapy for Massachusetts.” In one email exchange provided by Moore and Morey to support the OCPF complaints, one of the OCA co-founders wrote that the “idea and funding for a community org originated in collaboration with New Approach.”
”As shown,” Moore wrote in one of the filings, “100% of Open Circle Alliance’s publicly advertised events (and 5/6 of all the organization’s events) were de facto [Q4] campaign events.”The filings also point to several instances of alleged coordination between the campaign and Open Circle Alliance, including a suggestion to use OCA to sell T-shirts as a fundraising mechanism for the campaign and the dedication of time during Yes on 4 meetings to plan OCA’s official launch party, as well as hosting a “private, unadvertised Q&A/town hall event for ‘plant medicine guides.’’”
The complaints additionally allege that OCA’s educational materials consist solely of “Question 4” fact sheets that claim the alliance “is not associated with the Yes on 4 Campaign and strives to present clear and neutral information.“ According to the whistleblowers, the group’s claimed neutrality appears to be misleading and seemingly in violation of the legal separation required between the entities under Chapter 55 of Massachusetts’ General Laws — especially given Oneschuk’s dual-leadership role for both the campaign and OCA.
Based on the evidence provided in his complaints, Moore said in the first OCPF complaint he filed that “Jared Moffat, the policy director for New Approach, [was] directing payments from the 501(c)(3) organization Heroic Hearts Project to individuals affiliated with the campaign, none of which were disclosed to the OCPF as in-kind contributions.”
The complaints by Moore and Morey also assert that an advertisement for what was described as Heroic Hearts Project’s “educational ad campaign” was actually produced by the ballot measure committee and Dewey Square Group. In the filings made with the OCPF, it is alleged that the purported oversight of both the campaign and HHP ads shows the latter was intended to support the referendum.
Other Alleged Missteps in the Campaign
If the allegations laid out in the complaints are true, they would be just the latest in a series of apparent missteps that took place from the beginning of the Yes on 4 campaign. Questions have also been raised about Yes on 4’s financial backing from the start of the campaign, especially after the campaign amassed a nearly $9 million war chest from mostly out-of-state donors in support of an overwhelmingly popular drug policy reform issue on a comparatively nationwide scale.
As documented by this reporter in February 2024, New Approach PAC, donated $35,000 to Bay Staters for Natural Medicine (BSNM), a local grassroots group. Shortly after accepting the donation, James Davis, the founder of BSNM, turned on the bill he had once endorsed to form an opposition coalition with prominent prohibitionist organizations Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions (FDPS).
Shortly after his defection from the Yes on 4 coalition, this reporter showed how Davis appears to have impersonated online US Marine veteran Mike Botelho, a former BSNM collaborator, seemingly in an effort to advance his own personal and political agenda.
The Question 4 campaign also ran into a ballot signature snafu in 2023, wherein 12,000 previously collected signatures were ruled invalid due to the illegal use of a labor union logo on some signature collection sheets.
Reflections on the Campaign
The failure of the Question 4 campaign has influenced future policy reform efforts in the Bay State and beyond. New Approach PAC representatives have largely placed the blame for the initiative’s historic loss on voters’ supposed hesitancy over decriminalizing home cultivation of psychedelics.
“We understand there were concerns [from voters] about the home grow provisions, and those concerns likely led to tonight’s result,” the PAC wrote in an official election night statement.
Other grassroots leaders, in addition to Moore and Morey, have expressed frustration about the allegations filed to the OCPF. Fellow Bay State psychedelic advocacy stalwart Imani Turnbull-Brown – a US Navy Veteran and co-founder of the Boston-based Entheogen Melanin Collective – offered a scathing rebuke of Open Circle Alliance’s alleged campaign finance violations.
“Open Circle Alliance’s dishonesty and lack of remorse are unacceptable and this isn’t a small mistake— it’s a breach of trust that harms the very communities they claim to uplift,” said Turnbull-Brown who, together with other activists, says she has spoken with Open Circle staff about their funding sources.
“If they truly care about equity and access they need to own the harm, speak the truth, and make it right. Silence and spin won’t cut it. The movement is watching—and so are the people most impacted.”
This article was published in a partnership between Lucid News and the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism. This article is syndicated by the MassWire news service of the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism.
Part two of this series will look into possible reasons why the Yes on 4 campaign failed despite having significant funding and widespread support for the initiative.
