PSA's Sunday Sound-Off: December 28th, 2025

A Minor Correction

By Jack Gorsline

Yesterday, while attempting to publish Part 6.2 of Graham Moore’s Yes on 4 Campaign Tell-All, PSA mistakenly posted a previously-published Part 6.1 of Graham Moore’s Yes on 4 Campaign Tell-All.

We apologize for the confusion this error caused prior to the release of Moore’s final installment of the series, which is available to read in part below and in full online at PsychedelicAmericas.Org

With Gratitude for Your Continued Readership and Support,

Jack Gorsline - Founder of Psychedelic State(s) of America

By Graham Moore

7. The Campaign Possibly Put Its Grassroots Staff and Nonprofit Affiliates in Legal Jeopardy

A Professional Imperative

In 2025, as reported by the Boston Globe and Lucid News, I filed complaints with Massachusetts’ Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) regarding possible violations of campaign finance law related to Yes on 4. I did so only after a conversation with an attorney produced concern that certain payments to Jamie Morey and me for our campaign work might not have been properly disclosed. 

As someone deeply invested in the future success of psychedelic policymaking, I had been reviewing Yes on 4’s public financial data to better understand the reasons for the campaign’s loss. And I had subsequently discovered there was no record of the post-election bonus compensation paid to Morey and me in the ballot committee’s disclosures to the OCPF.

While I am now represented by an attorney at Considine & Furey, I employed an attorney currently serving on Massachusetts’ State Ethics Commission—“an independent state agency that administers and enforces the provisions of the conflict of interest law and financial disclosure law” according to mass.gov—during spring 2025 to help me understand to what degree Morey and I could be in legal jeopardy. Based on the documentation I shared with him and my descriptions of what occurred during the campaign, the attorney informed me there was possible legal jeopardy for me (and Morey by extension) as well as the ballot committee and certain nonprofit affiliates, particularly veterans charity Heroic Hearts Project. He also told me it was “very unlikely” I would be charged for my conduct, even if regulators determined I had likely engaged in illegal activity, so long as I was “on the side of the government” (i.e. was honest and transparent with state regulators). My takeaway from that conversation was that Morey and I would be safest from a reputational and legal standpoint by fully and transparently disclosing everything we knew related to possible violations of campaign finance law to the appropriate regulatory authority, the OCPF. And that was what we did.

I also asked the attorney whether Morey’s and my post-election legislative advocacy violated Massachusetts lobbying laws. Despite several ballot committee colleagues being registered lobbyists and rhetorically supporting our efforts to get psychedelics bills filed, none had warned Morey and me about strict regulations that could have resulted in us being fined tens of thousands of dollars each in addition to harming our reputations. The attorney concluded we had not met the criteria for mandatory registration and thus faced no lobbying violations—leaving campaign finance as our only potential jeopardy.

The risk of us being wrapped up in a probe eventually, whether we came forward or not, was more than theoretical. Possible violations of campaign finance law are routinely reported to the OCPF, and the OCPF regularly conducts investigations. Illustrating the point, Yes on 4’s campaign manager and ballot committee chair Danielle McCourt filed a complaint with the OCPF about the opposition to Question 4 on October 7, 2024, as reported by State House News. McCourt’s complaint “[requested] a review of a potential violation of the Massachusetts Campaign Finance Law reporting” and pointedly concluded: “transparency is paramount to election integrity and a cursory glance at the facts suggests information may be being withheld.” 

The same article that reported on McCourt’s filing reported that the opposition committee, the Coalition for Safe Communities, had sent a cease and desist letter “to TV stations alleging that a Yes on 4 ad did not ‘include a proper disclaimer’ about top campaign contributors nor refer viewers to OCPF's website.” Especially considering the attorney indicated to me that payments for Heroic Hearts Project television advertisements may not have been properly disclosed, the fact Yes on 4’s advertising in particular had already been the focus of scrutiny and legal action—amidst a political tit for tat—suggested it was a real possibility an investigation was already underway.

Both as advocates and as professionals, Morey and I were closely and openly affiliated with the Question 4 campaign. In addition to our operational leadership roles, we had been the post-election wind down co-executive directors of the ballot committee, during which time we directed a successful effort—involving lawmakers and community members—to get a record number of psychedelics bills filed. To preserve our effectiveness as leaders, it was paramount we not be complicit in possible major financial impropriety on the part of the organization we once nominally led (our theoretical authority as co-executive directors, similar to that of Emily Oneschuk as grassroots campaign director, was mostly disregarded by our senior colleagues). Especially considering the details of our bonus payments, which were paid by the Heroic Hearts Project, the possible reputational damage of staying silent could be severe—at worst, we could be accused of knowingly defrauding a veterans charity of thousands of dollars. By self-reporting to the OCPF, and then coming forward publicly, we took the course of action best aligned with our values and goals.

Read the Full Part 7 of Moore’s Tell-All Series Here

Until next time,

The Psychedelic State(s) of America Team