The list of problems with the Question 4 campaign is long, and this postmortem will examine the major issues in depth one by one.
Part 1 (released on October 17, 2025) analyzes the decision to run a policy out of touch with public opinion as indicated by polling, against the recommendations of the Massachusetts ACLU and Dewey Square Group strategists hired by the campaign.
Part 2, initially released in installments as Part 2.1, Part 2.2, and Part 2.3 (on October 21, October 31, and November 6, 2025), analyzes the campaign’s costly handling of a polarizing psychedelics activist and underground practitioner.
Part 3 (released on November 8, 2025), analyzes the campaign’s decision to divert resources to a new nonprofit, co-founded by a close associate of Yes on 4’s campaign director, while polling behind.
WHY THE CAMPAIGN FELL SHORT
3. The Campaign Diverted Resources to a New Nonprofit While Polling Behind
An Uphill Battle
The 2024 Massachusetts psychedelics campaign struggled with resource management, as reflected most clearly in the ballot committee’s cancelling of over $800,000 of previously reserved television advertising slots in the final nine weeks of the campaign (Lucid News reported a figure of over $500,000 in cancellations but, to my understanding, the true figure was at least over $800,000 and plausibly just over or under $1,000,000). After election day, Yes on 4 lead strategist Lynda Tocci opined that the campaign had been under-resourced, texting: “I didn’t have enough money to do both persuasion to swing voters and get out the voters program to our base voters. :( And as we discussed, the money we did have wasn’t even enough to persuade. :( :(.”
During the campaign, strategic leadership emphasized to then operational leaders Jamie Morey and me the importance of careful application of scarce resources. For example, New Approach Deputy Policy Director/Yes on 4 campaign director Jared Moffat acknowledged in a June 2024 email thread that he “[didn’t] know what the overall events/outreach budget [would] be” for the ballot committee and that, while there was “flexibility” in budgeting, the campaign needed to be “judicious” with spending. In the same thread, he floated a “$20k-$25k budget” for events/outreach, excluding the cost of related ballot committee staff time. To my understanding, the ballot committee ultimately spent considerably less than $10,000 on public community outreach events, excluding staff costs. Illustrating the point, to my knowledge, Moffat rejected a proposal for an approximately $1,800 summer event at a popular venue in the Boston suburbs on account of cost. The suburban voters this event was intended to target would decisively reject Question 4 in the fall.
Using resources efficiently was especially critical given the ballot question was in a precarious polling position. To my knowledge, prior to June 2024, there had been four polls of the home cultivation psychedelics measure, and the measure had polled behind in three of the four surveys:
An initial September 2023 internal poll showing 42% support and 53% opposition.
A second September 2023 internal poll, which included “expanded explanations of the proposed reforms,” showing 55% support and 40% opposition.
An October 2023 independent poll showing 41% support and 46% opposition.
A May 2024 independent poll showing 40% support and 41% opposition.
As far back as September 2023, Moffat had claimed in an interview with Marijuana Moment that, considering voter difficulty “wrapping their head around” home growing psychedelics, there was a “good shot” at victory “as long as we do our job in explaining what the ballot initiative is all about and what it does and we’re clear in our communication” (emphasis underlined and in italics mine). Strategic leadership appeared to believe that winning depended on substantial public education.
But instead of concentrating focus on developing the ballot committee’s own public education capacity or partnering substantially for public education exclusively with organizations with proven track records like Heroic Hearts Project, the campaign diverted resources to a new public education nonprofit: Open Circle Alliance, which was formally incorporated on April 19, 2024.
An Unofficial Extension
As explained to me by Deputy Policy Director/Yes on 4 campaign director Jared Moffat on a February 21, 2024, call and an in-person meeting on March 23, 2024, the idea for a new public education nonprofit was his. His aspiration was to pioneer a replicable model where a ballot committee and complementary nonprofit would co-launch so that, after election day, the nonprofit could essentially pick up where the ballot committee left off as a torchbearer for psychedelic access. He had thought I might be a better fit as a co-founder of this nonprofit than a campaign official, but I disagreed. I strongly felt that it was in working for the ballot committee that I would do the most good, and I did not become a co-founder of Open Circle Alliance. Moffat also told me he was involved in fundraising for the new nonprofit.
This explanation of Open Circle Alliance’s beginnings was partially corroborated by longtime Drug Policy Alliance staff member and Open Circle Alliance co-founder Stefanie Jones in an email and during a recorded panel.
When asked about the origin of the nonprofit during the recorded discussion on December 18, 2024 (complete, rough AI transcript here), Jones disclosed “it was down to my
relationship with Jared [Moffat].” She shared that Moffat had contacted her in 2023 about the Massachusetts psychedelics campaign, leading her to become one of the ballot initiative’s original signers. She went on to say that she had not anticipated further substantive involvement with the campaign after this, but a conversation with Moffat “in early 2024” about how the campaign “was going” had altered her trajectory. She claimed that, after discussing the fractured Massachusetts psychedelics community and identifying how she could be useful in uniting it, Moffat had “put [her] in touch with two other amazing women… and together [they] formed Open Circle Alliance.” In a March 24, 2025, email, she explicitly acknowledged that “the idea and funding for a community org originated in collaboration with New Approach.”
The two women Moffat introduced Jones to were Rebecca Slater, affiliated with the Boston Psychedelics Research Group (BPRG), and veteran Emily Oneschuk, the ballot committee’s lead spokesperson and public-facing “grassroots campaign director.” To my knowledge, the first in-person meeting of the three official Open Circle Alliance co-founders was on March 15, 2024, referred to by Oneschuk in a text as “the initial meeting for this community group.”
Less than two weeks later, on March 26, Oneschuk and Slater both publicly testified on the official proponents panel, selected by the ballot committee, at a legislative hearing on the psychedelics ballot measure. And a few weeks after that, Open Circle Alliance was formally incorporated as a public charity, with an official purpose to: “convene stakeholders for education, community building and advocacy activities related to psychedelics.” Slater served as its director and president, Jones served as its director and clerk, and Oneschuk served as its director and treasurer as well as its resident agent.
What this meant was that a highly paid ballot committee staffer (Oneschuk) was given “charge and custody of and [responsibility] for all funds and securities of the [nonprofit]” as treasurer and, as resident agent, was made the nonprofit’s designated point of contact for legal correspondence, intended to be present at a fixed physical address during normal business hours. This was notable for two reasons:
The demands of campaigning (regular travel and irregular hours), which Oneschuk’s ballot committee role theoretically obligated her to perform, conflicted with the inherent responsibilities of a resident agent.
Having a paid ballot committee staffer for a pro-psychedelics campaign managing finances and government correspondence on behalf of a supposedly independent psychedelics advocacy-related nonprofit posed an inherent conflict of interest.
My understanding from conversations with Oneschuk was that she considered her compensation from the ballot committee to encompass compensation for her work related to Open Circle Alliance. Furthermore, her dual role was just one of multiple ways Open Circle Alliance appeared to operate as an extension of the ballot committee, even while publicly claiming to be “not associated with the Yes on 4 campaign and [striving] to present clear and neutral information.”
As reflected in emails from Open Circle Alliance directors, between April 19, 2024, and the November 5, 2024 election, Open Circle Alliance held six events, all but one (the October 30 town hall) functioning largely as promotional events for Yes on 4:
A May 11 private soft launch party “to connect and empower people passionate about the potential for psychedelic healing and growth, and who are interested in building toward the best possible outcome for our state,” attended and headlined by Yes on 4 lead spokesperson Oneschuk.
A June 27 public launch party to “advocate for the best possible [psychedelics] policies for Massachusetts,” attended and headlined by Yes on 4 lead spokesperson Oneschuk.
An August 22 event to “share the Open Circle Alliance factsheet on Question 4.”
An October 6 film screening publicly advertised as co-organized/co-hosted with the ballot committee (“Join Open Circle Alliance and the Yes on 4 campaign on Sunday”).
An October 30 private, unadvertised Q&A/town hall event for “plant medicine guides,” featuring New Approach’s legal director, Tamar Todd.
A November 3 film screening publicly advertised as co-organized/co-hosted with the ballot committee (“Organized by: Open Circle Alliance, Parents for Plant Medicine & ‘Yes on 4’ Campaign”).
Furthermore, internal communications demonstrated an intimate working relationship between the ballot committee and Open Circle Alliance. Clearly illustrating the point, ballot committee chair/campaign manager Danielle McCourt and ballot committee staffer/lead strategist Lynda Tocci seemed to treat Open Circle Alliance directors Jones and Slater as campaign staff over email and text. Replying to a May 2024 email thread, in which Jones and Slater are the only CCed individuals not directly employed by the ballot committee, Dewey Square Group, or New Approach, McCourt inquired about a FAQ: “Are we cleared to share this externally?” (emphasis in italics mine). In a ballot committee group chat in July 2024, announcing RSVPs to an upcoming virtual town hall hosted by Yes on 4, Tocci wrote: “13 RSVPs – including Jamie [Morey] and Stefanie [Jones] from Open Circle. So 11 non-staff.”
Other examples include:
On May 23, Jones and Slater were asked to coordinate a “weekly” “MA psychedelic outreach” meeting with Moffat, McCourt, Oneschuk, Jamie Morey, and me.
On May 30, “Open Circle launch” was a ballot committee team agenda item.
On June 4, Moffat wrote in response to an inquiry on selling campaign merchandise, “I like the merch idea, but actually selling t-shirts is a headache from a campaign finance perspective. maybe we could donate them to Open Circle and they could sell them to raise money or something?”
On June 12, McCourt referred to a meeting with her, Moffat, and “Open Circle.”
On September 17, Slater spoke on a panel moderated by Moffat at a fundraising breakfast. Oneschuk spoke on a different panel at the same event.
On October 14, Jones referred to prepping Oneschuk for her October 15 GBH debate.
On October 24, Jones and Slater were included on a “Question 4 Team Call.”
On November 3, Jones and Slater are provided instructions for dialing voters to persuade them to vote for Question 4. To my knowledge, they both made calls asking voters to support the measure.
Additionally, it is worth noting that, as of writing, the entirety of the educational literature within Open Circle Alliance’s “resource library” is Question 4 fact sheets, which, to my knowledge, were created in close collaboration with the ballot committee.
Still, neither the ballot committee nor Open Circle Alliance reported any in-kind contributions from Open Circle Alliance to the campaign, maintaining that none of these close ties and coordinated activities constituted electioneering on the part of the nonprofit.
On August 8, 2025, Open Circle Alliance issued a statement, which it has not retracted, declaring: “The claims that Open Circle Alliance was not independent from the Yes on 4 campaign are false.”
Although the nonprofit claimed in the statement that, “in June 2024, Emily [Oneschuk] disengaged from all Open Circle operations to focus on the role she had accepted with the campaign,” the nonprofit informed state regulators in a public filing that “Emily Oneschuck, Treasurer resigned 7/24/2025.” The Boston Globe had reported on my complaints to state regulators about possible campaign finance violations on July 21, 2025, only a few days before Oneschuk’s official resignation. Further casting doubt on the veracity of the statement, Oneschuk was featured on the nonprofit’s website as late as June 29, 2025, and, as reported by Lucid News: “according to multiple eyewitnesses, Oneschuk reportedly spoke about her plans for [Open Circle Alliance’s] future at the group’s official launch party on June 27, 2024.”
An Unclear Return
Even if lead ballot committee spokesperson Emily Oneschuk, completely of her own volition as a volunteer, had decided to spend extensive time launching a new nonprofit before “disengaging” in June 2024, that would not have been an efficient use of her availability as a campaign official with a six-figure salary. It was the prerogative of the ballot committee as Oneschuk’s employer to utilize Oneschuk in such a way that she would be too busy to launch a psychedelics nonprofit as a volunteer or to insist that she not do so on account of the appearance of a conflict of interest. In my opinion, it is extremely unlikely that simultaneously being a high profile, public-facing campaign staffer as well as a treasurer and resident agent of a nonprofit, even for just a couple months, would enhance Oneschuk’s ability to persuade swing voters to support Question 4. Even if only by allowing, rather than by encouraging or hiring, Oneschuk to co-found Open Circle Alliance, the campaign effectively diverted a key resource (a charismatic veteran advocate) away from where her energy was most needed: explicitly promoting the ballot question.
Furthermore, even if campaign organizers had no direct involvement in fundraising for the nonprofit, it is implausible that Oneschuk’s participation in Open Circle Alliance would not play a major role in the decision of Heroic Hearts Project, a veteran advocacy organization, to spend over $120,000 supporting the new venture. Oneschuk was Open Circle Alliance’s only veteran staff member, and Open Circle Alliance’s purpose, as stated in its articles of incorporation, did not mention veterans. As I wrote in Part 2 of this postmortem: “I am confident in my assessment that Yes on 4 would have been better served by Heroic Hearts Project spending an additional $120,000 of Massachusetts advocacy spending on advertising rather than on supporting Open Circle Alliance.” Considering Heroic Hearts Project’s spending related to both Open Circle Alliance and television advertising in 2024 was ostensibly to educate the Massachusetts public about the therapeutic potential of natural psychedelics, it is not unreasonable to imagine that, were it not for the existence of Open Circle Alliance, Heroic Hearts Project would have spent more on television advertising.
Of course, to my understanding, the campaign did hire Oneschuk to co-found Open Circle Alliance and campaign organizers, particularly Jared Moffat, did play a direct role in fundraising for the new nonprofit, etc. But, even if one takes Open Circle Alliance’s public denials at face value, the ballot committee bears substantial responsibility for the resources the nonprofit absorbed, seemingly at the campaign’s expense.
According to public financial disclosures, over $130,000 was spent related to Open Circle Alliance. $120,123.69 of that was paid by Heroic Hearts Project directly to two individuals: Stefanie Jones and Rebecca Slater, neither of them veterans. Jones, a close associate of Moffat, was paid $56,000 as an independent contractor for “Public Education Related to Natural Psychedelic Medicine” during the months April through November 2024. In addition to being paid $56,000 in identical circumstances to Jones, Slater received $8,123.69 as an “expense reimbursement.” As of March 31, 2025, Open Circle Alliance reported just $5,487 in lifetime expenses and retained over $6,000 in net assets. Of the $125,610.69 actually deployed in support of Open Circle Alliance’s activities as of March 31, 2025, 89% went to the salaries of Jones and Slater.
Despite the substantial investment in Open Circle Alliance, the nonprofit (to my knowledge as of writing):
Has not received achieved IRS tax exempt status (and, as of March 31, 2025, Open Circle Alliance had not applied for IRS tax exempt status).
Has not added any board members (and is a board member short since Oneschuk’s resignation).
Has solely hosted four small public events (two of its public events in 2024, which it co-hosted with the ballot committee, were primarily organized by the ballot committee).
Has created three fact sheets.
Has made two social media posts.
Has netted 50 social media followers.
Since Open Circle Alliance was created, Massachusetts psychedelics nonprofits Safer Psychedelics Association of New England (SPAN) and Mass Healing have both received IRS tax exempt status and Massachusetts psychedelics group Entheogen Melanin Collective has organized more public events than Open Circle Alliance, despite all three of the latter organizations having very little funding. As a public education experiment, Open Circle Alliance appears to have greatly underperformed, especially considering the few events the nonprofit hosted solo were held in the progressive bubbles of Cambridge and Boston and seemed largely targeted at individuals already relatively familiar with psychedelics.