Power, Pot, and Pay-to-Play
After losing in court, Trulieve got a marijuana license through a quiet state settlement — and some well-timed lobbying.
In early 2024, Arizona’s Department of Health Services (ADHS) quietly reversed itself and granted a highly valuable marijuana license to Sherri Dunn, LLC, a company managed by the CEO of cannabis giant Trulieve. The decision came despite prior court rulings that deemed the license application ineligible, and only after direct lobbying from Trulieve’s representative to the Governor's Office. Now, a lawsuit is challenging the settlement as unlawful and unconstitutional — but the deeper story reveals how Arizona's cannabis policy may be bending under the weight of insider influence.
Why This Matters
This story isn't just about one marijuana license. It's about whether powerful industries can override court rulings with political access. It's about whether a state program meant to create fairness and equity has instead become a system for rewarding insiders. And it's about whether voters were sold a promise of justice and reform, only to watch corporate lobbyists and campaign donors reap the benefits. At the center of it all are a handful of familiar names — from campaign consultants turned government officials, to billion-dollar cannabis corporations with ties deep in Arizona politics.
The Players and the Payout
The license, valued at up to $10 million, was awarded through a settlement between ADHS and Sherri Dunn, LLC on February 14, 2024. According to Corporation Commission records, Sherri Dunn, LLC is managed by Kimberly Rivers, CEO of Trulieve, and its sole listed member is a Harvest-controlled entity. Trulieve acquired Harvest in October 2021 in a $2.1 billion deal that made it one of the most powerful cannabis players in the state and country.
“Granting such a waiver would require this Court to ignore the law, assume the existence of hypothetical upon hypothetical fact, and improperly act in place of ADHS.” — Maricopa County Court Commissioner Julie LaFave, in her Sept. 5, 2023 ruling.
Court records show Sherri Dunn was initially denied the dual-use license after submitting an application outside the legal window. The company lost its appeal in both administrative and superior court. In a September 5, 2023 ruling, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge wrote that, “Granting such a waiver would require this Court to ignore the law, assume the existence of hypothetical upon hypothetical fact, and improperly act in place of ADHS.”
The court concluded that Sherri Dunn had not held a dispensary registration certificate for three years and was not in good standing, meaning it could not qualify for a dual license under Arizona law. Despite this, the state reversed course months later and settled.
Backchannel Lobbying
On September 12, 2023 — the same day Veridus officially registered as Trulieve's lobbyist with the Secretary of State — Wendy Briggs texted Hobbs' chief of staff, Chad Campbell, to arrange a meeting about Trulieve's dual licensure issue. That message included a request to discuss the issue with Harvest CEO Steve White, and Trulieve’s Director of Government Relations Lauren Niehaus.
On Sept. 14, nine days after the court ruling against Sherri Dunn, Briggs followed up with Campbell. When he suggested she connect with policy staff, Briggs replied: “This issue will take you. I don't think policy staff will be able to move the needle.”
In a later email sent on October 26, 2023, Briggs framed the situation as a legal and financial liability for ADHS, writing: “ADHS is expending tremendous financial resources on outside counsel fighting a case that the Arizona Supreme Court will eventually overturn in favor of Sherri Dunn, LLC, as it has in the past.”
Two weeks before the settlement became public, on February 2, 2024, Briggs texted Campbell again: “Just wanted to thank you on Trulieve issue. You are pretty awesome.”
The Amended Complaint
In court filings, Arizona Wellness Center Springerville and its owner, Mason Cave, claim that the Governor’s Office improperly influenced the outcome of a licensing dispute that had already been resolved by the courts.
“There is no provision in Arizona statute that allows an Establishment License to be issued after the statutory deadline has passed,” the complaint reads. “Yet, ADHS entered into a private settlement agreement with Sherri Dunn, LLC that reversed their previous denials and the final order of the court.”
The lawsuit argues that the Governor’s Office was the deciding factor: “The direct communications between Veridus and Chad Campbell are concerning. The only rational explanation for ADHS’s reversal appears to be political pressure.”
Although the Governor's Office cited the 2020 Arizona Supreme Court decision in Saguaro Healing1 as justification for the settlement, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge explicitly rejected applying that precedent to Sherri Dunn’s case. In a September 5, 2023 ruling, the court found that while Saguaro Healing required ADHS to issue a dispensary certificate to Dunn, it did not permit the agency — or the courts — to retroactively treat Dunn as if it had been in good standing since 2016. The court emphasized that Sherri Dunn “did not have a medical marijuana dispensary registered and in good standing during the time frame allotted to apply for a dual license under SASAA2, so it cannot now be granted a dual license.”
The judge also made clear that Saguaro Healing did not waive SASAA’s dual-use application deadline, and that judicial discretion did not extend to bending state law: “This Court does not have the power to retroactively assume hypothetical facts into existence or to effectively waive prevailing statutes and regulations that have never been struck down by a higher court.”
In other words, the very precedent the Governor's Office cites as grounds for settling had already been argued — and rejected — by both ADHS and the courts in Dunn’s own case.
A History of Influence
This isn’t the first time these players have been at the center of Arizona cannabis policy. Chad Campbell previously served as a top strategist for the Smart and Safe Arizona PAC, which led the campaign to legalize recreational marijuana under Prop 207. His firm, Strategies 360, received over $1 million from the PAC during the 2020 election cycle. Campbell even received a $10,000 bonus in December 2020 for the initiative winning.
That PAC was overwhelmingly funded by Harvest Enterprises, which contributed nearly $1.9 million to the campaign. But Harvest was also reimbursed by the PAC — receiving $225,000 for "in-kind consulting and government relations services." In other words, Harvest helped craft the law, helped fund the campaign to pass it, and got paid to advise the campaign it funded.
Trulieve acquired that entire operation when it bought Harvest in 2021. Two years later, its lobbyist helped deliver a license after losing in court, with the help of a former campaign ally now serving as Hobbs' top aide.
Campbell's connection to Arizona's cannabis industry runs even deeper. During the Prop 207 campaign, he worked closely with spokesperson Stacy Pearson, his business partner at both Strategies 360 and later Lumen Strategies. Pearson, speaking on behalf of the Smart and Safe campaign in 2019, dismissed critics like Mason Cave who proposed more inclusive alternatives, saying their legislative path was "the definition of insanity." That same inner circle is now overseeing who receives licenses — and who gets left behind.
Donations and Access
The timeline raises further concerns. In October 2023, just before the meeting between Briggs, Campbell, White, and Niehaus, cannabis interests made major contributions to Hobbs:
October 6, 2023: Arizona Dispensaries Association PAC gave Hobbs $5,400 (Niehaus is the PAC chair)
October 12, 2023: Trulieve gave $5,400 to the Arizona Democratic Party
October 19, 2023: Wendy Briggs personally gave Hobbs $5,000
Additionally, the Arizona Dispensaries Association contributed $25,000 to Hobbs' inaugural fund, further deepening financial ties between cannabis interests and the administration.3
Even if no direct quid pro quo occurred, the appearance of pay-to-play politics is strong: a powerful industry seeking regulatory favor gains access and receives favorable treatment, followed by campaign cash. Briggs' donation also came around the same time Veridus hosted a meet-and-greet event with Hobbs for clients.
A Broader Pattern
The Trulieve reversal is part of a larger trend in Arizona cannabis politics. In the name of equity, Prop 207 promised to support people harmed by the drug war through a social equity license program. But that promise has largely been co-opted by corporate players. As reporting by the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting and Arizona Agenda has shown, major cannabis companies like Copperstate Farms structured deals with social equity licensees that left many in debt or without control of their businesses.
Arizona created a framework that appeared to promote justice and opportunity. But behind the scenes, political insiders, lobbyists, and deep-pocketed corporations have shaped outcomes in their favor.
Cave Saw It Coming
One of the earliest and loudest critics of Prop 207 was Mason Cave, who now stands at the center of the lawsuit against ADHS and the Governor’s Office. In 2019, Cave was a board member of the Arizona Cannabis Chamber of Commerce, which attempted to launch a competing proposal called the Small Business Liberty Act. That plan called for 125 licenses — not just 26 — to be distributed with an emphasis on new market entrants and small business owners.
“As a CPA, this would have been a conflict and I would have had to recuse myself from this situation.” — Mason Cave, the plaintiff
Back then, Cave warned that the Smart and Safe initiative was designed to protect existing dispensaries, not broaden access. “The initiative is the industry writing its own rules,” he told me at the time.
His critics, like Pearson, dismissed his effort entirely. “It won’t get out of the Legislature,” she said, calling his proposal "the definition of insanity."
Now, years later, Cave is back — this time as a plaintiff, alleging that the very system he tried to reform is being manipulated in exactly the ways he predicted.
In an interview with Fourth Estate 48, Cave said the Trulieve license “was not just a regulatory decision — it was a political transaction.” Referring to the close ties between lobbyists and the governor’s office, he added, “As a CPA, this would have been a conflict and I would have had to recuse myself from this situation.”
Cave said he was never offered a settlement in his own case.
He also called for broader reform. “There has to be visibility into the accounting of the Smart and Safe Fund,” he said. “I also think getting the director of [ADHS] appointed would help in adding some additional oversight.”
The Governor’s Response
When asked about these events, the Governor's Office denied any improper conduct, asserting that both Trulieve and Arizona Wellness were treated fairly and assessed independently by ADHS. Christian Slater, Hobbs’ communications director, defended the settlement with Trulieve, citing the 2020 Arizona Supreme Court decision in Saguaro Healing as justification, even though that case did not involve Sherri Dunn, LLC.
In fact, a Maricopa County judge had already rejected that exact legal argument just months prior — a detail the Governor’s Office did not address in their response.
Asked whether Campbell advocated internally or externally for the reversal, or whether the Governor’s Office would release communication records between Campbell and Briggs, the administration declined to answer. They also did not respond to questions about the timing and influence of campaign contributions made shortly before the licensing reversal.
Instead, Slater called the lawsuit “little more than a sour grapes, ad hominem attack” and claimed Cave could not accept that he and Trulieve were not “similarly situated.”
The administration has said it plans to file a motion to dismiss and they expect to prevail.
Neither Briggs nor Trulieve responded to requests for comment. The Governor’s Office declined to answer several specific questions, including whether Campbell was involved in prompting the license reversal.
The Stakes
The broader question remains: Did Arizona's regulatory agencies follow the law, or did they respond to political pressure from a well-connected industry? As records requests move forward and court proceedings continue, the answers could shine a light not just on one license, but on how marijuana policy is really made in Arizona.
So what was the Saguaro Healing case about? Back in 2016, Arizona gave out 31 new medical marijuana licenses. But they skipped over La Paz County, even though three dispensaries had applied. One of those applicants, Saguaro Healing, sued — and won. In 2020, the Arizona Supreme Court said the state messed up and ordered it to go back and fix it. When the state re-reviewed the applications in 2021, it didn’t give the license to Saguaro (who sued). It gave it to Sherri Dunn. That’s how Dunn got her medical marijuana license. But it didn’t mean she could automatically get a recreational license, too. She missed the deadline in 2021 to apply for that. The courts said tough luck — the rules are the rules. Now, years later, her team used the Saguaro Healing ruling as an excuse to settle with the state and finally get that recreational license. But here’s the problem: a judge already said Saguaro doesn’t apply. In other words, you can’t use an old court win to bend new rules you already missed. But that’s what the Governor’s Office is claiming. And that’s why this whole thing smells like special treatment.
Smart and Safe Arizona Act, the official name for Prop 207 which legalized recreational marijuana on the ballot.
Ties they did not have under the Ducey administration given his staunch opposition to legalizing marijuana in the state. He even wrote something for the 2020 publicity pamphlet encouraging voters not to approve the measure.