WeedVoter

Will Campbell Republican

Texas House, District 109

About this race: A Dallas-Fort Worth area district. The sitting member's recorded votes on the 2025 hemp-THC ban and the Compassionate Use Program expansion are listed below in date order, with their record-vote numbers, as the official journals print them.

Whose record this page shows. The paragraph above is about the race, and part of it describes a different person. Everything after this line on this page is Will Campbell’s own record and nothing else — including, where it says so, the finding that no record was located. Every record the paragraph above describes is set out candidate by candidate on the Texas House, District 109 race page.

Will CampbellRepublican
75/100 support for legal access — top band, 67 to 100 thin — one or two records produced this number · 1 of 2 records scored
How this score is worked out

Seven kinds of act move this number, and they do not count equally. A recorded vote counts 3, and so does authoring a bill or signing an executive action; signing on to somebody else’s bill counts 2. A statement or a questionnaire answer counts 2 as well, and an organisational endorsement counts 1. A vote takes its direction from the bill, whose effect is set out in advance; the rest take it from our reading of what was said, and each one below shows that reading and the reason for it. Acts shown with no number were examined and deliberately left out of the arithmetic, with a reason given.

  • 2026-09-21 questionnaire — Answered "Strongly Support" on maintaining a legal, regulated hemp marketplace and wrote that hemp for commercial, industrial and personal use should not be prohibited and that statewide law should protect medical use of THC. But he answered "Depends on the product" on prohibition versus regulation and "No" on consumer choice, would confine THC to medical use under the direction of medical professionals, and wrote that whether recreational use is permitted should be left to municipalities, adding of his own future conduct that "The recreational use of the product is not something I would vote for." That is a medical-and-industrial position with a local option on adult use rather than support for a legal adult-use market, so it is recorded as positive but weaker, counted as +1 at weight 2

Average on the −2 to +2 scale: 1. Full method and the bill table.

  • Questionnaire2026-02-03

    Answered the Dallas Morning News candidate questionnaire in its 2026 voter guide. The paper asked every candidate in the race: "How do you think the president’s executive order to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug will affect THC regulation in Texas?" The answer given was: "I do not necessarily foresee any change in regulation of marijuana in Texas at present."

    This answer is shown but not scored: the question asks what the candidate expects to happen, and this reply describes an expectation without stating a position of their own on lawful access.

    WeedVoter’s note — shown here, but deliberately left out of the score: A prediction that nothing will change, with no position stated either way.

    dallasnews.com, dallasnews.com

  • Questionnaire2026-09-21

    Said the hemp industry should be permitted to thrive and not be prohibited, that THC should be regulated by the medical profession for specified medical purposes, and that whether recreational use is permitted should be left to municipalities, in the Texas Hemp Business Council’s 2026 candidate questionnaire. The council is a hemp industry trade association; it put twenty questions to 223 candidates for the Texas Legislature and statewide office and publishes the answers it receives in full, without editing.

    These are the candidate’s own words, submitted by the candidate. Asked about the future of hemp in Texas, the answer was, in full: "The hemp industry, for the purpose of producing strictly hemp products to commercial, industrial, and consumer use, should be permitted to thrive in the state of Texas, and not be prohibited. While it should be left to local municipalities on whether or not they permit the recreational or free use of hemp derived products (i.e.

    THC), state wide there should be law in place to protect its use in the medical field and only under the direction of medical professionals for the purpose of treating disease with a defined end of use designation. These are two separate industries, and the regulation of one should not hamper the other. Though minimal regulations to protect the consumer should be put in place to create a market that is standardized, efficient, and safe for Texans."

    Asked who should be permitted to sell THC, to whom, at what dose, in what form and subject to what safeguards: "THC, being a chemical that is the primary component associated with the negative impact of marijuana products, while it possesses potential health benefits, ought to be regulated in its use for such purposes by the medical profession for its specified use for specific medical purposes. The recreational use of the product is not something I would vote for.

    But as mentioned previously, this is a decision that I believe should be left at the municpal level, not a strict state or federal ban on it." On keeping a legal, regulated hemp marketplace, the comments read: "Restrictions on any market must be fair and balanced across industries, and not be implemented in such a manner as to prohibit the participation of parties whose products and services meet regulatory requirements that are simple, realistic, and have safety as priority, not market design.

    So long as products are not harmful to the people of Texas in their practical use, there is no reason to place undue burdens on such industries, or to allow special interests to interfere with free markets." Asked why regulation is or is not preferable to prohibition: "This does depend on the product. If a product in its practical use results in harm to the consumer, then it is reasonable for any state to prohibit or heavily restrict its use in the market, so long as the product itself is not an inherit right of the people to have (i.e.

    Firearms). However, if in the practical use of the product, there is no harm to the consumer or those around him/her, then so long as regulations are minimal, focused on consumer safety, and established to improve efficiencies and consumer protections in the industry, then that is all that is necessary. But products that result in harm to the consumer in its practical use ought to be prohibited, unless there is a real general benefit in its heavily restricted use, such as with certain pesticides, in which case the regulations must be more strict and come with consequences for wrongful use or distribution."

    On the questionnaire’s fixed-choice questions: on maintaining a legal, regulated hemp marketplace, "Strongly Support"; on whether regulation is preferable to prohibition where a product can be made and sold safely, "Depends on the product"; on hemp agriculture, "Strongly Support"; on retail regulation, "Local licensing in addition to state requirements"; on tax policy, "Yes"; on consumer choice, "No". The date is the date the council recorded the submission, in Central time.

    texashempbusinesscouncil.com, texashempbusinesscouncil.com, texashempbusinesscouncil.com, texashempbusinesscouncil.com

See the whole Texas House, District 109 race, including every opponent →

Who is paying for this campaign

Campaign finance — Texas Ethics Commission

We could not match a Commission filer number to this name. The Commission’s list of candidates who have appointed a campaign treasurer carried no single row matching both the surname and the given name on the ballot for this seat, so none was guessed at. Will Campbell may have filed under a different form of their name.

Why there are no figures and no industry breakdown here. Texas does not require a candidate to report a contributor’s employer or occupation — the Commission’s own 2026 guide asks for the amount, the contributor’s name and address, and the date, and that is all. So there is nothing in these filings to group into industries, and we have built no such grouping rather than imply one. Separately, the Commission’s bulk filing archive tells automated readers to stay out of it, and we honour that, so we have read no individual Texas contribution record. Treat the itemised question as unchecked by us, not as checked and found empty.

Search campaign filings at the Texas Ethics Commission (ethics.state.tx.us) → — choose Transaction Type “Contributions” and search by name.

Any grouping of contributors into an industry is weedvoter’s own classification, applied to employer and committee names exactly as filed. The Commission publishes employers and committees; it never publishes industries. OpenSecrets discontinued its public interface in April 2025, so nothing here is an OpenSecrets classification.

Money received is not a position. Everything on this card is money that changed hands. It is not evidence that any contribution influenced any decision, nothing on it is placed beside a roll call, and we make no claim about anyone’s motive. For what Will Campbell has actually done about cannabis, read the record above on this page — the roll calls, the bills that carry their name, and the date of each one, every entry linked to the document it came from. That is the part of this page built to be judged, and it is the part the score is calculated from. No contribution on this card moves that score by a cent.