The national Democratic Party is reluctant to support divisive issues, at times. They drag their feet until pressured by a significant faction within their own base to stop waffling and take a clear progressive stand. This is pretty much common knowledge, and the same can actually be said to a differing extent for the Republican Party (although you'd have to replace the word "progressive" with "conservative" to make it work). What usually pressures the national party enough to act is when large party donors begin to threaten to turn off the spigot, which puts the flow of money to the national party at significant risk. Gay marriage advocates (for example) had gotten a lot of lip service and lukewarm support from Democrats, right up until they started drawing a line in the sand: no marriage equality support, no more donations. Which led to not only President Obama but the entire Democratic Party quickly "evolving" on the issue. This may now be starting to happen on the subject of marijuana.

The case in point is an important one, because of the prominence of Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- who is not only a House member from Florida, but also the current head of the Democratic National Committee. Chairing the D.N.C. means not only, at times, speaking ex cathedra for the party on the issues of the day, but also a whole lot of cozying up to donors. Some even call the position "Fundraiser In Chief," which is an amusing way of admitting the truth of the matter. Wasserman Schultz is responsible for filling the campaign chest of the national party, to be blunt. Which is why the spat she's currently in could have farther-reaching consequences than any other Democratic member of Congress.

Wasserman Schultz has become controversial in the pro-marijuana community, for two reasons: she did voted against a House bill which defunded federal efforts to crack down on states with legal medical marijuana, and she has come out against (although not virulently so) her own state's medical marijuana ballot initiative, which Floridians will vote on in November.

Wasserman Schultz is trying to walk a tightrope on the issue, it should be noted. She is not categorically against medical marijuana, in fact (if her statements can be believed). Plenty of other Democratic officeholders much more strongly oppose changing marijuana laws, in fact. Wasserman Schultz has put up a statement on her official House website to clarify where she stands on the issue -- which is a lot more than plenty of other Democrats have done (many Democrats are still hoping to avoid taking any stand on the controversial issue, which is about par for the course). This statement ends:

As a cancer survivor, mother and lawmaker, I am acutely empathetic to the suffering of people with terminal illnesses and chronic pain. My view is that approval of the use of marijuana as a medical treatment should be handled responsibly and in a regulated manner that ensures its approval does not do more harm than good.

She explains that she voted against the House bill on principle: she's against any bills which limit the executive branch of the federal government from enforcing federal law. Elsewhere, she's stated that, since the bill would have allowed V.A. doctors from talking about medical marijuana, she's waiting to see the results of a recently-announced study on marijuana's possible effects on post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans. As for the Florida measure, she states:

Pertaining to the ballot initiative in Florida, I have concerns that it is written too broadly and stops short of ensuring strong regulatory oversight from state officials. Other states have shown that lax oversight and ease of access to prescriptions can lead to abuse, fraud, and accidents. Also, given Florida's recent history in combating the epidemic of "pill mills" and dubious distinction as having among the highest incidents of fraud, I do not believe we should make it easier for those seeking to abuse the drug to have easy access to it.

In all of these positions, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is trying to thread a needle -- supporting expanding medical marijuana in theory, while not supporting any current efforts to make that theory a reality. But this isn't good enough for the people behind the ballot initiative, who have begun airing television ads pointing out Wasserman Schultz is against an issue that polls in Florida at an astounding 88 percent, and that as a result she's in favor of locking up people for using medicine (the ad is not exactly subtle).

Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority, a national legalization group, responded to the explanations offered by Wasserman Schultz:

I just don't buy her excuse.... It could be that she is one of those extremely cautious Democrats or she may be fearing campaign attack ads that will never come. She's going to look very silly when the voters of her state vote overwhelmingly this November to legalize medical marijuana.

The ad hasn't been ignored, as James Carville recently mentioned it (obliquely) in a fundraising pitch, which begins with one of his uniquely amusing metaphors:

An outside group with money is like an alligator with a chainsaw -- you're pretty sure he doesn't know how to use it, but you don't want to be nearby when he tries. My friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz knows what I mean. She's seen outside groups attack her earlier this cycle than ever before. And while they didn't do much damage, that doesn't mean they won't the next time they try.

The use of "outside groups" is a bit egregious, since he's talking about a pro-pot group which was largely financed by a major Democratic donor, John Morgan. Morgan is absolutely incensed with Wasserman Schultz, and he's not shy about letting everyone know. From multiple interviews on the subject, he is absolutely clear about how he feels:

Morgan, whose family members have used marijuana for debilitating pain, said he raised $250,000 for Wasserman Schultz at his home a couple of years ago. "I will never let her come to my house again for a huge fundraiser," Morgan said.

Morgan says (in a different interview):

But I'll tell you I will never give a penny or raise a penny for the national party while she's in leadership. And I have given and helped raise millions.

as well as the rather unequivocal:

I have removed her from my contacts. She should switch parties. She is neither compassionate nor progressive.

Ouch. These are not even the worst things Morgan has to say about Wasserman Schultz, but they are the most significant, because it could mean other Democratic deep-pocket fundraisers might similarly withhold support and funds. Again, the history of gay rights is instructive, because originally gay activists begrudgingly donated to a Democratic Party which dragged its heels on full-blown support for marriage equality (many Democrats had retreated to a "civil unions are fine, but I'm squeamish about calling such unions marriages" position). As time went on, however, the calls to stop the donations got louder and more influential. This eventually led to the big Hollywood Democratic donors beginning their own pushback, threatening enormous sums of donor money. Democrats quickly realized they could no longer thread the needle, and had to take a bold stand. The big donors led, and the so-called "leaders" followed, to put this another way.

To be sure, this isn't really a "trend" yet, for marijuana donors. This isn't likely the "year of the marijuana voter" yet, either. It hasn't really threatened the flow of donor money to the national party yet. Some Democratic Party organizations do fully support legalization, as evidenced by the official Oregon Democratic Party coming out in support of their state's initiative to legalize recreational marijuana (which will appear on this November's ballot). Even the D.N.C. hastily put out a statement that Wasserman Schultz was speaking for herself and her House office, but not for the D.N.C.

But the issue is only going to grow, over time. While 2014 only has a handful of ballot initiatives, 2016 is going to see a much bigger push, both for medical legalization and for recreational legalization. Democrats -- both office-seekers and party officials -- are not going to have the luxury of hoping the issue will go away much longer. Because it is quite likely that more and more of the biggest donors to Democrats are going to start treating the issue as a litmus test for where their dollars go. Especially on medical marijuana, which isn't even all that controversial anymore (I repeat: 88 percent of Florida voters poll in favor of legalizing medical marijuana). Sooner or later the national party is going to have to realize that wishy-washy "I support it in theory, but I still vote against it" stances are no longer acceptable.

There's another reason why Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a lot more important a figure in the party than just being a House member, or even being head of the D.N.C. One of the stories which ran in the Florida media about Wasserman Schultz and marijuana ended on a rather ominous note (which is a good ending for this article, as well):

Wasserman Schultz is going to have the ear of [Hillary] Clinton if and when she becomes the Democratic Party's 2016 nominee. Given the former secretary of state's tendency to embrace the safe, establishment course rather than stake out new territory, one can't help but wonder if Wasserman Schultz's vote is an indication of what to expect from a President Clinton (Part II) when it comes to drug policy.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant