By Tammie Snow
Hundreds of Maine鈥檚 medical cannabis businesses recently received devastating news: cPort Credit Union would be closing their accounts by July 31. These caregivers now face returning to dangerous cash-only operations.
As an attorney representing these caregivers, I face an uncomfortable reality. My clients consistently oppose increased regulation, viewing it as government overreach. Yet the lack of regulatory clarity is precisely what鈥檚 driving away their banking partners.
When cPort announced the closures, CEO Kelsey Marquis cited 鈥渆volving banking regulatory expectations鈥 and the need to 鈥渆nsure ongoing compliance with federal and state expectations.鈥
The problem isn鈥檛 anti-cannabis bias 鈥 it鈥檚 regulatory uncertainty. Adult-use cannabis businesses must file detailed tracking reports for federal anti-money laundering compliance. Maine鈥檚 medical caregivers aren鈥檛 required to follow the same standards, creating a compliance gap that puts banks at risk.
The Maine Office of Cannabis Policy has repeatedly proposed aligning medical cannabis regulations with adult-use standards 鈥 the approach used successfully by Colorado and Michigan. Maine鈥檚 Legislature has consistently resisted these proposals out of genuine concern for preserving Maine鈥檚 unique caregiver program. Lawmakers rightfully worry that increased regulation could create barriers favoring large operators over individual entrepreneurs.
However, this protective instinct has created a paradox. By refusing regulatory changes that might help caregivers access banking, the Legislature has inadvertently left them more vulnerable to the very corporate consolidation it seeks to prevent. Cash-only operations can鈥檛
compete with well-funded businesses that have access to credit, insurance and professional financial services.
This year, the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee voted 鈥渙ught not to pass鈥 on LD 859, which would have directed the state treasurer to develop banking options 鈥 a missed opportunity to address the crisis without compromising caregiver independence.
Despite cPort鈥檚 departure, four other institutions serve cannabis businesses: Five County Credit Union, Evergreen Credit Union, Skowhegan Savings Bank and Maine Savings Bank. But these services come with monthly fees up to $500 and charges of up to 1% of deposits.
Banks also require extensive documentation: access to accounting software, vendor lists and 100% profit deposits. Many caregivers view these requirements as discrimination, but this misunderstands the legal reality. Cannabis businesses aren鈥檛 a protected class, and because
cannabis remains federally illegal, banks face genuine risks of violating the Controlled Substances Act and money laundering laws.
My clients often don鈥檛 connect their daily struggles to regulatory uncertainty. When they can鈥檛 get basic business insurance, pay $500 monthly for banking while competitors pay $20 or can鈥檛 access credit to expand, they blame individual companies rather than systemic problems. But cash-only business isn鈥檛 freedom 鈥 it鈥檚 a barrier to growth and security risk. One caregiver described having to put money 鈥渋n shoeboxes鈥 rather than banks.
The solution isn鈥檛 eliminating what makes Maine鈥檚 caregiver system special 鈥 low barriers to entry and personalized patient care. Instead, we need targeted regulatory alignment that solves specific problems without favoring large operators. This could include voluntary compliance programs allowing caregivers to adopt standardized tracking in exchange for enhanced business legitimacy. Appropriately scaled requirements based on business size could protect small operators while providing regulatory clarity banks need.
Maine could also study a state-chartered financial institution designed for cannabis businesses, or explore closed-loop payment systems like Nevada鈥檚 pilot program.
My clients are beginning to recognize that their anti-regulation stance may be counterproductive. When the choice is between regulatory clarity and business failure, even the most regulation-skeptical caregivers are reconsidering.
Maine鈥檚 policymakers face a genuine dilemma: how to protect small caregivers without leaving them defenseless against larger market forces. The Legislature鈥檚 instinct to resist regulation comes from the right place 鈥 preserving opportunities for Maine鈥檚 entrepreneurs. But by failing to address the banking crisis, lawmakers risk achieving the opposite of their goal.
These 1,600-plus caregivers serve more than 100,000 patients and generate approximately $280 million in annual economic activity. The Legislature should design targeted solutions that preserve what makes Maine鈥檚 caregiver system special while giving these businesses survival tools.
The alternative 鈥 continued isolation from mainstream business services 鈥 poses a greater threat to small operators than thoughtful regulatory alignment ever could.