The RAVE Act was first introduced in the Senate in June 2002. (A House version was subsequently introduced in October). Senate supporters put the bill on a fast track. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee a little over a week after it was introduced, without a public hearing or recorded vote, and was expected to quickly pass the full Senate. The potential impact of the legislation on free speech, public health, and innocent business owners sparked tremendous concern among a broad-range of groups, including the Drug Policy Alliance, American Civil Liberties Union, American Hotel & Lodging Association, American Beverage Licensees, and Rock the Vote.  It also spurred thousands of electronic music fans across the country to organize and engage in political action.

The RAVE Act quickly became a topic of concern on e-mail lists, bulletin boards, and web sites across the country.  National organizations aggressively lobbied Congress to oppose the RAVE Act or improve some of its most objectionable parts. Tens of thousands of voters called or faxed their Members of Congress urging them to oppose the legislation.  Buzzlife Productions, a major promotion company for electronic music events, submitted petitions to Congress with over 20,000 signatures in opposition to the bill. Electronic music groups across the country, such as ROAR, Blackkat, AuraSF and Freedom to Dance, held organized protests against the RAVE Act in major cities, including protests in Austin, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Seattle and a rave on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. (Some of these groups came into existence specifically in response to the introduction of the RAVE Act). The campaign against the bill made national news, including articles in Newsweek, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today.

Ultimately, two of the original co-sponsors of the legislation took the rare step of withdrawing themselves as co-sponsors (including the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee), citing concerns that the bill lacked adequate protection for free speech and innocent property owners and might make event-goers less safe. With co-sponsors dropping off the bill, Senate leadership never brought it up for a full Senate vote. The House Subcommittee on Crime held a hearing on the bill but decided not to vote on it. Both the House and Senate version of the RAVE Act died when the 107th Congress adjourned at the end of 2002.

In early 2003 Senate supporters re-introduced the RAVE Act under a new name (the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act). The new bill did not contain a controversial “findings” section included in the 2002 bill that essentially declared glowsticks and bottled water drug paraphernalia and made it clear the legislation was targeting raves and other electronic music events. The substantive (and statutory) part of the bill remained the same as the previous year’s version. A bill identical to the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act was introduced in the House under the old name RAVE Act. 

Citizen groups across the country organized against these new bills. The legislation was a major source of concern at the March Winter Music Conference, a large industry conference that attracts over 20,000 musicians, fans, and business owners to Miami every year. At a March press conference DJs, record label executives, promoters, and civil libertarians warned the legislation could devastate the electronic music industry. Thousands of voters again called or faxed their Members of Congress.

As opposition to the legislation grew inside and outside of Congress, supporters chose to bypass the traditional democratic process and attach it at the last minute to an unrelated bill without debate or a vote of Congress.  Different versions of that bill, a child abduction bill officially known as the PROTECT Act (but generally referred to as the “Amber Alert” bill), had previously passed both the House and Senate. Congress appointed a conference committee of seven Representatives and seven Senators to iron out the differences in the two versions. During this conference supporters of the RAVE Act slipped it into the “Amber Alert” bill.  The final “Amber” bill was then sent to every Member of Congress for a final straight-up or straight-down vote.  Even those that opposed the RAVE Act had to vote for the final “Amber” bill because they wanted to enact the provisions preventing child abductions.

At most only fourteen Members of Congress voted to enact the RAVE Act. 521 Members of Congress - representing almost 260 million Americans - were excluded from voting for or against the RAVE Act as a stand-alone bill. Both the enactment of the law and the manner in which it passed has sparked intense opposition. Since its enactment protests against the new law have been held in cities around the country, including Washington, DC where a free concert and protest was held in front of the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 6th . The event, featuring such internationally known artists as Junior Vasquez  (a producer for Madonna), attracted two thousand voters and electronic music fans.

Not even a month after the RAVE Act had become law, a federal agent in Montana used it to shut down a benefit to raise money for Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The DEA agent told managers of the Eagle Lodge in Billings, Montana that the Lodge could be fined $250,000 if anyone smoked marijuana during a planned benefit to raise money for a campaign to pass a medical marijuana law in Montana. The Eagle Lodge canceled the event.

After negative press and public criticism over the incident (including criticism from some Members of Congress), the DEA issued internal guidelines that the agency argues will protect civil liberties. The guidelines, which have not been made public, do not have the force of law and provide no real legal protection. Opponents of the law are working to repeal the RAVE Act or amend it to better protect free speech, public safety, and innocent property owners.