AHF Touts Collecting One-Fourth of Initiative Signatures Needed

LOS ANGELES—AIDS Healthcare Foundation has posted a press release claiming that its paid signature gatherers have collected 25 percent of the supporters its "Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act" petitions will need for the measure to appear on the November 2016 ballot—and that therefore, committees in both houses of the California Legislature should prepare for hearings on the initiative as soon as possible—even though they're not required to do so before the end of June 2016. Aside from its desire to get some good publicity for a change, AHF is basing its call for hearings on a bill, SB 1253, signed into law on September 27 of last year, which requires that "the appropriate committees of the Senate and Assembly [] hold the joint public hearing on the subject of the measure not later than 131 days prior to the date of the election at which the measure is to be voted upon." However, AHF is pushing for hearings to begin "once backers have collected 25% of valid voter signatures needed to qualify a measure"—which, of course, would be now. Beyond that, AHF president Michael Weinstein is claiming his signature gatherers, who are apparently doing their work in areas that have little to no contact with the adult industry, are meeting with "an enthusiastic response" from petition signers, and that "initial polling" of 1,158 California voters—a number far smaller than the population of Chatsworth, Calif., where the bulk of adult content production takes place—shows "overwhelming support" for the initiative. Somewhat less support for the initiative was to be found in the April 30 edition of the Orange County Register, where contributing writer (and Reason magazine staffer) Elizabeth Nolan Brown had an opinion piece published, titled "California doesn't need a porn czar." After noting AIDS Healthcare's several failed attempts to get the California Legislature to pass a mandatory condom/barrier protection bill targeting the adult industry, Brown noted (as did the initiative's Legislative Analyst) that, "If successful, the proposed ballot measure could cost California tens of millions of dollars per year in lost revenue and create an underground adult industry that is less safe for workers." Brown also observed that as a result of Measure B, the number of film permits issued by FilmLA "plummeted" from 480 in 2012 to 40 in 2013, and that, "If the law is extended state-wide, 'tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars of annual economic activity and hundreds of full- and part-time adult film industry jobs likely would be eliminated from the California economy' or driven underground, according to the [Legislative Analyst's Office]." But Brown saves her best shots for Michael Weinstein personally. "Also troubling is the fact that the proposed condom law would create a state porn czar, of sorts—one authorized to use taxpayer funds to 'investigate' and prosecute non-compliant adult films. The measure, written by activist and attorney Michael Weinstein, would task Weinstein with monitoring all pornography produced in California for condom use and allow him to file lawsuits against anyone involved in an offending production. Weinstein could only be removed from this role by a majority vote from both houses of the state Legislature. "It’s clear what Weinstein would get out of the condom measure’s passage," Brown concluded. "A cushy government gig watching adult films all day." Hmmm ... California losing "hundreds of millions of dollars of annual economic activity and hundreds of full- and part-time adult film industry jobs" versus setting Michael Weinstein up with a "cushy government gig" for life: Wonder how those 1,158 California voters would have responded if the issue had been put to them that way?