Assemblyman Charles Calderon said he is not attacking pornography, only trying
to ease its impacts on neighborhoods.
"I'm not concerned with the morality of it," the Whittier Democrat said of
pornography. "Is it good? Is it bad? I don't know."
Calderon's Assembly Bill 1551 would assess an 8 percent tax on sexually
explicit nightclub acts, items sold by sex shops and pay-per-view movies
featuring unprotected sex or X-rated acts in a public place.
"So, Mr. Calderon does not want to tax sex in the bedroom, he wants to tax sex
in the backyard," quipped attorney Jeffrey J. Douglas, representing the adult
entertainment industry.
AB 1551 would not apply to materials used by schools or sold incidentally in
stores, or to nudity in a legitimate theater, ballet, opera, concert or other
such performance.
Calderon said the measure could raise $100 million annually for a state facing
a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall.
Opponents say their sex life is none of the Legislature's business.
"I think anything that government does to control what we do in the privacy of
our own homes, between consenting adults, is completely wrong," said Tia Loya,
who sells sex products in Southern California.
Republicans vow to kill AB 1551, saying they oppose tax increases of any kind.
Passage would require a two-thirds majority in each legislative house, meaning
it would need support from at least six Republicans in the Assembly and two in
the Senate.
"I see this as an attempt by Mr. Calderon to appeal to certain social
conservative elements within my party as a way to get more money to spend for
his special interest groups," said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine.
Revenue from AB 1551 would be placed in a special state fund for legislative
appropriation to law enforcement, health and other affected services.
"I view the bill more as political theater myself," DeVore said.
Other GOP legislators blasted AB 1551 as a partisan move that sets the stage
for opponents to be painted as pornography supporters.
"He's trying to guilt-trip us, to shame us into voting for this, but we get the
drill because we've been through it before," said Assemblyman Todd Spitzer,
R-Orange.
A hearing on AB 1551 is pending in the Assembly Revenue and Tax Committee,
chaired by Calderon.
Singling out pornography for a special tax could be difficult to enforce and
difficult to define, and could violate constitutional rights to free speech,
critics claim.
"This is the first time you'd ever be taxing sexual expression," said Diane
Duke, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, a national trade
association for adult entertainment.
Pedestrians interviewed in downtown Sacramento had mixed views.
"They tax everything else, why not pornography?" said Michael Shore, 62. "If
it's going to help the community, sure."
Keith Anderson, 53, said he doesn't object to a pornography tax and doubts that
it would hamper sales of explicit material.
"People who want it, want it," he said.
But Amber Ruybalid, 17, said that neighborhoods are good or bad because of the
people who live in them, not pornography.
"That's going too far," she said of AB 1551.
Calderon said he is confident AB 1551 could survive a constitutional challenge
because it targets the social impacts of pornography, not the content itself.
Rather than ban sales or restrict speech, Calderon said his measure simply
would raise money to fight crime and property devaluation in neighborhoods
affected by X-rated sales or shows.
Cities and counties already regulate adult entertainment firms, treating them
differently by targeting their impacts and passing zoning laws to ease such
problems, Calderon said.
"I think the state, by extrapolation, can do that as well," he said.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department supports AB 1551, noting that adult
businesses often are in run-down neighborhoods plagued by prostitution, drug
dealing or other criminal activity.
"They're simply adding an extra cost of doing business in order to improve the
quality of life of neighborhoods," sheriff's Sgt. Wayne Bilowit said of
Calderon's bill.
Duke said any pretense that AB 1551 targets only neighborhood impacts is
shattered by its inclusion of pay-per-view movies beamed by cable or satellite
firms into homes and hotel rooms.
"I don't understand how it can ruin a neighborhood when Joe Davis, my next-door
neighbor, watches an adult entertainment movie," she said.
Attorney Jeffrey J. Douglas, representing the Free Speech Coalition, said
lawmakers can't legally use their powers of taxation to attack material they
find objectionable.
"The reason is: Why an 8 percent tax? Why not 18 percent? Why not 88 percent?
The courts will not put themselves in the position of saying 4 percent is OK,
but 4.5 percent is not," he said.
"It's totally inappropriate for government to favor one form of speech over
another by using taxation, because of its power to destroy."
Even when adult businesses are visible in neighborhoods, Duke and others
dispute that crime necessarily increases.
Some adult businesses, such as Hustler Hollywood, are on extremely valuable
commercial property, they note.
Attorney Michael Fattorosi, an attorney for adult entertainment firms, said the
industry already is reeling from overseas competition and other competitive
pressures.
AB 1551 could force producers of adult entertainment to leave California, he
said.
"This could be another nail in the coffin for an industry that's well received
by California," he said.
Calderon unsuccessfully pushed a similar pornography tax 10 years ago.
He likened his new bill to the special taxes placed on alcohol or tobacco to
reduce societal impacts.
"It's not about prohibiting the use," he said. "It's about putting a tax on the
revenues."
