Proposition 34 is nominally about making health care more efficient. It requires that some care providers in the state spend at least 98 percent of their net drug sale revenue on “direct patient care.” But it is more properly seen as a vengeful attempt funded by landlords, and ed by politicians who advocate for more housing, to get back at Michael Weinstein. The president of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which runs HIV/AIDS clinics in 15 states, has used foundation funds to sponsor three state ballot measures ing rent control. The latest is also on the November ballot — Proposition 33.
The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board has opposed all these measures because rent control has a disastrous record across California and the United States. But Proposition 34 sets a terrible precedent that could lead to ballot measures becoming one more way to punish political enemies. Weinstein is not a particularly endearing figure. Under his leadership, the AIDS foundation has bought up housing in poor areas of Los Angeles — only to be accused by tenants of being one more “slumlord” preying on the needy. But allegations that it has engaged in criminal misuse of funds have never been substantiated.
And as has been widely reported, under the narrow phrasing of Proposition 34, it would apply only to one health provider: Weinstein’s foundation. That is no accident. Bills of attainder — the term for legislative acts singling out individual parties for punishment — are banned in the U.S. Constitution. The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board urges a “no” vote on Proposition 34.
