By Bob Egelko, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/aids-healthcare-ballot-measure-19578138.php
The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to remove from the November ballot an initiative backed by apartment owners that would prohibit one man, a wealthy health care executive and supporter of rent control, from spearheading future ballot measures. The court declined to take up the executive’s legal challenges before the election but could consider them if voters approve the initiative, Proposition 34.
The initiative does not identify its adversary, Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. But if a medical organization met certain financial standards – which, by all indications, are met only by Weinstein’s foundation – it would be required by Prop. 34 to spend 98% of its funds on health care.
The foundation, cofounded by Weinstein in 1989, is based in Los Angeles and is the nation’s largest AIDS organization. According to its website, it serves more than 1.5 million patients in 45 nations, with more than 730 clinics providing care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay.
Despite its nonprofit status, the foundation collects $2 billion a year in revenue, mostly from pharmacies and clinics it operates. It has been sued in multiple courts by tenants alleging poor conditions in apartments the foundation owns. In 2022 the state terminated its contract with the foundation to provide care for hundreds of patients in Los Angeles County.
Weinstein crossed paths with property owners as an advocate of rent control. He linked it to health care in a court filing, saying his foundation “advocates for housing affordability because secure and stable housing is vital to positive health outcomes.”
He has tried, unsuccessfully so far, to roll back the Costa-Hawkins Act, a 1995 California law backed by apartment owners that prohibited local government from limiting rents on single-family homes, condominiums and new apartment units.
Weinstein’s 2018 initiative, Proposition 10, would have repealed Costa-Hawkins. His 2020 measure, Prop. 21, was somewhat more limited and would have allowed local governments to enact rent control for older housing units and those owned by large companies. Both were rejected by nearly 60% of the voters.
He is making a third attempt this November with Prop. 33, which would again seek to repeal Costa-Hawkins and allow local governments to enact rent control.
It will be Weinstein’s last chance on the issue if voters approve the next measure listed on the ballot, Prop. 34.
Sponsored by the California Apartment Association and allied groups, Prop. 34 would limit the financial activities of any operator of a drug program that has spent more than $100 million in 10 years on projects other than direct care of patients and has operated multi-family housing with more than 500 serious health or safety violations.
The only organization that fits that description is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Prop. 34, if approved, would require the foundation to spend 98% of its funds on direct patient care – effectively prohibiting Weinstein from using foundation revenue to sponsor any future state or local ballot measures.
The initiative is an attempt “to muzzle a political adversary through a carefully targeted measure that will apply to one and only one regulatory target,” Beverly Grossman Palmer, an attorney for Weinstein and his organization, said in a filing with the state Supreme Court.
She argued that Prop. 34 is a “bill of attainder” – constitutionally forbidden legislation designed to punish an individual or group without a trial – and should be removed from the ballot or returned to an appellate court for immediate review of the legal issues.
Lower courts have denied review of Weinstein’s claims, saying they could be taken up after the election.
That has been the usual practice in California courts. But last month the state Supreme Court unanimously removed from the November ballot a business-sponsored initiative that would have required voter approval for any increase in state or local taxes or fees. The court said it was so far-reaching that it would be a “revision” of the state Constitution, which cannot be done by initiative.
In support of Weinstein, the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog told the court that Prop. 34 is “a poorly veiled attempt by the California Apartment Association to silence a political adversary. If it is allowed to be put to the voters, no organization in the future will be safe from similar retribution by monied opponents.”’
But lawyers for the apartment owners said their goal was to require health care organizations to spend their funds on patients, not politics, and denied they were targeting Weinstein. They said their initiative, which they have titled the Protect Patients Now Act, has been endorsed by patient-advocacy groups including the San Francisco Women’s Cancer Network, the Defeating Epilepsy Foundation and the California Senior Alliance.
Sean Welch, attorney for the ballot measure’s sponsors, told the court that Prop. 34 is aimed at halting abuses of a federal program that allows health care providers to obtain drugs at a discount to provide to low-income patients and then seek full reimbursement from private insurers or the government.
The initiative “imposes requirements on state-licensed health care entities that divert large sums of (program) revenues — over $100 million in any 10-year period — toward purposes unrelated to direct patient care and have operated residential housing in a manner that jeopardizes public health and safety,” Welch wrote.
The case is AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Superior Court (Weber), S285602.