It bankrolled one ballot measure this cycle, but the nonprofit AIDS Healthcare Foundation was handed two losses by California voters in the November election.
The first was rent control measure Prop. 33, which is losing by 21 points. It’s the third time since 2018 AHF has funded a ballot initiative to repeal California’s Costa Hawkins Act, which limits rent control in cities — and the third time voters have rejected it, despite the state’s housing affordability crisis.
It’s second loss comes with the apparent passage of Prop. 34, a measure that was billed as a way to lower prescription drug costs but was really about handcuffing AHF from continuing to fund ballot measures like Prop. 33.
AIDS Healthcare Foundation is a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that provides care and advocacy for HIV patients, though in recent years, it has also had a presence in providing the low-income housing market. It has come under scrutiny for its extensive spending on political causes and poor living conditions at its properties.
Under Prop. 34’s rules, giant health care nonprofits like AHF will be required to spend 98% of their revenues from a federal drug discount program on direct patient care. The measure is so narrowly crafted that it may only apply to AHF.
While Prop. 33’s defeat was never in question, Prop. 34 has been a much closer race with the “yes” vote clinging to a thin margin since election night.
AHF President Michael Weinstein conceded defeat on both measures Friday afternoon.
“The results of Propositions 33 and 34 prove only one thing: If billionaires spend more than $170 million lying and confusing voters, they are virtually guaranteed to win,” he said, adding: “The battle for justice for renters marches on.”
On top of these defeats, AHF this month was slapped with a $27,000 fine by the state’s political watchdog for failing to disclose lobbying and campaign spending related to its last battle on rent control. Weinstein did not comment on the fine leveled by the state Fair Political Practices Commission.
Prop. 34 was written by the California Apartment Association, which “got tired of having to spend $100 million every other election cycle defeating rent control,” said veteran ballot campaign strategist Brandon Castillo. He added it’s “not terribly uncommon” for interest groups to kneecap opponents in this way.
Backers of Prop. 34 said it will close a loophole that enables “abuse and misuse of public funds.”
“For years, health care corporations have misused billions in taxpayer funds meant for patients to fund pet projects, and wasted it on things like luxury condos, CEO bonuses, naming rights on sports stadiums, and political campaigns,” said Nathan Click, spokesperson for the Yes on 34 campaign.
Weinstein previously blamed Prop. 33’s defeat on Newsom.
“Governor Newsom is the main reason that rent control was killed in California. All the polling showed Yes on 33 ahead prior to his becoming the face of the no campaign. Big Real Estate gave him millions over the years, and they called in their chits,” Weinstein said in a statement after the election.
AHF poured nearly $42 million to promote Prop. 33, but was unmatched by the $124 million raised by real estate and business groups in opposition. Similarly, Prop. 34 supporters raised more than $44 million to try to stifle AHF’s political spending compared to the nonprofit’s $15 million against the measure.
This story was originally published November 15, 2024 4:51 PM.
