Condoms in Porn... Measure B/Bill AB 1576/Prop 60 (page 16)

Author	Post
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 11:43AM I agree, the tone and approach makes it pretty clear they don't care about the performers, they're just pushing a reg they hope will drive the industry out of state. Unless they are like the 'feminist' activists who can't help themselves speaking with contempt about sex workers who they supposedly want to 'save.' Edited by - BlackSix on 10/24/2016 11:46:02 AM [Link]
Mister Fahrenheit All-Star Member Meh 4655 Posts 10/13	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 11:54AM ^ Well, the Yes on 60 campaign does play pretty heavily to the public's preexisting prejudices against the industry. The contempt is not subtle. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 12:02PM Jesus, for a supposedly progressive org to engage in that kind of cynical smear... [Link]
Mister Fahrenheit All-Star Member Meh 4655 Posts 10/13	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 12:07PM ^ Yeah, the red silhouette of a disheveled woman on their billboard is a nice touch. I guess that's meant to evoke the defenseless victims of the evil pornographers. I'm sure most performers love that depiction. [Link]

BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 12:23PM This LA Times opinon piece discusses how prop 60 would 'empower' anyone to bring a case against porn producers. This very bad law is borrowed wholesale from the anti-porn measures of Dworkin/Mackinnon from the 80s. That they're using something from their playbook speaks volumes about their intentions and background. This idea gives the law a patina of a 'civil rights measure' but really is an odd combination of police state thinking combined with a cynical attempt to bypass local law enforcement or AG's who won't enforce or prosecute a bad law. It seems a popular idea among some leftie activists because they can exploit it to push their agenda while claiming it puts it into the hands of 'the people.' A false populism that is really a combo of mob justice and state power. I'm surprised the anti-porn right hasn't borrowed it. It is one of the reasons the Dworkin/Mackinnon measures were struck down by the courts as overbroad. If we're unfortunate enough to have prop 60 pass I suspect the California Supreme Court would strike it down for the same reasons. Edited by - BlackSix on 10/24/2016 12:29:25 PM [Link]
Goldstein All-Star Member "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 2:29PM ^ And, a full nine-member SCOTUS, thanks to President Hillary Clinton, will restore a measure of sanity to the equation (i.e. the extreme right and their anti-porn brethren will hit a brick wall, and the SCOTUS will no longer legislate their agendas for them from the judicial branch). [Link]
Mister Fahrenheit All-Star Member Meh 4655 Posts 10/13	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 3:06PM Anyone else watch these official No on 60 ads? The premises of each are good, like the one showcasing the overwhelming opposition from major newspapers and the two main political parties but the production values are kind of lacking. Why does Chanel Preston's audio have so much echo? The Yes on 60 ad featuring Cameron Adams was much more professional seeming, which is kind of shocking considering the number of people who work with cameras and audio in the industry. Regardless, it would be good to see the Chanel ad on TV. I've seen the Yes on 60 one quite a few times so some push-back is definitely needed. [Link]
cubbiefanoc Member 474 Posts 4/15	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 5:59PM ^ Thank you for the link to the ads. The No on 60 organization has several ads on You Tube in addition to Chanel's. The Spanish language ad by Vanessa Veracruz, a g/g only performer, was very good because it will reach the Latino community. I hope they have the $$$ to fund those ads ASAP. Lots of people are already voting. I have already sent in my ballot. [Link]
AggieGuy Member 357 Posts 7/15	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 7:23PM Goldstein wrote: ^ And, a full nine-member SCOTUS, thanks to President Hillary Clinton, will restore a measure of sanity to the equation (i.e. the extreme right and their anti-porn brethren will hit a brick wall, and the SCOTUS will no longer legislate their agendas for them from the judicial branch). Click to expand Seriously dude? Do you really think Weinstein is "extreme right" or something? Anti-porn is not just a "right wing" position. The feminist movement has been against porn forever, and it would be classified as "left wing." The courts upholding Measure B are on the most liberal courts in the US federal system. Hillary's Supreme Court picks, if she has any, are just as likely to uphold Prop-60 should it pass as the liberal justices on the 9th Circuit have already shown they are. This is why we need more people elected with a libertarian mindset; just get the government the fuck out of our lives. [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 7:56PM --- Contribution totals from the Secretary of State as of 10/20/16: $4,587,830 AHF's Yes on 60 $ 452,547 FSC's No on 60 --- Recent contributions to the No on 60 campaign: $10,000 Vivid $ 5,000 Greg Alves (Owner, Zero Tolerance) $ 5,000 Frank Koretsky (President, Pure Play Media) $ 5,000 Pulse Pictures LLC $ 5,000 VS Media Inc (Flirt4Free) $ 3,000 Greater Than Data $ 2,759 Cybernet Entertainment (Kink) $ 2,500 Treasure Island Media $ 2,200 Manning Entertainment Group $ 2,000 Lahoma Management LLC $ 1,000 Noraph Inc. $ 200 AEBN [Link]
Melvyn Senior Member 2797 Posts 12/12	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 8:02PM I still don't understand why someone who never even came within the vicinity of a pornstar would sue that pornstar. The trauma of seeing sex without condoms? What? I don't get this. I still need this explained to me. [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 8:16PM AggieGuy wrote: The feminist movement has been against porn forever, and it would be classified as "left wing." Click to expand There are various schools of thought within feminism. Hell, one could argue that there are as many approaches to porn within feminism as there are feminists. It certainly cannot be assumed that "the feminist movement" is collectively against porn, especially in light of the fact that there are self-identified feminists performing in, directing, and producing porn as we speak. We're not all Dworkinites. [Link]
Goldstein All-Star Member "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 8:21PM AggieGuy wrote: Goldstein wrote: ^ And, a full nine-member SCOTUS, thanks to President Hillary Clinton, will restore a measure of sanity to the equation (i.e. the extreme right and their anti-porn brethren will hit a brick wall, and the SCOTUS will no longer legislate their agendas for them from the judicial branch). Click to expand Seriously dude? Do you really think Weinstein is "extreme right" or something? Anti-porn is not just a "right wing" position. The feminist movement has been against porn forever, and it would be classified as "left wing." The courts upholding Measure B are on the most liberal courts in the US federal system. Hillary's Supreme Court picks, if she has any, are just as likely to uphold Prop-60 should it pass as the liberal justices on the 9th Circuit have already shown they are. This is why we need more people elected with a libertarian mindset; just get the government the fuck out of our lives. Click to expand Try reading for comprehension next time. I named "extreme right" and "anti-porn brethren" as two groups, not one-in-the-same. And, "seriously dude," conservative and moderate/liberal supreme courts are nothing alike. Why do you think the GOP Senate has blocked President Obama's SCOTUS nomination? Why do think the extreme-right and "Christian" right screamed bloody murder when Bush 43 nominated moderate Harriet E. Miers -- and he was forced to withdraw her name and capitulate to the litmus-test assholes by nominating Samuel "Citizen's United" Alito instead? Why do you think that who nominates the next Supreme Court justices is such a rallying cry to the GOP electorate? (Ya think it's because they know their agendas die for a generation without the activist right-wing court to enable it, Sparky?) Hillary's Supreme Court picks, if she has any, are just as likely to uphold Prop-60 should it pass as the liberal justices on the 9th Circuit have already shown they are. Click to expand How about we see after (or "if") it passes? FYI, last time I looked, it is always the right-wing conservatives running to the Robert's Court to get their nonsense turned into "law" (e.g. Citizen's United and all the "religious freedom" crap trying to legalize discrimination), not your other garden-variety crazies. The Libertarian Party is far from a panacea. They have some good ideas, and quite a few bad ones. You guys need to get over yourselves, and stop holding them up as paragons of virtue without their own agendas, which they most certainly have. Seriously, dude. [Link]
whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 9:39PM Melvyn wrote: I still don't understand why someone who never even came within the vicinity of a pornstar would sue that pornstar. The trauma of seeing sex without condoms? What? I don't get this. I still need this explained to me. Click to expand With Prop 60? You'd do it because if you won, you'd be able to get a part of the fine levied against the company. You have a financial reason to report each and every scene you see without a condom, even if you don't know anything about who is in it or where it was shot. [Link]

Melvyn Senior Member 2797 Posts 12/12	Posted - Oct 24 2016 : 9:57PM I don't see how the person reporting it is entitled to financial gain. It doesn't make sense. It's like they are putting bounties on this, but viewers aren't being wronged. It's not as if they are owed restitution. Also, how many people can report the same scene? Is it just first come first serve? The first person to report an offending producer gets a share of the fine? This is all a big shakedown, so why don't they just do what they really want and propose a tax on non-condom porn? Instead of costing taxpayers money by diminishing the business, they can at least use it as a gain for taxpayers. I just think there must be much smarter ways about addressing this. They sell this bill saying the intention is to protect people, but the people they supposedly aim to protect are the most vocal ones opposed to it. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Oct 25 2016 : 11:30AM ^ Exactly. That is typical with elements of the paternal left who want to 'save' sex workers while ignoring the voices of the majority of those workers. The law is absurd, as I said earlier I think they are using it so activists can bring cases as they know most police and attorney general offices have no interest or intent to waste their time persecuting porn producers. That attempt to circumvent the law itself is reason enough to strike down the law. There's a reason they are doing this via a proposition, so much bad law is passed through these propositions, a form of pseudo-democracy. Thank god for the courts that strike this shit down. But imagine what will happen if the right gets the supine courts they demand? [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Oct 25 2016 : 11:32AM AggieGuy wrote: This is why we need more people elected with a libertarian mindset; just get the government the fuck out of our lives. Click to expand Was Janet Reno a libertarian? As Attorney General she refused to pursue any prosecutions of legit adult pornographers and focused the Justice Department on child pornography. Edited by - BlackSix on 10/25/2016 12:33:54 PM [Link]
lefaf Deactivated User 5776 Posts 10/14	Posted - Oct 25 2016 : 5:54PM http://therealpornwikileaks.com/james-deen-agrees-to-shoot-with-condoms-gloves-dental-dams-eye-protection-in-california/ is he really going to shot with condoms? [Link]
whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11	Posted - Oct 25 2016 : 7:42PM ^ I wouldn't be surprised. Let's not forget that his inspection and fine came under the current system, and not what's proposed by Prop 60. Since he basically shoots in his house most of the time, he's not difficult to find, and each time someone calls, he'd probably end up in violation and have to pay escalating fines. And considering his partial pariah status in the industry (and maybe even outside of it), I don't see a shortage of people willing to call in violations on him. [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Oct 25 2016 : 8:08PM ^ & ^^ clickable link Cal/OSHA won't consider lessening fines unless the violations have been corrected. That's what these documents are about. Failure to abate or respond to the citations would get you in even bigger trouble. According to the most recent reporting by Xbiz, and the current status on the OSHA website, James is still contesting the fines. He had a preliminary hearing last month. This really isn't news. I'm sure Burning Angel had to do the same thing. Xbiz reported in March that James had already moved production to Las Vegas. [Link]
lefaf Deactivated User 5776 Posts 10/14	Posted - Oct 25 2016 : 8:19PM do you think that the porn biz is gonna leave california for nevada?what do the people of los angeles think? [Link]
whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11	Posted - Oct 25 2016 : 8:35PM ^^ Wasn't aware he'd moved to Vegas. Then it makes total sense. I actually asked him if he'd be willing to do that in a Reddit AMA he did about Measure B, and he said that he didn't think he would have to. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Oct 26 2016 : 3:02AM Remember people use to be arrested just for shooting in LA until the Freeman ruling in the late 80s. People will continue to shoot regardless but as the LA Times points out this will drive production underground and may disrupt reliable and regular testing. [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Oct 27 2016 : 1:31PM Cal/OSHA Offers More Details About Jan. 31 Advisory Meeting (Xbiz) Cal/OSHA will have on hand two agency officials at January’s advisory meeting that will discuss two petitions surrounding bloodborne pathogen exposure in the adult film industry. At the meeting, Cal/OSHA plans on evaluating the two petitions — Petition 560, which was filed by the FSC, and Petition 557, filed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Both request new regulatory language for § 5193 to address occupational exposures to bloodborne pathogens. Eric Berg, Cal/OSHA’s deputy chief of research and standards, and Steve Smith, the agency’s industrial hygiene manager, will co-chair the advisory meeting, according to Cal/OSHA spokeswoman Julia Bernstein. more at the link above [Link]

Melvyn Senior Member 2797 Posts 12/12	Posted - Oct 28 2016 : 2:46AM One thing that's definitely a plus for the industry as it is, think of the state of California. Think of the tens of millions living there. Think of all the sex happening by non-porn performers, aka "civilians." Now think of the sex porn performers are having. It's like just 1% of all the sex happening in that state - at most. Probably a much smaller percentage. And yet with their testing regimen, they are probably %25 or more of all the testing. Without porn, the different screening clinics would probably have far less business. All that extra testing functions like a huge insulating screen keeping people much more aware than they'd otherwise be without the industry. How often does a civilian get tested anyway? Think of all the promiscuous civilian sluts (of any sex or gender) who never get tested even once in their life until they think they caught something. The average person might not even get tested once a year. A porn performer active all year would be tested 24 times. And none of that is dependent on how many partners they had. A civilian could go through dozens of partners before bothering to get tested and that's entirely up to their own discretion. Same with how civilians disseminate the information if they've been infected. It's up to them whether they contact all their previous partners or not. But I'm pretty sure per industry standards, all previous partners of someone who shows up positive for a serious STD are mandated to be notified and tested again so they can try and pinpoint the path and get a hold sense of potential exposure. [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Oct 29 2016 : 11:03AM --- FSC: Prop 60 Opposed by 45 California Newspapers (Globe Newswire) full list in the link above --- Recent contributions to the No on 60 campaign: $43,493 Paper Street Media LLC (Team Skeet) $ 7,500 Vivid $ 5,000 Scott Taylor (New Sensations) $ 5,000 Pipedream Products $ 2,000 Penthouse Global Media $ 1,000 WMM Holdings Inc. Vivid has given $38,361 to date. [Link]
Mister Fahrenheit All-Star Member Meh 4655 Posts 10/13	Posted - Oct 29 2016 : 12:22PM Hey pringles, was wondering if you could give me some analysis on this article: FSC: Current Polls Show Dead Heat Over Prop 60 CANOGA PARK, Calif. - The Free Speech Coalition this afternoon reported that current polls show that voters are in a dead heat over Proposition 60. The FSC said that 40 percent are opposed to the initiative and 40 percent are for it. Twenty percent of voters are still undecided. Click to expand The article never mentions the source of the poll though. Was this an internal poll the FSC commissioned? Or is there a public poll somewhere I can take a look at? [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Oct 29 2016 : 12:53PM ^ It's referring to the Capitol Weekly poll mentioned in this thread about a week ago. It looks like it just took some time for FSC to mention it in a press release. --- One of the Yes on 60 billboards in Los Angeles, taken by fellow ADTer curious_bystander. Edited by - pringles on 10/29/2016 2:26:33 PM [Link]
kinguntermensch Senior Member 1260 Posts 7/14	Posted - Oct 31 2016 : 8:41AM ^ Yes on 60? Seems more like a No ad to me, or is the irony lost on me? [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Oct 31 2016 : 12:46PM ^ It's playing to the negative stereotype many people have of pornography. Note the models head hanging down. You aren't the first one to find the message confusing. AHF did this during the Measure B campaign as well. Here's how they explained it at the time: "It may seem counterintuitive for the 'Yes on B' campaign to post billboards stating our opponents' position 'No' on Ballot Measure B, but we believe that between pornographers who oppose the measure and health associations like the L.A. County Medical Association and the STD Controllers Association that support the measure, Los Angeles County voters will be able to draw the distinction and make a more informed choice when they vote on this issue," said Michael Weinstein, president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and one of the five named proponents of the ballot initiative. AHF is a major funder of the ballot measure. "Whose opinion or endorsement would you trust: pornographers or medical and health professionals and organizations? We are confident that voters will see through our opponents' false claims-about free speech infringement, the waste of taxpayers' money and the industry's hollow threats to leave California when the measure passes-so much so that we are willing to put their message right up against ours, literally and figuratively." [Link]
kinguntermensch Senior Member 1260 Posts 7/14	Posted - Oct 31 2016 : 5:46PM So people are supposed to listen to uninvolved people rather than the people who would suffer? I'm not sure if that is a smart ad... [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Oct 31 2016 : 5:57PM In the way it plays to people's predjudice against sex workers it sadly is a smart ad. [Link]
curious_bystander Member ADT Chatroom Survivor, Large Breast Connoisseur 176 Posts 8/08	Posted - Nov 1 2016 : 3:16AM kinguntermensch wrote: So people are supposed to listen to uninvolved people rather than the people who would suffer? I'm not sure if that is a smart ad... Click to expand That's exactly what I thought when I saw the billboard, especially given it was in LA. [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Nov 1 2016 : 11:16AM Mister Fahrenheit wrote: Hey pringles, was wondering if you could give me some analysis on this article: FSC: Current Polls Show Dead Heat Over Prop 60 Click to expand The Capitol Weekly poll was actually a polling experiment to quantify the down-ballot impact of the long 17 measure ballot. They created three different surveys to examine how methodology impacted the results. Voters took the survey by e-mail over a two-week period. You can read the results HERE. It contains a little more Prop 60 data. --- I don't know why they would hold a press conference on this in San Francisco. It would get more press coverage in Los Angeles. 'Stop Prop 60' Press Conference Slated for Tuesday in S.F. (Xbiz) A new analysis by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health concludes that Proposition 60 will have a negative effect on adult film performer health and safety, according to a release by the Free Speech Coalition tonight. "The Department of Public Health reports that implementation of Proposition 60 would further drive the adult entertainment industry underground or to places that offer few protections for adult film workers," the FSC said, citing an updated overview by Los Angeles County Supervisors of the Nov. 8 general election ballot measure. "[The Public Health department] notes that since the enactment of Measure B, there has been a decrease in number of entities filing for a film permit through DPH," Los Angeles County supervisors said last week. "According to [Public Health], this has limited the opportunity for [the agency] to monitor disease transmission and to provide appropriate interventions to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. In absence of disease control measures, [the agency] reports that there could be an increase in the number of sexually transmitted diseases. "The magnitude of the increase would be extremely difficult to determine and to react to if adult film production is driven further underground. The [agency] indicates that this could have the opposite of the desired effect of the ballot initiative, which is to increase the health and safety of adult film workers." more at the link above [Link]

pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Nov 3 2016 : 4:05PM Here's an overview of the fines under Prop 60. Some of the wording is mine. Talent Agents Sending talent to a set where condoms aren't used can result in a fine equal to the money the agency made from it plus attorney's fees. Producers $1,000 to $7,000 per violation for failing to disclose shoot information as required, or to comply with the training, signage, or recordkeeping requirements. Each repeat violation can be $7,000 to $15,000. Up to $70,000 for knowingly providing false information Up to $50 per day for producing porn without a license, if previously found in violation of not using condoms Up to $25 per day for failing to register as a producer Failing to pay for a vaccine, test, or medical examination will result in a fine equal to the costs of such tests/exams. Failing to use condoms, pay for tests, vaccines & exams, or maintain any health info acquired strictly confidential: $1,000 to $5,000 if negligent $5,000 to $70,000 if knowingly or repeatedly, or fails or refuses to comply $1,000 to $35,000 for aiding and abetting Up to $100,000 if the violation results in death, or permanent or prolonged bodily impairment, or $1,500,000 if the producer is a LLC or corporation. The performer can seek civil damages up to $50,000 for economic or personal injury resulting from the producers failure to comply with condom, test/exam, and/or confidentiality requirements. Sales and Distribution For violations regarding the sales or distribution of films for commercial purposes The greater of 1) 50 - 150% of the total amount of commercial consideration exchanged for rights in the film OR 2) 50 - 150% of the total cost of producing the film. A second violation = 2-3 times the amount of commercial consideration exchanged for right in the film OR 2-3 times the total cost of producing the film. 3+ violations = 3-4 times the amount of commercial consideration exchanged for rights in the film OR 3-4 times the total cost of producing the film. [Link]
whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11	Posted - Nov 4 2016 : 6:39PM ^ Yeah, this is ridiculous. The intention here is to straight up put production companies out of business if they do it more than a couple times. [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Nov 5 2016 : 7:32PM --- The Erin Brockovich of Porn (Esquire) The article profiles FSC's labor lawyer Karen Tynan. --- Recent contributions to the No on 60 campaign: $5,000 Metro Distributors $4,635 Treasure Island Media $2,000 Polari Media (FSC's Mike Stabile) $1,000 Dee Severe [Link]
killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18634 Posts 4/08	Posted - Nov 5 2016 : 10:02PM L.A.'s Biggest Spender in the 2016 Election Is a Nonprofit With Millions to Spare Article in the LA Weekly about AHF's spending in this campaign, not only on Prop 60 but several other measures, some of which don't seem to relate much to their stated mission at all. [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Nov 7 2016 : 1:00PM Seth Rogen: I'm voting NO on Prop 60 in CA because it seems every actor in the porn business opposes it and feel it could jeopardize their privacy. [Link]
cubbiefanoc Member 474 Posts 4/15	Posted - Nov 7 2016 : 1:52PM Outstanding op-ed: [ invalid url ] [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Nov 7 2016 : 3:49PM ^^^ FSC Files IRS Complaint Over AHF Spending on Ballot Propositions (Globe Newswire) The Free Speech Coalition has filed a formal complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the tax-exempt status of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, following a report in LA Weekly on Saturday which detailed the non-profits' abuse of its tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status. more at the link above [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Nov 7 2016 : 7:27PM --- Sasha Grey: Prepping for tomorrow. CA: Vote no on Prop 60, if u care about workers rights you should care. --- Video: Porn Politics (YouTube) This is the full Vice News Tonight segment from last night's show on HBO, featuring John Stagliano, AJ Applegate and Chanel Preston. Edited by - pringles on 11/8/2016 2:06:08 PM [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Nov 8 2016 : 6:27PM Sextant Strategies' exit polling has #NoProp60 with a 13 point lead. 35% Yes 48% No 17% Don't Recall/Refused [Link]
Mister Fahrenheit All-Star Member Meh 4655 Posts 10/13	Posted - Nov 8 2016 : 6:34PM ^ That's great, but nonetheless my mind will be totally blown if Prop. 60 fails. It would be an outcome that just runs completely counter to everything I know about how ballot initiative campaigns work in California. Crossing my fingers big time for a David and Goliath story... [Link]
whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11	Posted - Nov 8 2016 : 7:49PM ^ Yeah, IIRC the vast majority of the time, the side that spends the most money wins, and AHF and the Yes side spent a ton more money than the No side. [Link]
dogzcatcher All-Star Member Fat bottomed girls make the rockin' world go round! 1551 Posts 5/09	Posted - Nov 8 2016 : 9:15PM pringles wrote: Sextant Strategies' exit polling has #NoProp60 with a 13 point lead. 35% Yes 48% No 17% Don't Recall/Refused Click to expand Good. My hope is a #NoProp60 win will send a message to the control freaks. It would be lovely if The Free Speech Coalition can get "Operation Choke Hold" to end as well. Let folks have a bank account without checking first to see if they work in the industry. [Link]
AggieGuy Member 357 Posts 7/15	Posted - Nov 8 2016 : 11:45PM Current results with about 16% reporting. Yes- 47.5% No- 52.5% http://graphics.latimes.com/la-na-pol-2016-election-results-california/#propositions Prop 61, the other AHF prop, is down about 1 point more. Edited by - aggieguy on 11/8/2016 11:46:10 PM [Link]
joachim Senior Member 03 12 15 16 18 04 07 13 18 2285 Posts 1/09	Posted - Nov 9 2016 : 1:26AM Dumb question, what's to stop AHF from trying this or something like it in two or four years? [Link]
AggieGuy Member 357 Posts 7/15	Posted - Nov 9 2016 : 1:30AM ^ No idea. Someone from CA will have to answer as to whether or not they can try again. That said, what he is going to do now is push for the CAL-OSHA regulations to accomplish the same thing if Prop 60 goes down. Edited by - aggieguy on 11/9/2016 1:30:38 AM [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Nov 9 2016 : 1:43AM ^^ Things are looking good right now with 34% reporting. Far better than I ever anticipated. I don't have the answer to your question either. Nothing so far as I know. The Cal/OSHA regulations are already scheduled to be looked at again come January. AHF already submitted their proposal for what they want to see in it. It isn't as tough as Prop 60. In fact, it's not as thorough as the previous 5193.1 proposal that failed earlier this year. FSC's proposal isn't going to go far because it is less effective than the federal standard. Cal/OSHA can't adopt it. A reminder is probably needed again as well that even if Prop 60 fails tonight, condoms are still required under the existing 5193. [Link]