The thing is, there’s only one org that meets the threshold for it and that’s the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which throws a lot of money at props in California and has some questionable stuff about being a landlord. From calmatters.org:
Proposition 34 would require some California providers to spend at least 98% of that net drug sale revenue on “direct patient care.” Providers that don’t risk having their state license and tax-exempt status revoked and losing out on government contracts.
But the proposition doesn’t apply to all providers — only those that spend at least $100 million on expenses other than direct care, that also own and operate apartment buildings and that have racked up at least 500 severe health and safety violations in the last decade.
As far as anyone can tell, that only applies to one organization: The AIDS Healthcare Foundation. \
The measure would also put into law a Newsom administration policy that requires all state agencies to negotiate for lower drug prices as a single entity.
It’s nuts, right? That’s why it felt icky. My husband and I talk through all the stuff on our ballots together and we really went back and forth on this one. Ultimately we did vote for it, probably because we kept reading that the AHF had funded at least half of all the other props we were voting on, most of which had nothing to do with healthcare. But I’m still not sure that was the right vote. I’ll be curious to see how it shakes out.
I’m also watching prop 36 because I see all these signs for it in my neighborhood, but I’m against it.