Topline:
Prop. 34 says it would limit how certain health care organizations spend revenue from a federal discount drug program. But the campaign spending behind the scenes shows how it’s also part of a larger battle between two often opposing forces: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and California Apartment Association.
What have these groups been fighting about? Over the years, they’ve been on opposite sides of the battle over rent control. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has sponsored statewide propositions to expand rent control in California and the California Apartment Association has opposed them.
What does Prop. 34 have to do with it? If passed, health care organizations who fit certain criteria would have to spend 98% of their revenue from a federal discount drug program directly on patient services. As far as anyone can tell, only the AIDS Healthcare Foundation meets the criteria, and the organization has called it a “revenge initiative” for its past support of rent control policies.
How much money have they spent on Prop. 34 so far? As of Sept. 26, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has contributed $1 million to oppose the measure while the California Apartment Association Issues Committee has contributed $29.5 million.
Go deeper: LAist’s Voter Game Plan guide on Prop. 34
This is adapted from Make It Make Sense, our pop-up newsletter on the 2024 election that included a mini-series on campaign finance through the month of September. Make It Make Sense returns in November to break down the results of the general election. Sign up here.
Statewide propositions are confusing, and a major reason is that there’s often more to a ballot measure than meets the eye. For years, different groups have used propositions as bargaining chips or proxy wars for their larger goals, leaving voters on their own to figure out what’s going on.
Let’s peer behind the campaign spending curtain to get a sense of those behind-the-scenes battles and the power players funding them. We’ll explore Proposition 34, a health care measure that’s also part of an expensive multi-year battle that two groups — the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the California Apartment Association — have spent millions to wage through the years.
What’s Prop. 34?
It’s a state ballot measure that would limit how certain health care organizations spend revenue from a federal discount drug program. If passed, the measure would require these groups to spend 98% of the funds on providing health services to patients. Currently, federal and state law don’t restrict how health care providers spend these revenues. (You can read the official ballot summary here.)
As far as anyone can tell, Prop. 34 is written so narrowly that it seems to apply to only one group — the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Proponents of the measure have said the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has abused the federal discount drug program and that this measure would provide needed accountability.
Now let’s check out the money behind it.
Who’s funding support and opposition for Prop. 34
As of Sept. 25, $29.8 million had been raised to support Prop 34. That makes it among the top three propositions with the highest amount of contributions in the November election (along with Props. 33 and 35).
According to the California Secretary of State’s website, only one committee has been formed to support Prop. 34. So far, $29.5 million — almost all of the money this committee raised — has come from the California Apartment Association Issues Committee.
Meanwhile, one committee is raising money to oppose Prop. 34. As of Sept. 25, it had raised more than $1.2 million, and almost all of this committee’s funds come from one source, too: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
What’s going on?
What might be happening here is a proxy war — chess moves in a larger beef between California power players. Some of the signs are there: multi-million dollar spending; a single group raising funds on each side.
The No on 34 campaign has called Prop. 34 a “revenge initiative” and argued that the Yes campaign is unfairly targeting the nonprofit for its support of rent control measures.
The Yes on 34 campaign says Prop. 34 is about accountability for health care spending. Its campaign releases allege the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has “severely abused” the federal drug discount program at the center of the proposition. (You can read more about the arguments from both sides in our Prop. 34 voter guide.)
Let’s dig into the backstory to learn more.
How these groups spent money in past elections
The committee pages on the California Secretary of State’s website for both organizations (links below) allow you to search for contributions going back to 1999.
Notable contributions from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation to state and local ballot measure campaigns include:
- $6.3 million in the 2017 election to support L.A.’s Measure S, a proposal that would have imposed a two-year moratorium on new major development projects in L.A.
- $105,500 in the 2022 election to support Pasadena’s Measure H, which imposed new rent control regulations in the city
- $23.3 million in the 2018 election to support Prop. 10, $40.6 million in the 2020 election to support Prop. 21, and $43.4 million in the 2024 election (through Sept. 25) to support Prop. 33. All of these props are variations of the same state ballot measure, which would expand cities’ and counties’ ability to enact rent control.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation owns and operates housing for low-income residents, and its CEO, Michael Weinstein, has been a vocal supporter of rent control. The nonprofit also sponsored statewide rent control Props. 10 and 21, which failed in their respective elections. It’s once again sponsoring Prop. 33, another version of that same measure, in the November 2024 election.
Notable contributions from the California Apartment Association Issues Committee include:
- $180,000 in the 2018 election to support Prop. 1, a successful $4 billion bond measure for veteran housing
- $88,665 in the 2022 election to oppose Pasadena’s Measure H, which imposed new rent control regulations
- $140,000 in the 2018 election to oppose Prop. 10, $50,000 in the 2020 election to oppose Prop. 21, and $34.4 million in the 2024 election (through Sept. 25) to oppose Prop. 33, all variations of the same measure to expand cities’ and counties’ ability to enact rent control
- Many more contributions that opposed rent control and supported various tax and development measures in Northern California cities, including El Cerrito, Santa Rosa, Sacramento and San Francisco.
Note that this is not the only political committee tied to the California Apartment Association — there are several others, each with their own long list of contributions.
The contributions listed above show the two groups on opposite sides of the rent control issue going back at least to 2016. It’s also clear they’re deeply interested in local measures, not just statewide ones.
They also show that spending has escalated over the statewide rent control issue, including the measure on our ballot this year: Prop. 33. (You can read all about Prop. 33 in our Voter Game Plan guide.)
The takeaway
Scrutinizing past and present campaigns can help you figure out whether there’s something else going on behind that ballot measure you’re trying to decide on. And the more you look at campaign finance over time, the more familiar certain names start to become. In some cases, people and organizations place initiatives on the ballot, back candidates, fundraise to influence your vote — and show up election after election.
The better you’re able to recognize these players and track the money they’re raising, the bigger your window is into who’s wielding power in California and how they’re wielding it.
