LOS ANGELES, CA – This election cycle, Californians delivered a devastating defeat to Michael Weinstein, President and Founder of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and Southern California-based political figure, with the defeat of Prop 33 and passage of Prop 34, according to Politico.
The official California Voter Information Guide stated Prop 33 would repeal a 1995 state law limiting counties’ and cities’ ability to implement rent control measures, whereas Prop 34 would require providers — specifically ones that utilize a federal discount prescription drug program — to spend 98 percent of their revenue on direct patient care.
As per the Associated Press, Prop 33 was handily defeated with 60.1 percent voting “No.” Prop 34, however, passed by a much smaller margin with only 50.8 percent voting “Yes.”
Although these two propositions may seem unrelated, POLITICO reporters Will McCarthy and Emily Schultheis claim Prop 33’s failure and Prop 34’s success were the “nightmare scenario” for Weinstein.
His political future will soon be determined by the “state entities charged with implementing Prop 34,” namely the attorney general, the Board of Pharmacy, and the Department of Public Health.
In an article published before Election Day, McCarthy detailed Weinstein’s rise to prominence in California politics. From its humble beginnings in 1987 as a “small advocacy non-profit,” AHF would become “one of the world’s largest HIV/AIDS healthcare providers.”
Weinstein, according to McCarthy, would eventually use AHF’s influence and financial power to further his political agenda, ranging from a Los Angeles County measure on condom use to statewide rent control initiatives (such as Prop 33).
McCarthy notes Weinstein’s influence over local and state politics has created “a long and varied list” of enemies. The most relevant enemy for this particular story is the California Apartment Association (CAA), a staunch opponent of rent control and the primary proponent of Prop 34.
“The (CAA) carefully cloaked (Prop 34) in medical jargon but their goal is unmistakable: curtailing Weinstein’s political spending once and for all,” writes McCarthy.
McCarthy isn’t the only reporter to express a critical opinion of Prop 34. The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board urged voters to “emphatically reject” Prop 34, claiming it to be a “weaponization of the state’s citizen initiative process” by the CAA against the AHF and, by extension, Weinstein.
This is because, as the Board explains, the AHF is the only healthcare provider in the state to spend less than 98 percent of its revenue on direct patient care.
Given the passing of Prop 34, McCarthy and Schulethis say that the attorney general, the Board of Pharmacy, and the Department of Public Health will determine AHF’s compliance by March 2026.
The POLITICO reporters also state that AHF’s non-compliance would constitute a “death warrant” — its medical licenses would be ‘permanently revoked’ and it would be barred from applying for new licenses and tax-exempt status until 2036.”
McCarthy and Schultheis do mention AHF has already begun the process of constitutional litigation, which is the most effective, and possibly only, means of staving off Prop 34; yet, AHF would still face an uphill battle.
“Prop 34 is written to insulate itself from such assaults, including a severability clause that states that if any aspect of the initiative is found to be invalid, the rest of the measure would still stand,” write McCarthy and Schultheis in Politico.
