The Yes and No campaigns are neck and neck when it comes to one of the most confusing statewide measures on the California ballot: Proposition 34, which concerns health care spending, but could also have implications for rent control and other housing. problems.

The race was close as the first results came in with 95% of precincts reporting partially, according to the secretary of state’s office.

Prop.34 would create new rules for how certain California health care providers spend revenue they earn selling pharmaceutical products through a particular federal program. What is not explicitly mentioned in the text of the measure is that it appears that only one organization would be affected by the change: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

The foundation, which provides health care in California and beyond to HIV and AIDS patients, is led by the controversial Michael Weinstein. Under his leadership, the foundation became a major player in housing policy at the national and local level. It also owns affordable housing developments in Los Angeles’ Skid Row neighborhood, where tenants have complained about habitability and health problems.

If Proposition 34 passes, it could force the AIDS Healthcare Foundation to abandon housing advocacy. That would likely leave a notable void in at least one area: the fight for statewide rent control reform.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has so far sponsored three ballot measures to enable the expansion of rent control in California (the first two failed and the third is this year’s). Proposition 33). If the foundation withdrew from that fight, it’s unlikely anyone else would take its place, said Sharon Rapport, California state policy director for the Corporation for Supportive Housing. Sponsoring a rent control initiative is both costly and politically fraught, as it risks alienating the powerful landlord lobby.

“I don’t know if too many organizations have the will and the funding to be able to put this on the ballot,” Rapport said. His organization has not taken a position on the proposal.

That means if Proposition 34 passes and Proposition 33 fails, there is little chance that statewide rent control reform will happen in the near future, Rapport said. The state Legislature could reform rent control without a vote, but that’s a political hot potato that many lawmakers don’t want to touch, she said.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation also threw its weight (and money) into other housing-related fights: it campaigned against legislation requiring local governments to approve denser housing and supported a failed project. two-year moratorium on certain real estate projects in Los Angeles.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation did not respond when CalMatters asked whether it would stop its housing advocacy work if Proposition 34 passes. But if the foundation is found to be spending its pharmaceutical revenue on things like rent control measures in violation of Prop. 34, it could lose its license to operate its medical clinics, which serve 16,000 patients in California.

That’s because the foundation participates in a federal program that gives health care providers a discount on pharmaceuticals in exchange for serving low-income and at-risk patients. Providers can then turn around and sell these drugs at retail prices, making a profit. Proposition 34 would require the foundation to devote 98 percent of revenue generated from drug sales to “direct patient care.”

As for the Yes for 34 campaign, this money should go to patients and not to political maneuvering in the housing sector.

“That’s obviously not what this program was designed to do,” said Yes on 34 spokesperson Nathan Click.

The other side sees the measure as an attempt to muzzle a nonprofit’s advocacy work.

“I think it’s very dangerous to set a precedent where organizations can be targeted like this just for helping communities,” said Susie Shannon, campaign director for No on 34. “It would be similar to what Tobacco company submits initiative to silence anti-smoking groups.

Supporters of Prop. 34 include the California Apartment Association, which also opposes the rent control measure Prop. 33.

Technically, Proposition 34 applies to any health care provider that participates in the federal drug program and also spends at least $100 million on expenses other than direct patient care, owns and operates apartment buildings and has accumulated at least 500 serious health and safety violations. over the last decade.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation appears to be the only entity that meets all of these criteria.

Because Proposition 34’s scope is so limited, if the measure passes, its next stop will be the courthouse.

“Because we don’t think it’s legal,” Shannon said.

The measure is unconstitutional, says the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, because it targets a single organization. The foundation has already been to court once over the measure, when it unsuccessfully tried to get the California Supreme Court to exclude it from the ballot. If voters approve the measure, the foundation has promised to challenge it again.

The other side insists that the proposal could apply more widely.

“We just have to wait and see what the attorney general says,” Click said. “There are a number of entities that could be covered.”