Who says politics and money are not important to all aspects of the adult entertainment industry? Anyone who believes that such have little to no impact on this industry is living in a fairy tale world. The last election shows just how important politics is on the growth of every aspect of the adult entertainment industry and how money as a part of such needs to be a continuing commitment for the industry to muster and use to get its message across. This article also serves as a cautionary note — beware — Democrats come with their own baggage for this industry and we must get ahead of the curve or find ourselves at their mercy, too. Their baggage, in fact, is potentially more problematic for certain aspects of the industry — most notably in the form of regulation and taxes.On January 4th, 2007, the 110th Congress of the United States convened with Democrats holding the majority in both houses for the first time since 1994. The electorate, tired of scandal, and little to nothing being accomplished on Iraq and the economy, gave the Democrats a significant majority in the House and, by virtue of several upsets in key Senate races, a 49-49 split with 2 independents (Lieberman in Connecticut and Sanders in Vermont) who vote with the Democrats, giving them a 51-49 advantage. The impact of this dynamic change will be both subtle and obvious, in the near and long term. It is now extremely doubtful that a bill such as HR 4472 or its ilk will pass through Congress in the means and manner that Congressman Pence and Senator Hatch pushed this through in 2006. The pounding rhetoric of Congressman Pence, Senator Brownback, and their like will be limited to minority reports since they will be unable to chair and/ or call congressional subcommittee meetings on the ills of the adult entertainment industry. Strangely enough, it is usually the ones that scream the loudest about child pornography or the adult industry as a whole who many times act that way to hide their own issues (see for example former Congressman Mark Foley, etc. – a fact not lost on the media during the last election campaign).
The Supreme Court will not see added to it, if a vacancy occurs in the next two (2) years, a conservative of the ideologies of Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas and/ or Roberts. Individuals of that ideology will never be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee or the Senate as a whole. More moderate possibilities, in the mold of Justice Kennedy or Souter, will more readily receive approval and it will now be the Democrats who will have their finger on the so-called “nuclear option” eliminating the filibuster issue as former Senate majority leader Bill First waived every time it looked like a Bush nominee to the federal bench was in trouble. (Footnote – Justices Kennedy and Souter were both nominees of Republican presidents; in fact, of the nine (9) Supreme Court justices presently sitting – only Beyer and Ginsberg were appointed by a Democratic president). Furthermore, it will be as equally difficult for the President to attempt to appoint ideologues to the federal district / appellate bench for the same reasons, especially since individual senators must sign off on judicial nominees (in places such as Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Missouri, Ohio and Montana where Democrats now hold both Senate seats or where a Democrat replaces a Republican in the Senate). Judges similar to the types approved in the last term of the Clinton administration will probably be the norm; more moderate and clearly less conservative.
Additionally, the notion that the Democrats only exist on the East and West Coast and nowhere else has been clearly debunked. Democrats hold more governorships than they have held in more than a generation. Democrats won big in North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, and Montana as to the House and Senate races. The landscape for 2008 is now much more moderate, apparently less polarized and more likely to present a very different cast of characters for possible presidential timber two (2) years hence. Who would have believed that Republicans would consider a moderate former Mayor of New York City as a possible front runner or that a Democrat who is a female or a male African-American could be the next leader of the free world? But the names Giuliani, Clinton, and Obama are not sending Americans of either political party into the streets screaming for a candidate who speaks to God or shills for the religious right.
Furthermore, who would have conceived that the voters of Scottsdale, Arizona and Seattle, Washington would send a clear message to their elected leaders by voting down bans on gentlemen’s clubs? These two (2) examples should also serve as a clear and convincing message to the adult entertainment industry that local politics and money do impact the way we are perceived by the politicians. Politicians read statistics exceptionally well, so let us try some out for size:
(1) By a margin of 53-percent – 47-percent, voters in Scottsdale voted down strict rules on the city’s two (2) exotic clubs.
(2) But there is even a better number as to such – the clubs raised almost $250,000.00 in political contributions to their cause, almost all of which were above the reporting threshold. They outspent their opponents almost 25 to 1.
(3) By a margin of 63-percent – 37-percent, voters in Seattle rejected strict new rules on the city’s exotic clubs.
(4) The clubs raised almost $900,000.00 in political contributions to their cause, almost all of which were above the reporting threshold.
(5) All of this prompted Seattle Mayor Greg Nichels to comment — “the defeat of the rules has created a financial motive to have strip clubs in the city.”
Simply amazing, a complete 360 degree turn once the voters have spoken.
In that same vein, also in the guise of new math, who would have predicted the following — all of which are an anathema to the religious right and should serve this industry as a beacon that when voters are given the chance to express their views, they are more moderate than politicians give them credit for:
(1) Arizona – the home of Barry Goldwater, John Kyle and John McCain voted down a ban on same sex marriages;
(2) South Dakota – a state that voted Tom Daschle out of the Senate two (2) years ago for a hero of the religious right, by a margin of 56-percent – 44-percent voted down a comprehensive ban on abortion, which was supposed to form a test case to Roe v. Wade;
(3) Missouri – the home of former Attorney General John Danforth, by approximately 50,000 votes, amended the Missouri Constitution by allowing for stem cell research to occur within the State.
Finally, one can not let this article go without some real words of caution as to the Democratic majority and the concept of moderation of voters throughout the United States. First off, the Congressional Democrats, in the last Congress, pushed for the concept of .XXX domain name, mandatory labeling and a tax on the adult entertainment/ internet industry. It is far from coincidental that the .XXX domain name is resurrected less than forty-eight (48) hours after the Democratic Congress is sworn in? Did ICANN take the opportunity to claim that before the Pryor/Bachus legislation becomes a reality that the adult “ghetto” should be implemented? Only time will tell. The Democrats want to be shown as strong on the issue of child pornography and while they do not believe in killing off adult entertainment, as the Republicans do, the possibility of further and more pervasive regulation/labeling is clearly on the horizon.
Second, with a Bush Administration seemingly deprived of congressional opportunities to impose their will on the adult community, we will probably now see more §2257 inspections, as DOJ tests the limits of Judge Miller’s decision and/or more obscenity prosecutions, depending on the outcomes of the COPA case in Philadelphia and the Extreme Associates case in Pittsburgh. The COPA case continues on trial as this article is being written, while Extreme Associates is supposed to go to trial later this year. Third, there will be continuing attempts to regulate/restrict adult establishments by zoning/land use and/ or outright attempts to ban them, all under guise of the “secondary effects” test. The gentlemen’s club industry has learned the lesson of politics and zoning (as described earlier), but there will be continued attempts at such, as long as people like Scott Bergthold can con politicians into believing that he holds the magic bullet when it comes to zoning/ land use ordinances. Then again, maybe this will be the year that the politicians figure out they are spending more in legal fees than the revenues/taxes these establishments create for the municipalities in question.
However, it is abundantly clear that 2007 brings a new day and light into the adult entertainment industry. We believe that this is a brighter, more positive light for all aspects of the industry and that while we will always need to be ever more vigilant, the industry seems to be grasping on to the tools and wherewithal necessary to solidify this billion dollar business for may years to come.
