AUSTIN, TX — It’s no surprise that lawmakers are nearly always eager to find a new revenue source. It’s even less of a surprise that adult entertainment establishments are prime candidates for any fees, taxes, or other revenue generating bright ideas that government can cook up. The fact that attorneys for adult entertainment establishments fight what their clients see as oppressive, discriminatory, and unfair money grabs based on stereotypes shouldn’t surprise anyone. Hopefully it’s not coming as too much of a shock to the brave men and women in the Texas legislature. Customers entering any Texas strip club after January 1st will find themselves paying an extra $5 for the privilege. Why? Because lawmakers want strip clubs to finance sexual assault prevention and health care for the uninsured.
The clubs, understandably, resent the insinuation that their presence is responsible for sexual assault and so, as the Texas Entertainment Association, have filed suit in Travis County, requesting that the state-mandated fee be blocked on the grounds that it violates free speech rights, is discriminatory, and attempts to link their customers to rape.
Although the Attorney General’s office has vowed to uphold the fee, pundits don’t expect they will have much success, given that a proposed 2004 strip club fee that attempted to force the businesses to finance education was deemed inappropriate and required a real stretch of the imagination to justify.
“Clearly, we’re disappointed by the lawsuite,” Annette Burrhus-Clay, the executive director for the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault told the press. “We were really hoping this industry would see this as an opportunity to do something positive for the communities they’re in.”
Why strip clubs have been singled out from all adult businesses was not explained. Likewise, why nightclubs, discos, concert halls, taverns, bars, and other mainstream businesses that serve alcohol and provide entertainment to horny men and women who often go home with one another to have sex while under the influence haven’t been asked to “do something positive for the communities they’re in” was not addressed.
“Exotic nude dancing is protected speech under the First Amendment” the lawsuit insists, adding that “It singles out income derived from protected speech for a burden the state places on no other income.”
Burrhus-Clay insists that no one involved with the bill is trying to claim that strip clubs or adult entertainment venues are in any way associated with sex crimes; instead, they acknowledge that the businesses are seen as deep pockets for under funded programs.
Lawmakers hope to raise as much as $40 million each year that the fee is in place, with more than half of that amount being directed to sexual assault services.
Supporters of the fee have demanded to know where representatives for the erotic dance clubs were when they were creating the legislation, insisting that they were never contacted by anyone who thought the idea was anything but golden.
Meanwhile, Burrhus-Clay joins others whose focus is entirely on the fact the fee could do good, not that the method of procuring it might be unethical. “At this point, the law is the law,” she observes, “They can’t just take it back.”
Simply because the law is the law doesn’t mean that any of the money will go to Burrhus-Clay’s pet projects, however. If the matter becomes legally disputed, any funds raised could very well be retained by the state comptroller’s office until the matter is resolved.
Technically, strip clubs could opt to keep their entry-fees the same, generously putting aside $5 for every person who walks through the doors.
