A Taxing Concern to the Porn Industry

Perhaps you saw the story the other day about how the Rev. Jerry Falwell and pornmeister Larry Flynt have become so chummy. But have no fear, the war over family values still rages and two major San Fernando Valley employers are under assault.

The Southern Baptists escalated their campaign against the Walt Disney Co. on Wednesday by voting to boycott anything associated with Mickey Mouse. When the words Disney and obscene occur in the same sentence, the subject is usually executive compensation. The Southern Baptists, however, have long accused Disney of being soft on homosexuality; “Ellen” was the last straw.

Our proud pornography industry, meanwhile, marched to Sacramento this week to battle a bill that would put more sizzle into California’s sin taxes. Given that there are already special taxes on liquor and tobacco, state Sen. Charles M. Calderon (D-Montebello) proposed a 5% levy on X-rated video rentals, strip club admissions and phone sex.

What did the porno industry have to say about this? I turned to the back pages of the LA Weekly, found an ad that looked good and called 976-4SEX.

I heard no ring, no breathy voice. There was an odd, sing-songy dial tone. It was then that I remembered the company had fixed the phone system to prevent people from making such calls.

*

Eventually I found somebody more conventional to defend pornography’s honor. Jeffrey Douglas is a lawyer and executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, a lobbying group for “adult-oriented” businesses. Douglas was in Sacramento this week along with more than 40 other industry representatives to meet each legislator and get some publicity in the process.

Tuesday’s press conference, Douglas said, went well and was heavily covered by print and TV media. The Associated Press quoted an X-rated film actress named Shyla Foxxx (“We are your next-door neighbors. It’s unfair to tax us.”) and included a note to editors explaining that, yes, her name is really spelled Foxxx. As far as family values are concerned, speakers pointed out the proposed 5% porno tax would unfairly burden low-income couples who rely on an occasional video to spice up their relationships. One person’s filth is another’s marital aid.

Things got more serious Wednesday as the debate moved to a hearing of the Senate’s Revenue and Taxation Committee. Although the bill has found supporters among moral conservatives, Calderon emphasized he wasn’t trying to moralize so much as raise money. “We’re not taxing porn because of its message,” he says. “We’re taxing it because it exists and because there are problems associated with it.”

Calderon estimated his tax could raise $50 million annually in California. That money, he said, could be disbursed by the Department of Justice to local law enforcement agencies, rape crisis centers and battered women’s shelters. The California Sheriffs Assn., a Los Angeles Police Department representative and a group called the Coalition Against Sexual Assault were among those who spoke in favor of Calderon’s bill.

Suggestions that pornography leads to rape and spousal abuse are fighting words to the Free Speech Coalition. As an expert witness, the coalition introduced a professor who said his research debunked such notions. It had a law professor explain why the bill could not withstand a constitutional challenge. Also defending the pornographers’ point of view were several parties generally considered more respectable, such as Time Warner, the Motion Picture Assn. of America (MPAA) and the cable TV industry.

It wasn’t just the imposition of a tax and a likely loss of revenue that bothered cable companies, Douglas said. “They don’t want to be characterized as supporting material that causes domestic abuse.”

And interestingly, even some who see a link objected to the bill. “You are asking us to use blood money to treat rape victims,” said Gail Abarbanel, director of the Rape Treatment Center at Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center.

Calderon points out that criminal fines paid by convicted rapists already help fund such programs. But in the end he took a drubbing anyway. Not a single member of the Revenue and Taxation Committee voted in favor of his bill. In the end there were five no votes and four abstentions. Among the no votes were arguably the most liberal member of the Senate in John Burton (D-San Francisco) and the most conservative in Pete Knight (R-Palmdale).

“How can they both be right?” Calderon asked.

*

The lawmaker says he’ll amend the bill to address constitutional concerns and try again. In the meantime, he seems intrigued by the common ground shared by pornographers and mainstream studios.

Perhaps all they share is a noble concern for freedom of expression. But maybe, just maybe, Hollywood is aware of another slippery slope, concerning taxes.

We pay 8 1/4% sales tax when we buy diapers, textbooks and school supplies, but not a dime for a ticket to see “Con Air.” You could look it up. More proof that there’s no business like show business.

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Readers may write to him at The Times’ Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth 91311, or via e-mail at scott.harris@latimes.com Please include a phone number.