Well, if you live in California, Proposition 60 is an important issue this election.
The law also specially names the author of the law (Michael Weinstein) and requires the state to pay for his legal bills in "enforcing" the law.
The reason this is even an issue is that Michael Weinstein (whom I liken to "Jenny McCarthy meets Martin Shkreli"[0]) was pissed that OSHA didn't rule his way in his lawsuit against porn studio Treasure Island Media[1][2], so he took this statewide as an act of vengeance.
[0] Aside from being virulently anti-science, he's also behind Prop 61, which ostensibly reduces the price of HIV drugs, but in actuality includes a special carve-out for the HMO he runs, locking in guaranteed profit for himself.
[1] OSHA basically said "okay, you didn't use condoms when filming, but that's only worth a $100 fine, just as if you didn't have a first-aid kit on-site".
[2] If you're at work right now, you Google that name at your own risk
After reading https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_i..., I found out that, yes, this proposition really is that terrible.
I was surprised by this, too, so I dug up the full text. The only places I can find Weinstein's name are in the letterhead and the signature on the cover letter. Search for yourself: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0004%20%...
In other words, someone pirates an old (pre-prop60) video, uploads it to a sharing site, someone can use it to sue the producers and the producers have to prove the video was produced and released before Prop-60 was enacted.
Am I reading that right?
I don't know enough about CA law to interpret what the second rule means--it sounds like it should mean at most a year from the date the video is posted, but the wording makes it imply that there's effectively no statue of limitations. It truly is horrible if you read the actual text.
At first glance, it's presented as a way to reduce the price of HIV drugs. In reality, it's a way for Michael Weinstein to pad his pockets, at the expense of the VA. (He wrote the bill and included a special provision that guarantees his HMO a special exemption from the price cap).
Michael Weinstein, you may remember, is the same man who committed $20 million in Medicaid fraud in LA county a few years ago. He then claimed that the federal case against him had no legal standing because the federal government cannot prosecute for fraud against state-level agencies (Medicaid). Fortunately, the judge was not convinced by that reasoning.
Prop 1 is an initiative to "help educate the children of Olympia", using a little tax to help pay for college tuition. So noble!
Except: it proposes a levy on households of $200K or more (not constitutional in Washington), is an income tax, also not constitutional in Washington, requires the city of Olympia to fund the administration with no enforcement clauses, and multiple groups have already announced that they intend to sue the City if it's passed (which it will, because it's a 'think of the kids' measure), and the City knows it won't win but could not get the measure struck off so is already budgeting for constitutional lawyers. Hell, the City doesn't have the authority to see these people's tax statements, so it'd rely entirely on self-reporting. It's just a mess.
So you look a bit closer, and who is pushing this bill? A bunch of locals concerned about local education.
No. A bunch of multi-millionaires from Seattle who want to use this as a proving ground for their challenges to state taxation law. Of the top ten donors, not one has ever lived in the County, let alone the City, nor does any of them have any children who attended school in either. (Olympia, like most state capitals, is far smaller than the largest city in the state), which makes you wonder why they're not pushing this in Seattle/King County - probably because they don't want their own taxes going to fund the defense of a proposition that's very specifically unconstitutional.
"Think of the kids" at its worst.
Bear in mind, too, that the City did try to get it struck off on admin grounds as it was being proposed and I believe a court agreed that it was unconstitutional, but that the law didn't allow for a Proposition to be preemptively stuck down on those grounds.