Strip Clubs Try To Block State's $5 Charge
 

(SF)

AUSTIN -- A coalition of strip clubs has filed a lawsuit seeking to block a state law that would add a $5 surcharge for every strip club visitor.

The new fee, which was approved this year by the Texas Legislature, is set to take effect on Jan. 1. It's expected to raise about $40 million to be dispersed for sexual assault prevention programs and health care for the uninsured.

The Texas Entertainment Association and Karpod, Inc., the operator of an Amarillo club, filed the lawsuit Wednesday in Travis County against Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Comptroller Susan Combs.
Click here to find out more!

The lawsuit argues that the fee would amount to an unconstitutional tax on nude dancing, a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. It also says the measure unfairly targets strip clubs, while not including modeling studios and adult video arcades. Strip club owners have said that the fee unfairly links their customers to rape.

"Exotic nude dancing is protected speech under the First Amendment," the lawsuit says. "It (the fee) singles out income derived from protected speech for a burden the state places on no other income."

The state doesn't keep a record of how many strip clubs there are in Texas, but the comptroller's office says there are 151 sexually oriented businesses that serve alcohol.

Officials from the attorney general's office said they will seek to uphold the fee.

Rep. Ellen Cohen, a Houston Democrat who supported the fee, said the strip club owners didn't speak up when the bill was designed.

"I didn't hear from them then," she said. "If this money gets held up, it's very detrimental to what we're trying to do."

Annette Burrhus-Clay, executive director of the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, said she was disappointed by the lawsuit.

"We were really hoping this industry would see this as an opportunity to do something positive for the communities they're in," she said. "We're going to fight it because we believe in the merits of our position."

An attorney for the plaintiffs declined comment.

A hearing on the case hasn't been set, but the plaintiffs hope it will be before the surcharge takes effect next month.

The surcharge funds aren't due to the comptroller's office until April, meaning the agency could choose to hold onto the money and not disperse it until the case is resolved.

Well, well, well. Look what we have here.

:yikes: Another First Amendment lawsuit. :yikes:

I guess there is some merit in that silly old establishment clause after all!

I rank this right up there with the cigarette tax they have continually raised. Anything that a people enjoy and have done for years,but what some don't like, they TAX the hell out of.

I have had to learn all about the "governement" here in Texas the last two years.
It's very strange... the people elected often do not seem to have the values of most of the citizens... they (elected officials) are almost always MUCH more conservative than those they "represent"

I think the tax is a nuisance thing, plus neant to be a source of income for the state. I bet most of the money gets diverted to to other things anyway.

About Texas... Please read my "News" post in General Chat...

I though it was pretty typical of how this state works.



WW

Another nice touch is that the proceeds from these punitive taxes is then very visibly, loudly, publicly, ostentatiously spent on politically correct programs, such as “educating our children”, or “providing shelters for [pregnant teenagers / people in drug recovery / the destitute]” (select one or more), or in this instance “sexual assault prevention programs and health care for the uninsured”.

With this in the background, if anyone is unwise enough to stand up and say “stop screwing over the [smokers / men who enjoy watching naked women dance / women who like to watch naked men dance / etc. ]” (select one), THAT’S the poor SOB who is labeled as the bad guy! Note the "If this money gets held up, it's very detrimental to what we're trying to do." in the opening post.

Off camera, there is commonly the admission “... anyway it just applies to the [X]s. Who cares what THEY say! They shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing in the first place”.

Plus, the people that wrote this legislation are tacitly implying some link between guys in titty bars & sexual assaults, thus giving the authors some sense of a phony moral high ground...

I might be less frightened by these trends if I could say, "Well, it's Texas, what do ya expect"...what's troubling is that Texas is rapidly replacing Califorinia as the bellweather state for where the rest of the country is heading...