There was no doubt about the legislative intent. During the 2003 Legislature, lawmakers contemplated the details of a record tax hike. State Sen. Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, figured the valley's strip clubs had plenty of extra money lying around.
So Sen. Titus introduced her 10 percent "live entertainment tax," targeting it specifically at clubs where young ladies perform in various states of undress. "You can justify a tax when an industry creates a special burden," Sen. Titus explained, "and the adult industry certainly does that."
Advertisement
Dancers create an extra burden on the taxpayers because they work as independent contractors and don't receive health insurance, Sen. Titus explained. The existence of the nude and topless clubs also creates an additional burden on social service and law enforcement agencies, the gubernatorial hopeful contends.
This is nonsense.
First, as ACLU general counsel Allen Lichtenstein points out, "She's flat out wrong. The only justification for special taxes is to pay for administrative costs. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that First Amendment businesses can't be singled out for special taxes."
But more stunningly, can Sen. Titus really be so ignorant of the kind of money that dancers at these establishment earn? For many, it's enough to support a quite handsome lifestyle while flying in from other cities for a two-day work week.
Yes, as with professional athletes, one hopes they're investing wisely for a day when their physical talents may desert them. But the notion that many of these ladies will be sleeping in the park under a shopping cart on Saturday night or waiting in line for free midnight medical care at the UMC emergency room is laughable.
Does Sen. Titus think the clubs' customers -- mostly out-of-towners eager to spend hundreds of dollars per night -- will soon be signing up for local rent assistance? If "numbers of police calls" justified extra taxes, the first surcharges should surely go to roadhouse taverns and apartment complexes that rent to young, unmarried, alcoholic couples. Right?
"If you look at how many times police respond to our club, it's not that often," says Dolores Eliades, general manager of the Olympic Garden. "And the state is making money on all the business licences and the sheriff's cards that dancers have to have."
Tuesday, the owners of eight of the valley's best-known strip clubs filed suit in federal court against the entertainment tax, seeking its repeal and a refund of the millions of dollars it's already cost them. The lawsuit says the tax is a violation of their First Amendment rights of expression, and that the implementation process has become so riddled with exemptions that its collection has become "arbitrary and capricious."
The ACLU, which repeatedly warned lawmakers at the outset that the tax was unconstitutional, plans to file a brief in support.
Some may cringe at the assertion that the old bump 'n' grind enjoys the same First Amendment protection as significant novels, theater, journalism or painting. But, in fact, once censors get started, they never know when to stop. The courts hold properly when they rule it's none of the bureaucrats' business to decide when such expressions or performances are "elevated" or "high-toned" enough to deserve constitutional protection.
Besides, given the obvious intent here to single out one type of business simply because some lawmakers don't like it or because it brings a Willie Sutton gleam to their eyes -- an impression reinforced by the subsequent granting of exemptions to many kinds of "live entertainment" other than that offered by the plaintiffs -- this tax is unfair and inequitable on its face, before the First Amendment concerns are even reached.
Taxes are supposed to be the same for everyone. In a free country, those who invest wisely and make a lot of money are not supposed to be singled out for "special extractions."
If Sen. Titus wants to go down to Treasures or Little Darlings and pass the hat on Saturday nights, urging the dancers there to voluntarily support her favorite charities, she is free to do so.
