Political Proposition - Who is Funding and Benefiting

When you take the time to look into propositions and pieces of legislation (and who is donating to them and why) you may find alternative, selfish motives, or logical motives, that nevertheless propel an agenda of the donator forward. 

I looked into California's Proposition 60. Voting "yes" on this prop. meant that voters supported "requiring the use of condoms and other protective measures during the filming of pornographic films, as well as requiring pornography producers to pay for certain health requirements and checkups." Voting no, on the other hand, meant a voter opposed the use of condoms and other safety measures during the filming of pornographic films. 

Surprisingly, "no" won with a 53.67% majority, meaning Prop. 60 was defeated, and porn actors are not required to wear protection or practice sexual health when filming. 

Curious as to why a proposition meant to help adult film workers from disease and have a safe workplace environment would be shut down, I looked into the amount of money given to each side. I was shocked to find that those in support of the prop actually donated far more money, and still lost. ($4,687,830 compared to just $555,354). 

Those who donated in support of the proposition included: Aids Healthcare Foundation and Healthy Los Angeles, a corporations in favor of sexual health. The main contributor against was California Against Worker Harassment, Sponsored by the Free Speech Coalition. 

While the passing of this bill would have reduced state and local tax by several million dollars a year, it would also increase state costs (to a lesser degree) to license and regulate adult film production.

So why did people vote yes on a prop. that would make them pay more in taxes, and increased adult film workers chances of disease? It seems that people feel regulating porn infringes on free speech: 
According to one case: "The measure also required producers of adult films to pay an annual fee to Los Angeles County's Department of Public Health. Vivid Entertainment, a pornography firm, initiated a lawsuit in an attempt to get Measure B overturned. Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce, pornography workers, joined as plaintiffs. Paul Cambria, the plaintiffs' attorney, viewed the initiative as violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He argued that the measure imposed an unconstitutional restraint on workers' freedom of expression."

This was never the aim of the proposition, according to supporters. Their goal was to hold producers/agents/directors accountable, not performers. But according the the argument against, on voterguide.com, "The proponent wants you to believe this is about worker safety. But this disguises the real impact of the measure: the creation of an unprecedented LAWSUIT BONANZA that will cost taxpayers "millions of dollars" and threatens the safety of performers."

Those against claim that, "The proponent wants you to believe this is about worker safety. But this disguises the real impact of the measure: the creation of an unprecedented LAWSUIT BONANZA that will cost taxpayers "millions of dollars" and threatens the safety of performers."
And perhaps they were correct, because the proposition was not passed, despite having far more funding. 

Sources:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_in_Pornographic_Films_(2016)

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1356566&session=2015

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1385139&session=2017

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/60/arguments-rebuttals.htm

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/09/501405749/condom-mandate-for-porn-industry-falls-short-in-california