Matt Writes:

Because MAK6 (Diane Duke) has mentioned our lobbying firm in a derogatory manner in this forum, I would like to set the record straight on a few things as I have personal knowledge on the below.

All testimony on behalf of a client, as in the AB 2914 (Calderon) testimony before the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee, is always carefully scripted and approved by the client in advance. Accordingly, my testimony was approved by FSC. After the testimony Diane Duke personally congratulated me in front of many people and stated exactly “You were excellent.” Other people overheard this congratulatory remark, and for anyone in FSC to now come back and say the testimony or strategy was objectionable clearly points to other motives.

I have met Diane Duke twice in San Francisco while on FSC business, and both times she was stayed at the W Hotel on 3rd Street. Each time in Sacramento she stayed at the Sheraton. I personally don’t care where she stays, or how she spends FSC money, but to say she only stayed on couches and the Holiday Inn is simply inaccurate.

Mr. Calderon’s relationship with me and Capital Alliance is fine, and just the other day I carded him off of the Assembly Floor and we again met. No lawmaker is required to come off of the Floor to meet with anyone, as it is entirely discretionary.
Mr. Calderon recognizes, as the rest of us do, the only attack made was specifically on the legislation as is done in the Capitol.

Capital Alliance continues to be influential in the Capitol and elsewhere. My efforts on AB 2914 has not harmed that. The successful strategy to defeat AB 2914 was lined up more than a year prior when AB 1551 was introduced, and AB 2914’s defeat proceeded exactly as planned and predicted. That we were able to initially block the legislation by the Chair (Calderon) in his own committee is no small feat, and was largely due to the competent efforts of Association of Club Executives (ACE) of California, thus providing the icing on the cake. This large mobilization gave free press and wide visibility to our movement, as it showed their ability to organize and bring mass quantities of people to the Capitol on short notice – something only large labor union have been able to do until that day.

The last FSC Celebrate Free Speech Lobbying Days kickoff was held in the Governor’s private Press Room, which Capital Alliance arranged. In the entire history of these lobbying days prior, this had never happened and was a favor to Capital Alliance. I don’t expect FSC to enjoy such access and success again.

FSC is now indeed ineligible for representation through Capital Alliance for reasons which are unimportant to this forum. Interestingly enough a review of the recently distributed FSC Ethics & Best Practices shows some glaring omissions including honoring agreements and follow-through on commitments. Capital Alliance notified FSC of its intent to terminate them as a client in the 2nd quarter of 2008, but then reconsidered and allowed the representation to continue on a probationary status after receiving an apology from Diane Duke and a commitment to change.

Those changes did not occur, but within the probationary period FSC themselves terminated due to the content of Capital Alliance’s bimonthly articles (which were free to the client as a courtesy), in which I defended the material misrepresentations of an actress who was being publicly defamed within the industry for alleged illegal act(s), and for which I had personally reviewed the documents and had personal knowledge as to her innocence. The point of the article was for the industry to not draw unnecessary negative attention to itself while lawmakers like Calderon were looking for any reason to attack (and tax) over negative secondary effects.

In addition to creating negative exposure for itself, the adult entertainment industry misses great opportunities, such as one which was agreed to but missed by FSC to have every adult business in California mark every dollar that came through their business with a pre-designated “FSC” or “1st” or something so that over a 3-month campaign during the busiest part of the year (October, November, December), it could be publicized in the following January. People watching the January news event could pull out their wallet to find one or more marked bills which once passed through the adult entertainment industry. How better to show the public the importance of adult entertainment to California’s economy? The ball was dropped by FSC on this one entirely.

When Shelley Lubben testified on behalf of AB 2914 and claimed everyone in the industry is hooking, using drugs, spreading disease, and more, FSC blocked efforts into researching her past and discrediting her claims.

When legislation to protect trademark infringements and copyright violations was presented, the legislative records will show that FSC remained absolutely silent. Aren’t legitimate adult businesses greatly harmed by those “free” sites that steal content?

Beyond that, FSC has on numerous occasions asserted that: 1) the adult entertainment industry is not controversial to society; 2) doing research on a lawmaker who continues to attack the industry to understand weaknesses is “unethical and immoral”; and 3) the industry can stave off attacks by simply educating people.

As a political strategist who has nearly 2 decades of experience the Capital, I respectfully disagree with the political ‘logic’ of FSC; and without fail, every single Capitol person (lawmakers, staff, and lobbyists), who have learned of FSC’s political vision has laughed heartily and shook their head in disbelief. This is not the 1980’s.

Logic and reason only go so far in the Capitol. Where logic and reason fail, politicians are certainly responsive to pain, and learning about one’s opponents is valuable. Information is powerful and can stop an opponent in their tracks. Research into opponents is essential, as common sense dictates.

There are plenty of groups made up of supporters which greatly outnumber all of the adult entertainment professionals, who do not care about being educated about the legitimacy of adult entertainment businesses. Education is not enough, and adult entertainment professionals would be well served to recognize this.

Capital Alliance was successful in stopping legislation from even being introduced to outlaw the paid nude performance of anyone under 21 years of age. It also successfully defeated legislation to require mandatory blinder racks on adult printed materials, the classification of adult businesses in the same category as sex offender housing, and orchestrated the defeat of all of the tax efforts against adult entertainment. All of those lawmakers and a significant portion of their constituents find adult entertainment to be extremely controversial. Again, some common sense here.

Right now the Legislature is in Special Session as California grapples with a $40 billion budget shortfall over the next 24 months. The official Secretary of State records still show Capital Alliance as the last representatives for FSC (months ago), and as of today FSC still has no representation. Not to suggest after all this that FSC needs a lot of help, but FSC still shows me as a contributing writer to their newsletter, and I clearly am not.

I do hope FSC can pull their act together, for the sake of the adult entertainment industry, and have strongly encouraged them to seek new representation for more than 2 months now in anticipation of the Special Session. While I greatly appreciate the purpose and efforts of the adult entertainment industry, cleaving ties with FSC was like removing a millstone from around my neck. When we first accepted FSC as a client we lost a client who specifically stated they want nothing to do with the adult entertainment industry in any way. After no longer representing FSC we have picked up new clients. Despite the best efforts to educate, controversy clearly remains.

The industry needs to stick together, but would be well served to have the best leadership in place. I wish everyone well and a prosperous new year.

I think MAK is Mark Kernes but in so far as the FSC goes they are the same person, Mark will go along with thatever Diane says.  The rest of it…Right on!