Here we go again with the "Pole" tax.

avatar for shadowcat
shadowcat
Atlanta suburb

Minneapolis' city attorney thinks she's found a way to curb juvenile sexual exploitation -- make strip clubs pay for it.

Susan Segal wants the City Council to consider asking the state for permission to impose a per-customer fee on venues offering nude or partially nude entertainment, using the money to combat child prostitution and sex trafficking. The council is slated to discuss the issue next month.

It stems from a similar fee in Texas, often dubbed a "pole tax," which recently withstood a First Amendment challenge in the state's Supreme Court. The 2007 law, signed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry, charges nude entertainment venues serving alcohol $5 per customer. A similar tax exists in Utah.

The proposal strikes Randall Tigue, a Twin Cities attorney who frequently represents strip clubs, as "blatantly unconstitutional" and even some groups that stand to benefit sound less than enthusiastic.

Segal knew her proposal would be controversial, especially among the local adult entertainment industry, but said support programs are stretched too thin. Their services will only become more vital under a new state law directing more juveniles who are involved in prostitution to diversion and support groups.

"A big challenge for everybody right now is funding," Segal said. "So I was thinking maybe this would be a source of funding for juvenile prostitution prevention and ... to fund some investigations of traffickers. Because that's a very resource-intensive activity for the police department."

The council must approve the proposal before the city lobbies for it at the Capitol. The proposed legislation would let municipalities decide whether to impose the fee, since the state limits local sales taxes. Segal is also investigating whether the city already has the authority to impose the fee.

Council member Elizabeth Glidden, chair of the council's lobbying committee, said a coalition of groups would need to support it for the proposal to move forward. So far, those groups don't seem thrilled about the idea.

"In my opinion we don't need the city to become one of our biggest pimps," said Vednita Carter, executive director of Breaking Free, a St. Paul support group for victims of abuse and sexual exploitation.

Carter said putting a fee on strip clubs would amount to a de facto endorsement of the business. "We're saying it's OK and we're going to also get our little piece of the money," Carter said. She added that larger door fees would create higher expectations of the dancers.

Artika Roller with the Family Partnership in Minneapolis said that group is concerned the fee will be passed directly to the dancers through higher "stage fees." That's a fee some clubs charge dancers who work as independent contractors.

"You're asking for victims to pay for victim services," said Roller, who runs the group's anti-prostitution program. The Family Partnership advocated for the new juvenile prostitution law.

"We're pleased that they're trying to find ways of stopping sexual exploitation of women and girls and young men," said Molly Greenman, president of the Family Partnership. "I don't know that [this fee] is the solution."

Segal has called the Austin city attorney's office in Texas to determine whether dancers bear the financial burden of the law. Even if they do, she said, policymakers could decide a benefit of the fee is making the profession a "less lucrative field."

Stark contrast

The reaction of several Minnesota advocates stands in contrast to Texas, where a sexual assault prevention group championed the law. The Texas law specifically targets sexual assault.

Rick Gipprich, communications director for the Austin-based Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, said his group initially had similar concerns. But it pushed forward because it was a reliable funding stream and the group saw a strong correlation between adult entertainment, alcohol abuse and sexual violence.

Many clubs are not collecting the fee during the legal dispute, but they have not yet seen a negative impact on the dancers. "We have not seen that yet, where the fee has been passed on to the dancers," Gipprich said, noting that it is more likely to be covered by higher entrance or drink charges. Clubs can also nix alcohol to avoid the fee.

Club owners in Texas remain in limbo as attorneys prepare to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Tigue, the Twin Cities attorney, said it violates the First Amendment.

"What it essentially does is impose a tax based upon on the content of constitutionally protected speech," Tigue said.

Two club owners deferred comment on the proposal until they have a chance to research the details. Angelina Spencer of the Association of Club Executives, a national trade group for "adult nightclubs," said the legislation is a "really controversial issue within the indstry."


Many executives oppose it because they believe in less government and less taxes. Others, however, believe the tax could give the industry more legitimacy. "So you've got two schools of thought going on here," Spencer said.

Eric Roper • 612-673-1732 Twitter: @StribRoper

15 comments

Jump to latest
avatar for deogol
deogol
13 years ago
Gambling was illegal until states needed money and lotto was born. Now gambling is in every corner store. This lead to casino's showing up in various cities outside of Las Vegas. Throw in Indian tribes opening casinos and there is one on just about every major and minor highway near a reservation.

There was plenty of talk about making marijuana a taxable item. I don't think it takes a genius to see where that is going.

In the past there was Prohibition. Any history text will discuss the tax revenue problems that occurred with alcohol becoming illegal - and this was during the depression!

There are plenty of examples where government got into the money making business with vice. All of them expanded.

These pole taxes might be the beginning of a new golden era for strip clubs.
avatar for deogol
deogol
13 years ago
As the saying goes, "if you owe the bank $100, you have a problem; if you owe the bank $100,000, the bank has a problem."
avatar for Dougster
Dougster
13 years ago
Good points, deogol. The Mustang Ranch in Nevada actually lobbies to get itself subject to state income tax as a route to legitimizing itself and its "industry". Also to get the government hooked on the revenue, no doubt. So far the state has resisted, but with real estate there imploding, I wonder how long for?
avatar for jackslash
jackslash
13 years ago
Interesting idea, deogol. If the government starts depending on strip club taxes, they will find all kinds of reasons why strip clubs are good instead of bad. I would pay a $5 a visit tax to see that happen.
avatar for sharkhunter
sharkhunter
13 years ago
Don't they already pay property taxes for the strip club, income taxes for all strip club employees?

I don't believe the answer for state government should be to increase taxes. They should cut out services they were not offering back several years ago. The city I live recycles all kinds of things. I believe it may be costing the city money to do this. They should just drop it if it is. Cities and government keep adding more spending but never cut it back out but always want to increase taxes first. This is another example.
avatar for Dougster
Dougster
13 years ago
I think deogol was talking about increasing the number of strip clubs out there so they would generate more tax revenue for governments to become dependent on.
avatar for Dudester
Dudester
13 years ago
I'm very active with the tea party. Tea Party leaders frequently appear on a couple of local radio shows.

With that said,

It's regrettable that politicians say that strip clubs are responsible for child prostitution and trafficking. Saying that is like saying that convenience stores are responsible for armed robbery. We're talking apples and oranges here, and politicians are taking the coward's way out on a power grab and a bid for more and more taxes.

What is needed is for a very vocal group of citizens to make local government show that every penny collected is properly used and not diverted to help the mayor's brother in law's catering business.
avatar for vincemichaels
vincemichaels
13 years ago
How about a politician tax? We could make zillions and solve the National Debt.
avatar for vincemichaels
vincemichaels
13 years ago
How about a politician tax? We could make zillions and solve the National Debt.
avatar for Alucard
Alucard
13 years ago
"Clubs can also nix alcohol to avoid the fee"

I say nix the alcohol.
avatar for deogol
deogol
13 years ago
How about punishing assholes instead of making the innocent pay.

Prepare for a rant.

What the fuck is it with every fucking broke ass government these days? I have to show my ID to buy spray paint and cough medicine because some fool wants to get high off of it. How is that my or the sellers fucking problem? The problem is the dude with a gold fucking nose.

Fucking put the rapists in jail for raping, don't make innocent alcohol drinkers pay for this misfits fucking crime. Strip clubs cause rape and sexual assault? How about the fucking bible with all it's children fucking - but you will never see that banned. Oh fuck no.

These governments are all fucking broke. They are a bunch of fucking meddlers as well as a protection racket.

OK rant over. I feel better now. Nothing like giving anger to someone else to feel better.
avatar for gatorfan
gatorfan
13 years ago
My pole is getting taxed
avatar for sharkhunter
sharkhunter
13 years ago
How about a politician tax increase? Every time a politician talks about raising any tax, they have to pay $1,000 dollars out of their own money to the people they represent. Make it income based as well, if they are already rich, and I define rich as having a bigger income than the general populatin, or just about every politician, make that tax just be 5% of their gross income every time they talk about raising taxes.
avatar for sharkhunter
sharkhunter
13 years ago
Just think how many tax problems would go away if cities started making churches and other current non taxable property become taxable. I really don't see why all these groups should be tax exempt. I mean if the Baptists think they have to have a gazillion churches and another group only has one or two church buildings, everyone should pay their fair share in taxes instead of putting everything on homeowners and regular businesses.
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now