No State Money for Gangsta Rap

Original: “Texas acts against gangsta rap” · Associated Press, reprinted in the Las Vegas Sun · no byline · June 7, 1997

In June 1997, Texas is on the verge of shifting the fight against gangsta rap to the financial markets. Tucked away in an approximately 900-page budget bill is a clause intended to bar Texas agencies from holding stock in companies whose artists glorify violence or degrade women. Texas would thus become the first U.S. state with such a rule.

Millions from State Pension Funds

Affected by the law would be Seagram, the parent company of Universal, which holds the rights to songs by Snoop Doggy Dogg and Tupac Shakur. Substantial sums are at stake: the state employees’ pension fund held around $8.4 million in Seagram stock, the university system $3.8 million. Governor George W. Bush can hardly stop the clause individually within the overall budget package, even though angry radio DJs have already approached him about it.

The RIAA Senses Censorship by Installments

Republican Senator Bill Ratliff defends the plan: If the lyrics cannot be printed in a newspaper, why should they be allowed to be pumped into the heads of thirteen-year-olds for hours? Hilary Rosen of the industry association RIAA, by contrast, speaks of censorship by installments and announces a lawsuit. Country stars like Willie Nelson, after all, are not screened either. A Dallas record dealer counters: “Gangsta rap is the new heavy metal.”

Shareholder Pressure Instead of Direct Bans

The Texas initiative fits into a campaign that C. DeLores Tucker and her allies had been waging since 1995. Their tactic: instead of calling for bans, they pressured corporations through shareholders and public pension funds. In 1995, they had already pressured Time Warner into giving up its stake in Interscope, which distributed Tupac’s music and that of Death Row. Universal-then still MCA under Seagram-acquired the stake in 1996 and became the next target.

Nine months after Tupac’s death, his music thus became a matter of state budget politics. Whether the Texas rule actually took effect and was enforced, and what became of the announced lawsuit, could not be documented.