You kind of have to read between the lines on this one:
There'd likely be no alternative energy proposition on the California ballot if one guy, Stephen Bing, hadn't put up $50 million to place it there.
The media is kind to call Mr. Bing a "movie producer"; his fortune was inherited from his grandfather and his dabbling in the film business has been desultory. His misadventures with starlets and models have proved a more lasting claim to notoriety. In fact, he has little record of sustained commitment to anything, which perhaps explains the economic incoherence of the ballot proposal.
Get it? Little record of sustained commitment=baby daddy to Elizabeth Hurley’s kid. That's the Wall Street Journal version of calling Bing a "spermicidal maniac." (The rest of the column, however, is a little less nasty but no less interesting. As it turns out, one of the biggest backers of California’s alternative energy proposition is heavily invested in ethanol production. Ethanol is a scam? Go figure.) Even this indirect dissing is pretty brave of Holman, since Bing is known as a litigious little git--suing everyone from Kirk Kerkorian to Rupert Murdoch's tabloids for past slights.
Big Ethanol [Wall Street Journal]