The proposals for Propositions 26 and 27 on this November’s ballot have made many different statements, especially regarding the distribution of the proceeds of sports betting. in California.
Odds are, one of the many advertisements for the legalization of sports betting has caught your attention, due to their abundance on TV, websites and billboards throughout California.
You’d be forgiven, though, for not having a clear sense of what one of the plans is doing. Some ads don’t even mention sports, which can leave Californians in the dark about exactly what they’re being asked to choose.
The ads are “oversimplified to a degree that’s not entirely accurate,” said Mary Beth Moylan, an associate dean and professor at the McGeorge School of Law at the University of the Pacific who oversees a journal specializing in California effort.
Proposition 26 would legalize sports betting at tribal casinos and at California’s four horse racing tracks. It is paid by about a dozen American tribes. It will also allow brands to start offering roulette and dice games.
Proposition 27 would legalize online sports betting statewide and is paid for by a handful of major gaming companies. Under Plan 27, game companies and brands can offer online and mobile games.
But what is the truth of advertising? Here’s what you should know about some of the more common claims.
Claim: “Tribal leaders support the Solutions Act (Prop 27)”
Leaders from three of California’s 110 federally recognized tribes – Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians and Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians – support the regulation of online gaming.
Chairman Jose “Moke” Simon III of the Middletown Racheria of Pomo Indians said in an interview with CalMatters that he supports Proposition 27 because it gives the tribe the opportunity to bring in more money. On the same subject : Twins broadcaster tore his soul out after consecutive walkoff losses. The tribe is rural and has a casino about an hour north of Napa.
“Our brick and mortar (casino) is limited to the area we’re in and the mobile gaming platform allows us to reach a wider audience,” said Simon III.
However, more than 50 tribes and organizations oppose Proposition 27. They say it will disrupt gaming that has been operated on tribal lands for years and will drive business away from Indian casinos.
It is true that a few tribal leaders support Plan 27, but the majority of tribal leaders oppose the measure.
Claim: Proposition 27 “supports every California tribe, including financially disadvantaged tribes that don’t own big casinos”
It is true that all brands will see some kind of benefit from Proposition 27. Brands that have agreements with the state of California that allow them to offer gambling can do their own mobile sports betting. or website. Or, they can partner with a gaming company that wants to offer online gaming in California.
The plan also taxes online sports betting and sets aside 15% of the money for non-sports related brands. Read also : Rams Pride non-profit shop window: Foundation for Sports Equality. But, since it is difficult to know exactly how many people will bet, how many companies and brands will want to offer sports betting, or how many tax deductions the companies will take, it is impossible to know exactly how much money you will get.
All races have the opportunity to benefit from Plan 27, of course. It is not clear to what extent each species will benefit.
Claim: Proposition 27 provides “hundreds of millions in yearly funding to finally address homelessness in California”
This one is a bit complicated. On the same subject : Women’s sports champion: “Sports are not only for men, but for people”. The plan could generate hundreds of millions of dollars each year to address homelessness, but that’s not certain.
Each election cycle, the non-partisan Legislative Research Office evaluates each proposal and calculates the new costs and revenue each could generate. for the state. They found that Proposition 27, through taxes and fees, would increase the money flowing to the state by “perhaps in the hundreds of millions of dollars but probably not more than $500 million in every year.” The office did not include a bottom comparison.
First, that money will be used to pay the new costs related to the regulation of sports activities, which the researchers estimate can reach tens of millions of dollars each year.
From the remaining funds, 15% will go to non-sports teams and 85% will go to homeless solutions. The Legislature can also decide to order some of them into drug addiction treatment.
Proposition 27 could end up providing hundreds of millions of dollars a year for the state to address homelessness. But if the taxes and fees end up bringing in $100 or $200 million a year – as opposed to $500 million – then no. Additionally, if the Legislature decides to direct a larger portion to gambling addiction treatment, it will reduce the amount that goes to homelessness solutions.
How does this money compare to what California already spends to address homelessness? California spent $7.2 billion on programs related to homelessness in the 2021-22 fiscal year, according to state researchers. If Proposition 27 adds, say, $300 million, that’s a 4% increase.
Claim: “90% of the profits [of Prop. 27] go to out-of-state corporations”
This claim is based on the fact that Proposition 27 taxes online gambling at a rate of 10%. So the question is: Where exactly does the other 90% go? The truth is that it is impossible to know exactly.
If Proposition 27 passes, gaming companies headquartered in other states will want to take action, since they are the ones funding the measure. . The companies funding the plan include some of the most popular online sports betting sites: FanDuel commands 31% of the US market , followed by DraftKings with 26% and BetMGM with 16%, according to Eilers & amp; Krejcik, a research firm focused on sports. So, it’s reasonable to expect that their standards will be popular in California, too.
Does that mean those companies will reap all the profits? The plan also allows California brands to offer mobile and online gaming services of their own. If the brands choose to do that, they will get some of the profits.
Sports companies headquartered in other states may also end up needing to spend money in California to do business here. For example, companies need to make a transaction with a brand in order to operate legally, and that transaction may include some type of payment or income. Sports companies also need to hire workers or contractors in California to operate their businesses here.
The companies that fund the campaign are headquartered outside of California. What percentage of profits will actually go to them cannot be known at this time.
2022 Election
Your guide to the 2022 California general election
Claim: Tribes are “pushing Prop 26 to guarantee themselves a virtual monopoly on all gaming in California by giving private trial lawyers the powers of the Attorney General to bury their licensed cardroom competitors with frivolous lawsuits.”
This argument has many explanations. It is based on a section of Article 26 that allows any person (or entity) who believes that someone is violating California’s gambling laws – to by offering an illegal game, for example – to be prosecuted. But before they can sue, they must first ask the Department of Justice of the state to act, and they can only move forward if the department does not take action, or file the department does not decide a case but the court rejects the case but it can be re-filed. Complex legal matters. But it’s not an entirely new idea; California has used a similar approach to enforce labor laws.
Are tribes trying to “prove themselves a monopoly?” In 2000, Californians voted to allow tribes to offer certain types of gambling — including slot machines and casino-sponsored card games — that no other institution in California’s four states allowed to offer. Proposition 26 would allow brands to begin offering roulette games and single games, which no other organization can offer, if they negotiate their agreement with the state. Therefore, the plan will expand the rights of tribes to offer certain types of gambling.
Does the new court system give “lawyers of private courts the power of the Attorney General to bury their licensed competitors in paper rooms in useless courts?” This will allow private attorneys to bring cases that are under the supervision of government attorneys. Proposition 26 does not hide the fact that tribes are expected to tax card rooms, which compete with tribal casinos.
The court process was “designed to establish the rules of casino games that regulate card rooms,” said Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for the Yes on 26 campaign, in a recent debate. . The rules governing how cardrooms are allowed to offer games have long been a source of contention between cardrooms and tribes. The tribes have no standing to challenge them in court, Fairbanks said, so they want a way to do that.
The idea is that this will open up a lot of frivolous prosecutions, however, it is believed that the court does not have a process to deal with frivolous prosecutions, said Moylan, the law professor. Courts can allow lawyers to bring frivolous lawsuits, for example, Moylan said.
