California’s voters are being bombarded by ads for two conflicting sports betting measures on the November ballot, and finding it difficult to know true from false about the claims. It is hard for some to determine which measure is supported by tribes and which would actually help fight homelessness.
This is leading some election experts to predict that neither measure will ultimately make it past the post on election day, because of voter confusion.
Ads for one measure, Proposition 27, claims it would solve homelessness. The measure would allow sports betting operators to offer online sports. It also claims to help tribes that don’t have casinos. The activity would be taxed at 10 percent, and would direct 85 percent of funds toward combating homelessness and mental illness, with 15 percent to non-gaming tribes.
State analysts predict Proposition 27 will raise hundreds of millions in state taxes—much more than is predicted for Proposition 26.
Ads for Proposition 26, the tribally supported measure that would allow only retail sports betting in brick-and-mortar casinos and racetracks, say Proposition 27 attacks tribal sovereignty. Their measure, by contrast, would add craps and roulette to tribal offerings and allow tribes to directly sue cardrooms for gaming infractions.
The electoral campaign is already the most expensive in the state’s history. The combined donations for both sides last week passed $419 million, which will increase the frequency of campaign ads as November approaches. A fine trick, since it is already nearly impossible to avoid such ads on TV, radio, online and on billboards and newspapers. It is also nearly impossible for voters not educated in the minutiae of sports betting to know which to support.
Sports betting represents the only remaining form of casino gambling California tribes don’t already have. The seven online sports betting operators, led by FanDuel and DraftKings, want a piece of the action. They want to offer online sports betting, which the tribes aren’t ready to support yet, even though online sportsbooks have become the most lucrative form in the states that allow it. Proposition 27 requires that operators partner with gaming tribes, but tribes oppose it because it would end their monopoly.
One reason voters are confused is that Proposition 26 ads say tribes support it and oppose Proposition 27. Proposition 27 ads say that tribes support it. That’s partially true: a few tribes that would benefit from funds for non-gaming do support it.
A familiar face on the “Yes on 27” campaign is Jose “Moke” Simon III, chairman of the Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians. He claims that “only one proposition supports California tribes like ours … vote ‘Yes’ on 27.” Moke’s voice is a tiny minority among tribes, but it is a tribal voice. Two other tribes also back Proposition 27—which makes it possible for “Yes on 27” to claim tribes support it.
Law professor and gaming law expert I. Nelson Rose told the Pasadena Star-News, “Out of self-interest I can see why, particularly remote tribes, would want to be in favor of 27.” Only about half of the Golden State’s 110 federally recognized tribes have casinos. Many remote tribes will probably never be able to build one.
According to Nathan Click, spokesman for the “Yes on 27” campaign, such small, remote tribes, “see the promise of being able to offer bets on a safe and responsible marketplace outside of their tribal lands.”
But they are a definitive minority, says Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman of the campaign for Proposition 26 and against Proposition 27: “Fifty-nine tribes in California that have taken a firm position (against) Prop 27” she said. “There are only three tribes that support it.”
One recent “No on 27” ad highlighted that fact, by showing one side of the screen with the many names of the tribes who oppose it, and on the other side of the screen the three tribes who are for it.
Both major political parties in the Golden State have come out against Proposition 27, with the Democrats neutral on Proposition 26 and the Republicans against both measures.
The state GOP has gotten donations from both campaigns: $500,000 from “No on 27” and $2.5 million from “No on 26.” The donations were made after the state party announced its position.
The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board also opposes both measures. The board wrote of online sports betting: “[it] would essentially turn every cellphone, tablet, and computer into a legal casino where bets could be placed with a few taps on an app.”
The board does not concede Proposition 27 arguments that their measure would cut the amount of offshore and illegal gambling. It retorts that legalizing marijuana in the state did not curtail the state’s black market in the drug.
It also opposes Proposition 26, saying it gives tribes an unfair advantage over card clubs and sports betting operators: “The measure amounts to a toxic brew of industry interests designed not only to enrich the funders but also to push away their competitors. If California ever decides to embrace sports betting, it should be with a framework that is as even-handed as possible, and not one that so blatantly picks winners and losers.”
