[kayfabe]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ot-measure

By Christopher Palmeri (August 23, 2022, 6:00 AM PDT) for Bloomberg News —

(Note: two sports gambling ballot propositions have qualified for the November 2022 ballot in California: Proposition 27 and Proposition 26. Both would allow for betting on pro sports — no college or high school. You must be 21 to bet on both. But the similarities just about end there…

And with more than two months to go the amount spent has already blown past any initiative in CA history. By double. Anecdotally it also seems that the 27 proponents are playing offense while the 26 proponents are spending much more money trashing 27 vs. hyping their own initiative. The catch is that if both initiatives pass only the one with the most votes will take effect. As far as when that might be implemented…can’t tell from the copy. But I’d guess from where the money is being spent that 27 — which supports online/mobile gaming — is much more popular than and polling ahead of 26 — which does not and requires in person bettors to be on site at Indian casinos or at four designated racetracks: Del Mar/San Diego County; Los Alamitos/Orange County; Santa Anita/LA County; and Golden Gate/Bay Area.

Also of note: in the last couple of weeks the California GOP has come out against both 27 and 26. And California Democrats have recommended a No vote on 27 but are neutral on 26.

Full article text follows)

California has the potential to become, it’s estimated, a multi-billion-dollar sports gambling market, larger than everywhere in the world except the UK.

Which is why, with 11 weeks left to the November election, casinos, American Indian tribes and other interested parties have put up some $364 million -- the greatest amount ever spent on a state ballot measure -- to try to legalize it, shape it or kill it.

There are two competing proposals on the ballot. Proposition 26 would only allow sports betting in person at tribal casinos and horse-racing tracks. Proposition 27 would let gambling companies offer online betting anywhere in the state in partnership with tribes.

The latter is very much in line with state gambling laws that have swept the country in recent years. Neither is a shoo-in of getting the majority required to become law. Should both surpass 50%, the one with the most affirmative votes wins. That could prompt litigation, however.

The campaign is dividing California’s tribes, which enjoy a monopoly on many casino games in the state. A handful of smaller tribes are aligning themselves with upstart online betting operators, such as DraftKings Inc. and FanDuel, to push for Proposition 27. Many others are backing Proposition 26. The parties have blanketed the airwaves and social media. The money raised already tops the previous record for a state proposition, the sum spent on a 2020 measure governing gig workers that was funded by Uber Technologies Inc. and others.

It’s a big market, on a global scale,” said James Kilsby, an analyst with Vixio GamblingCompliance.

Expansion of Sportsbooks

Sports betting has exploded in the US since the Supreme Court allowed it to expand outside of Nevada four years ago. It’s now offered in 30 states and the District of Columbia. California’s fight is unique, however. Only a handful of states have put sports-betting measures on the ballot, and even then they’ve largely left details, such as tax rates and licensing, up to lawmakers, according to Kilsby.

California legislators have been unable to pass a sports-betting bill themselves, in part due to opposition from the tribes, which operate about 66 casinos in the state, and other special interests. In some cases, the parties either couldn’t agree on potential terms or just didn’t want the competition.

Each side has written a ballot measure to favor their own interests. Proposition 26 leaves it up to each tribe and the state to determine revenue sharing. The money raised would mostly go to California’s general fund. Proposition 27, backed by the online operators, puts the tax rate at 10%, at the lower end for states nationally. That revenue would mostly go toward homelessness and gambling addiction.

Proposition 27 says providers must already be licensed in 10 other states and be willing to pay a $100 million initial license fee. That would likely limit applicants to big operators, such as Bally’s Corp., Wynn Resorts Ltd., Penn Entertainment Inc. and BetMGM, which are supporting the measure.

Other casino companies, such as Caesars Entertainment Inc., are staying out of the fight out of fear they’ll hurt their relationships with the tribes they do business with.

Nathan Click, a spokesman for the Yes on 27 campaign, said the crafters of that measure wanted to make sure California had “responsible actors with a track record of safety.” No other state collects $100 million license fees, he said. Ten others have tax rates of 10% or less. And 15 or more online operators might be able to qualify for entry.

The tribes backing Proposition 26, meanwhile, have written online operators out their ballot proposal. In addition, their measure would also allow them to offer roulette and craps, games which have nothing to do with sports betting.

Kathy Fairbanks, a spokesperson for a coalition that’s for Proposition 26 and against 27, said their measure “was designed to continue Californians’ long-standing commitment to allow Indian tribes to offer well-regulated gaming on tribal lands.”

Their measure also includes provisions making it easier to sue California’s 84 card rooms, which offer poker and other card games. Tribes have long fought the card clubs’ efforts to offer games like blackjack and baccarat. Card rooms have contributed to a campaign that’s raised $42 million to defeat Proposition 26, arguing it would hurt local jobs and tax revenue. They also have support from some cities, unions and even animal rights groups
that oppose sports betting at the horse tracks.

‘Just Want to Co-Exist’

“It would devastate us,” said Juan Garza, who represents five cities in Los Angeles County that operate card rooms. “We just want to co-exist.”

To further complicate the fight, some of the state’s 110 tribes are pitching a measure that would allow them to operate mobile sports betting. It didn’t qualify for this year’s ballot, but may at a later date. In the meantime, they’re part of a group that’s raised $66 million to defeat Proposition 27.

The anti-Proposition 27 tribes have mostly positioned that measure as a money grab from outsiders, though their opposition to out-of-state interests is selective. One ad from a No on 27 group features two tribal leaders, Jesus Tarango and Glenda Nelson, saying “These out-of-state corporations don’t care about California. But we do.”

Tarango’s tribe just opened a casino south of Sacramento with Nevada’s Boyd Gaming Corp., while Nelson’s tribe operates one north of the city with Florida’s Hard Rock International.

“Tribes have a choice to work with operators because they’re in charge,” Rob Stutzman, a spokesperson for their coalition, said in an email. “Prop. 27 eliminates that choice and puts out-of-state corporations in charge.”

A Yes on 27 ad, meanwhile, features tribal Chairman Jose “Moke” Simon III saying partnerships with online operators will benefit small tribes, like his 250-member Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California in rural Lake County.

“This gives us an opportunity to move into the e-commerce side of gaming,” he said in an interview. “We feel that’s where it’s going in the future".

WHAT IT DOES:
Prop 27: Lets online operators offer sports betting statewide in partnership with tribes
Prop 26: Allows in-person sports betting at tribal casinos and four horse tracks

TAX RATE:
Prop 27: 10% of betting revenue, $100 million license fee per operator
Prop 26: To be negotiated by state and individual tribes

REVENUE ESTIMATE:
Prop 27: Hundreds of millions of dollars
Prop 26: Tens of millions of dollars

WHERE THE MONEY GOES:
Prop 27: Casino oversight, then 85% to homelessness, gambling addiction. 15% goes to tribes without sports betting
Prop 26: State general fund, casino oversight, gambling addiction treatment

SUPPORTERS:
Prop 27: DraftKings, BetMGM, FanDuel, Wynn Resorts, some tribes
Prop 26: 29 tribes

BONUS:
Prop 27: Allows bets on award shows and video-game competitions
Prop 26: Tribes also get to offer roulette and dice games

Source: California Legislative Analyst's Office

[kayfabe]

(update from OC Register with a month to go before elections...not looking good)

‘Uphill climb’ for gambling propositions, survey finds
By Kaitlyn Schallhorn
kschallhorn@scng.com

A pair of dueling sports betting measures before California voters this year have set spending records this election cycle.

Television ads — a cacophony of messages promising economic stability for state tribes, greater homelessness services and even gambling addiction increases — run regularly. Billboards have popped up along heavily trafficked Southern California roads, and glossy papers stack up in mailboxes.

Together, the two sports betting measures have set the record as the costliest ballot campaigns in the state, according to campaign finance data from OpenSecrets. The campaigns on either side of the ballot proposals have spent more than $440 million so far, according to CalMatters.

But despite all the noise and cash, Proposition 26 and Proposition 27 may be bad bets. A recent Berkeley IGS poll, conducted in English and Spanish at the end of September, found most likely voters are either against or undecided about either ballot measure.

More specifically, only 31% of likely voters surveyed said they support Prop. 26, the measure that would allow in-person sports betting at tribal casinos and the four privately owned race tracks in California. It would also allow tribal casinos to offer roulette and dice games.

Among those surveyed, 42% said they did not support the ballot measure, and 27% were undecided.

In comparison, only 27% of likely voters said they support Prop. 27, the effort to legalize online sports betting in California through large gaming companies (like DraftKings or FanDuel) and tribes already with state compacts.

With that one, 53% of voters said they oppose the measure, and another 20% remain undecided.

“These results suggest that the sports wagering initiatives are foundering in the face of the opposition advertising campaigns,” said IGS co-director Eric Schickler. “The lack of support among key demographic groups makes passage of each an uphill climb, at best.”

The Berkeley IGS survey suggested the cornucopia of advertisements has played a role in public perception of the ballot measures. Those surveyed who said they had seen many ads related to the ballot measures opposed them by wide margins, while those who had seen little to no advertisements were more evenly divided, according to the poll.

Proponents of both measures also chalked up negative attitudes to the inundation of ads.

“The deceptive ads by the out-of-state gambling corporations have thoroughly confused voters to the point where they are just saying no to it all,” Kathy Fairbanks, a spokesperson for the Yes on 26/No on 27 campaign, said. “Our polling shows that voters still strongly support Indian tribes and in-person tribal gaming.”

Fairbanks said her campaign hasn’t released a Yes on 26 ad as of yet, having only focused resources on combating Prop 27.

“Prop. 27 has taken over $100 million in misleading and false attacks — $45 million before we even qualified for the ballot,” said Nathan Click, a spokesperson for the Yes on 27 campaign. “It’s telling these same opponents funding these ads haven’t spent a dime supporting their own sports betting proposal.”

Broken down further, the poll found nearly all subgroups — from men to women, Democrats to Republicans, and more — were against Prop. 27. Only likely voters who were under the age of 30 signaled support for the measure, 44% to 33%.

For Prop. 26, Republicans and conservative voters were more strongly against the measure than Democrats and liberals — albeit, those latter groups still opposed the measure.

In Orange County, 41% of voters surveyed said they were against Prop. 26, and 56% were against Prop. 27. Only 31% supported Prop. 26, and 28% supported Prop, 27.

Prop. 26 is evenly divided in the Inland Empire: 36% of voters support the measure, and 36% oppose it. However, 51% of Inland Empire voters oppose Prop. 27 while only 27% support it.

“We are grateful that voters appear to be rejecting the out-of-state gambling corporations and their $170 million campaign of deception. That said, Prop. 27 is still on the ballot and still poses a significant threat to tribal self-reliance and all Californians,” Fairbanks said.

Since 2018 — when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on sports wagering, leaving it up to states — nearly three dozen states and Washington, D.C., have legalized sports gambling in some fashion.

Pointing to those states that have authorized sports wagering, Click said: “California should be next.”

[Elvis]

I know i would like to have sports betting available, draft kings, Bet MGM, etc.

So since i am in favor, is the best strategy to bet yes on both even though 27 clearly seems to be the one i would want?

[sloramfan]

me being a craps player, would love to drive 2hrs to chumach casino to play ,versus 6+ hrs to get to vegas/laughlin...

so yes on 26 for me...

jmho...

go rams

slo

[Hacksaw]

Is the Chumash casino being restrictive? There's always lake Cachuma... if there's any water left...

[RedAlice]

I just left this....

https://www.globalgamingexpo.com