More are choosing sides in the rival campaigns to legalize sports betting in California.
In dueling press releases Monday, April 18, opposing groups announced their positions the day before the National Indian Gaming Association’s annual convention commence at Anaheim Convention Center.
There are two active measures in contention in the Golden State. One tribal initiative would allow tribes and racetracks to offer sports betting, with no option for mobile sportsbooks. Another, supported by out-of-state operators, would allow mobile sports betting to piggy-back onto the first measure. A third position opposes the tribal only measure.
Some supporters of sports betting worry that multiple proposals will so confuse the voters that they will turn thumbs down to all of them.
Currently, only one measure, pushed by a coalition of gaming tribes, has qualified for the ballot. That one would allow any tribal casino and any of the state’s four racetracks to offer retail sportsbooks. It would also expand on the types of games casinos can offer, allowing craps and roulette.
However, the measure proposed by seven commercial operators, such as FanDuel and BetMGM, are busy collecting signatures for their measure that would also allow mobile sports betting. They have pledged to spend $200 million to promote their measure. The main selling point of the “California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Act” is that it would earmark revenues to fight homelessness and treat mental health problems. It has until May to achieve its signature threshold.
California’s card clubs and the cities that host them proposed an initiative last year that would have allowed a wider group to operate sports books, including card clubs. However, that effort seems to be defunct. That group is now fighting the tribal initiative.
Opposing that measure, and supporting the tribal initiative that has already qualified for the November election is the Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming. Its members include business, tribes, civil rights advocates churches and public safety groups. It argues that mobile sports betting risks harm to minors and vulnerable groups by ramping up the gambling landscape in California.
An ad released this week by this group declares, “The in-person, Tribal Sports Wagering Act will allow Indian tribes to build on [the] legacy as the responsible stewards of gaming in California,” and adds, “On the other hand, the Corporate Online Gambling Proposition was written for the sole benefit of out-of-state online gambling corporations.”
The card club cities have released a broadside claiming that the tribal retail-only measure would “harm local communities,” cause a decline in economic activity and cut state tax revenue by $500 million annually. The add declares: “Did you know there’s only one sports betting ballot measure in California that will harm public services in communities like yours? Get the facts.”
The group claims the tribal initiative will force some card clubs to close. And gaming tribes probably wouldn’t mind that result since for years they have argued that card clubs are operating outside of the law and infringing on tribal exclusivity.
