Although California’s top official, Governor Gavin Newsom, has announced his neutrality over Proposition 27, which would legalize online sports betting, other top state officials are not shy about their opposition to it.
Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis last week said in a press release, “Proposition 27 exploits California’s tribes and our resources while making no real investments in California.” She added, “Ninety percent of the revenue generated by Proposition 27 would go directly into the pockets of out-of-state corporations while threatening funding for California’s needs. Vote No on 27.”
She was referring to the measure’s title, “The California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Act,” which is also its main argument, but its opponents such as Kounalakis argue that it is misleading. The 10 percent taxes would be earmarked to treat homelessness and mental health issues, but critics argue that the great majority of the money would line the pockets of the operators.
Proposition 27 is proposed by seven out-of-state sports betting operators, led by DraftKings and FanDuel. It would legalize online sports betting in the Golden State. Operators would be forced to partner with gaming tribes, however gaming tribes oppose it because they would lose the monopoly on casino games they have had for 22 years—except for those played in card clubs.
Joining Kounalakis were the state’s treasurer, comptroller, superintendent of public instruction and insurance commissioner. And with a wink and nod, Governor Newsom indicated to reporters last week that his neutrality was mostly feigned.
Comptroller Betty Yee declared, “Prop. 27 is a bad deal for California.” She added, “The fine print says 90 percent of the revenue goes to the out-of-state corporations who wrote the measure to pad their profits.”
And it’s not just Democratic party officials who oppose Proposition 27—Republican party leadership in the legislature has also come out against it.
The gaming tribes have their own initiative, Proposition 26, which is supported by most tribes. It would give them and racetracks the right to offer retail sports betting only. It would also allow tribal casinos to add craps and roulette to the games they offer. And, most alarmingly for card clubs, it would give them the ability to leapfrog state prosecutors and sue card clubs directly for violations of the state’s gaming laws.
The two sides have ponied up about $350 million roughly evenly divided to spend on campaign advertising. At this point, it is difficult to watch television in the state without encountering such ads several times an hour.
