Wanna bet?
If you live in California, you have almost certainly seen this commercial; or one like it.
Until this week, there was only one ballot initiative on the November ballot and it isn't the one being criticized in that ad. But that changed this week when the initiative sponsored by DraftKings and FanDuel qualified for the ballot. There were two other initiatives that were trying to get on the ballot, but it looks like those two failed to get enough signatures.
Let's unpack this.
The initiative opposed by the commercial abovve would, according to its petition summary:
"Legalizes online and mobile sports wagering, which currently is prohibited, for persons 21 years and older. Such wagering may be offered only by federally recognized Indian tribes and eligible businesses that contract with them. Individuals placing bets must be in California and not located on Indian lands. Imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering revenues and licensing fees. Directs tax and licensing revenues first to regulatory costs, then remainder to: 85% to homelessness programs; 15% to nonparticipating tribes. Specifies licensing, regulatory, consumer-protection, and betting-integrity standards for sports wagering."
Meanwhile, the initiative sponsored by the Indian tribes already operating casinos on their tribal lands in CA would, according to its petition summary:"
"Allows federally recognized Native American tribes to operate roulette, dice games, and sports wagering on tribal lands, subject to compacts negotiated by the Governor and ratified by the Legislature. Beginning in 2022, allows on-site sports wagering at only privately operated horse-racing tracks in four specified counties for persons 21 years or older. Imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering profits at horse-racing tracks; directs portion of revenues to enforcement and problem-gambling programs. Prohibits marketing of sports wagering to persons under 21. Authorizes private lawsuits to enforce other gambling laws."
The latest attack ad opposing the online betting iniative point out that "90% of the profits would go to out-of-state corporations. Funny how the iniative being pushed by CA Indian Casino operators calls for those casinos to retain 90% of the profits themselves. A 2006 study analyzed the impact of gambling in CA from 1998 forward. Here is an excerpt from that study:
The amount paid by the Indian casinos during that period represented 3.2% of their revenues. For comparison, Nevada casinos are taxed at the rate of 3.5% on the first $50,000 in gaming revenue per month and 6.75% on gaming revenue of more than $134,000 per month.
The Indian casinos also give themselves the ability to offer additional casino games in their initiative. Roulette and dice games are not permitted under current law.
In the end, these two initiatives are very similar.
Until this week, there was only one ballot initiative on the November ballot and it isn't the one being criticized in that ad. But that changed this week when the initiative sponsored by DraftKings and FanDuel qualified for the ballot. There were two other initiatives that were trying to get on the ballot, but it looks like those two failed to get enough signatures.
Let's unpack this.
The initiative opposed by the commercial abovve would, according to its petition summary:
"Legalizes online and mobile sports wagering, which currently is prohibited, for persons 21 years and older. Such wagering may be offered only by federally recognized Indian tribes and eligible businesses that contract with them. Individuals placing bets must be in California and not located on Indian lands. Imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering revenues and licensing fees. Directs tax and licensing revenues first to regulatory costs, then remainder to: 85% to homelessness programs; 15% to nonparticipating tribes. Specifies licensing, regulatory, consumer-protection, and betting-integrity standards for sports wagering."
Meanwhile, the initiative sponsored by the Indian tribes already operating casinos on their tribal lands in CA would, according to its petition summary:"
"Allows federally recognized Native American tribes to operate roulette, dice games, and sports wagering on tribal lands, subject to compacts negotiated by the Governor and ratified by the Legislature. Beginning in 2022, allows on-site sports wagering at only privately operated horse-racing tracks in four specified counties for persons 21 years or older. Imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering profits at horse-racing tracks; directs portion of revenues to enforcement and problem-gambling programs. Prohibits marketing of sports wagering to persons under 21. Authorizes private lawsuits to enforce other gambling laws."
The latest attack ad opposing the online betting iniative point out that "90% of the profits would go to out-of-state corporations. Funny how the iniative being pushed by CA Indian Casino operators calls for those casinos to retain 90% of the profits themselves. A 2006 study analyzed the impact of gambling in CA from 1998 forward. Here is an excerpt from that study:
The amount paid by the Indian casinos during that period represented 3.2% of their revenues. For comparison, Nevada casinos are taxed at the rate of 3.5% on the first $50,000 in gaming revenue per month and 6.75% on gaming revenue of more than $134,000 per month.
The Indian casinos also give themselves the ability to offer additional casino games in their initiative. Roulette and dice games are not permitted under current law.
In the end, these two initiatives are very similar.
posted by me at 12:02 PM
<< Home