California shouldn’t let gambling interests design sports betting. No on Props 26 and 27

Legal sports betting in California is inevitable, but lawmakers completely dropped the ball. So the state’s voters must try to make sense of two competing initiatives authored by the same special interests poised to reap the greatest rewards.

As supporters and opponents of Propositions 26 and 27 wage the costliest initiative campaign in state election history, voters should get wise to this blatant attempt at governance by profit margin and reject both on their November ballots.

Instead, let’s compel Gov. Gavin Newsom and state politicians to do their jobs and address sports betting as part of the legislative process. The goal should be to create the most equitable system possible. Rather than allow gaming companies and Native American tribes to rewrite the state Constitution to their liking while the people we’ve elected to protect us from such shenanigans watch meekly from the sidelines.

If you’re looking for a moral stance against gambling, this isn’t the place. Adults should be able to place a legal bet on whether their favorite team covers the point spread — irrespective of the very real risks of addiction — and in 2022 they should be able to do that on their phones.

That sentiment is shared by an increasing majority. A recent Washington Post-University of Maryland poll of 1,500 adults found that 66% approve of making bets on professional sports legal. That’s up from 55% approval in 2017 — the year before the Supreme Court overturned a law that limited sports gambling mainly to Nevada.

Opinion

Thirty-six states have legalized sports betting in at least one form since the Supreme Court decision, leaving California as the largest untapped reservoir. If both propositions pass (which could create its own set of legal problems), total wagering is projected to eclipse $3 billion annually.

With that much action at the offing, little wonder interested parties in Propositions 26 and Proposition 27 have spent more than $360 million on advertising to smash previous records. With nearly two months until election day.

Between the NBA Finals in June and the start of football season in September, I don’t watch much televised sports. That’s especially true in years (such as this one) when the San Francisco Giants are both lousy and excruciatingly dull.

Settling into the couch on a recent Sunday, I was unprepared for the onslaught of misleading TV commercials paid for by national gaming firms eager to elbow their way into California, as well as Native American tribes anxious to maintain their stranglehold over the state’s legal gambling.

Gambling will not solve homeless crisis

Proposition 27 would legalize mobile and online sports betting outside of tribal lands as well as create a new division at the state Department of Justice to monitor those activities. Its ad campaign is funded by seven gaming companies (DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMGM are the best known) and fronted by three small tribes that have been largely shut out of the billions generated by Indian casinos.

Backed by more than 30 tribes that operate casinos including Table Mountain Rancheria, Proposition 26 would legalize sports gambling, but only at tribal casinos and the state’s four remaining private horse racing tracks. The measure also allows tribal casinos to begin offering roulette and dice games such as craps.

While reasonable on the surface, both initiatives are burdened with language and stipulations that should make them unpalatable to discerning voters.

In the rosy PR campaign bankrolled by online gaming firms, Proposition 27 is positioned to be as much about addressing homelessness as it is about parlays and prop bets. The official campaign website (yestoprop27.com) hardly mentions gambling at all.

Don’t be fooled. Proposition 27 is not going to solve the state’s homeless crisis. In all likelihood, it will hardly make a dent. Not when you consider that state lawmakers, during the last two years of budget surpluses, have directed $13.5 billion toward providing shelter and services for the unhoused.

Proposition 27 is projected to yield $500 million annually in tax revenues, according to the state’s legislative analyst. But that amount isn’t guaranteed, and the first cut goes to regulating the newly created industry.

After tribes not involved in online gaming get their 15% share of remaining revenues, the rest goes toward addressing homelessness and only addressing homelessness. That seems overly prescriptive when California has so many other issues on its plate.

It’s almost as if the authors of Proposition 27 chose homelessness as their cause célèbre because they knew it would tug the most heartstrings. Cynical politics at its finest.

Sympathy ploy by Native American tribes

Tugging heartstrings also seems to be the strategy employed by proponents of Proposition 26, almost all of whom are steadfastly against Proposition 27.

The sympathy ploy goes something like this: We’ve treated Native American tribes rather horribly, something that granting them control of California’s gambling industry help makes up for in a small way. But now that sports betting is legal, out-of-state companies like FanDuel and DraftKings want to swoop in and help themselves to a slice of our pie. Don’t let them.

A major weakness of Proposition 26 is it completely fails to take into account mobile and online wagering. Adults wishing to place a sports bet shouldn’t have to drive to an Indian casino to do so. Most of them won’t bother. Instead, they’ll continue wagering using off-shore websites that have no public benefit.

Also to its detriment, Proposition 26 contains fine print designed to give tribal casinos a legal leg-up in their constant battle with cardroom operators over which has the right to offer certain types of games. That isn’t fair, either.

Like previously stated, sports betting is inevitable. California will eventually join dozens of other states that have legalized such practices. But in our zeal to do so, we should adopt a system that’s fair to all parties instead of one that so blatantly picks winners and losers. Similar to what New York and Massachusetts have done.

Some issues are too complex to be hashed out at the ballot box or in misleading 30-second TV commercials. Vote no on Propositions 26 and Propositions 27, then implore Newsom and our legislators to take the bat off their shoulders.