Probably, considering that one of the many ads to legalize sports gambling is ubiquitous on television, websites and billboards in California.
However, it is allowed to have a clear sense of which initiative is what is. conductSome ads do not mention sports gambling at all, so California people may not know exactly what is required.
Mary Beth Moylan, a professor and professor at the Faculty of Faculty of Macguji, Pacific, a journal in California, is “too simplified to be completely unprecedented.” Was stated.
The proposal 26 legalizes sports gambling at the tribal casino and California’s four private racetracks. Approximately a dozens of American indigenous residents are paying the cost. It is also possible for tribes to start providing roulette and dice games.
Proposal 27 legalizes online sports gambling throughout the state, and has been paid by a small large -scale game company. Under the proposition 27, both game companies and tribes can provide online and mobile sports gambling.
But how true is advertising?
Claim: “Tribic leaders support the solution (proposal 27)”
Three of the 110 native American tribes recognized by the federal government in California -Santa Rosalia Tachiyokku, Middle Town Lanchellia in Pomo Indians, Pomo Indian Big Volley Band — Supports online sports betting proposals.
Pomo Indians’ Middle Town Lacelleria’s Jose “Moke III” Simon III said in an interview with Calmata to support proposals 27. The tribe lives in the countryside, and there is a casino about an hour drive north from Napa.
“Our bricks and mortar (casinos) are limited to the areas we are, and mobile sports betting will allow more viewers to reach a wider viewer,” says Simon.
However, more than 50 tribes and tribal tissues oppose proposal 27. The proposal 27 states that the games that have been operated for decades in the tribal land will be confused and keep their business away from Indian casinos.
truth?
Certainly, a small number of tribal leaders support the proposal 27, but much more tribal leaders oppose the bill.
Proposal 27 “Support all tribes in California, including financially disadvantageous tribes that do not own large casinos.”
It is true that all tribes will benefit from the proposition 27. Tribes with California, which allow gambling, can create their own mobile sports betting app or his website. Alternatively, you can partner with a game company that you want to provide online sportsbetting in California.
This initiative also taxes online sports gambling and sets 15% of the money for the tribe. is not I am involved in sports betting. However, it is difficult to know how many people bet, how many companies and tribes want to provide sports gambling, and how much tax deduction will be received, so accurate how much it will be. It is impossible to know.
truth?
Yes, all tribes have the potential to benefit from proposal 27. It is unknown how much the tribes will benefit.
Assertion: Proposal No. 27 provides “Hundreds of millions of dollars as annual funds to deal with the homeless California.”
This is a little complicated. This proposal may create hundreds of millions of dollars a year to deal with homeless issues, but is not guaranteed.
For each election cycle, the independent legislative analysts will consider each proposal and estimate new costs and income that may be brought to the state. They discovered that the proposal 27 increased the flow of funds to the state by “perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars, probably not more than $ 500 million” through tax and commission. The office did not include the lower limit.
First, the funds are used to cover new costs related to sports gambling regulations, and analysts are estimated that it can reach tens of millions of dollars a year.
Of the remaining money, 15% are used for tribes that do not participate in sports gambling, and 85% are used as a homeless solution. Congress can also choose to treat some of them to treat gambling addiction.
truth?
Proposal 27 may create hundreds of millions of dollars a year for the state to deal with the state. However, if the tax and commission are $ 100 million or $ 200 million per year, that is not the case. Also, if the parliament decides to point to the treatment of gambling addiction, it will reduce the amount spent in the homeless solution.
How does this fund meet the amount of money that California has already spent to deal with? According to the state analysts, California is a homeless program in the budget year from 2021 to 22 I spent $ 7.2 billion. If a proposal 27 is added, for example, if the $ 300 million is added, it is equivalent to an increase of 4%.
Request: “90% of profits [of Prop. 27] Go to a company outside the state “
This claim is based on the fact that the proposition 27 levied online sports gambling at a 10% tax rate. The problem is where the remaining 90% go. To be honest, it is impossible to know exactly.
If the proposal 27 is passed, the game company headquartered in other states will want to participate in actions because they provide funds to the bill. According to Eilers & Krejcik (a research company specializing in games), companies that provide funds to this initiative have several most popular online sports betting platforms. Therefore, it is natural that their platforms will become popular in California.
Does that mean that those companies can make all benefits? With this initiative, California tribes can also provide mobile and online sports gambling. If the tribe chooses to do so, they will earn some of the profits.
Game companies headquartered in other states may also have to spend money in California to do business here. For example, a company needs to trade with the tribe to legally conduct a business, and the transaction may include some payments and revenue. Game companies may need to pay to California employees or contractors to do business in California.
truth?
Companies that provide funds to the campaign are headquartered outside California. It is impossible to know how many percent of the profit will actually go to them.
Claims: The tribe is “By promoting proposal 26, the authority of the Legal Secretary will be authorized to a private court lawyer in order to guarantee the virtual monopoly of all games in California, and buried the approved card room competitors in a frightening lawsuit.”
This argument contains several claims. This is a part of a proposal that permits a person (or organization) who believes that it violates the California Gambling Law, such as providing illegal games. Based on it. However, before filing a lawsuit, it is necessary to first ask the state of the Justice to take action, and if the Ministry of Justice does not take action, or if the Ministry of Justice does not take action, it can be proceeded only. 。 do The lawsuit offers a lawsuit and offers a lawsuit, but allows it to be re -proposed. It’s a complicated legal issue. But this is not a new idea. California has used a similar process to enforce labor law.
truth?
Tighten the seat belt.
Are the tribes trying to “guarantee the de facto monopoly”? In 2000, California people have not been allowed by other organizations in California, such as slot machines and card games supported by casinos. We voted for permission to provide tribes in formal gambling. The proposal 26 allows the tribe to re -negotiate the agreement with the state, and allows you to start providing a roulette and dice game that other groups cannot provide. Therefore, this initiative provides a specific formal gambling. It will expand the monopoly of the tribe.
The new litigation process is “will the lawyer of a private trial give the authority of the Justice Secretary of Justice, who bury the approved card room competitors in a frightening lawsuit?” Private lawyers will be able to raise them.. Proposal 26 Campaign does not hide the fact that the tribe intends to appeal for a card room that competes with the tribal casino.
The lawsuit process said, “It was created to solve the House Bank Game Law for Management of Card Room,” said Cathy Fairbanks, a spokesman of YES ON 26 campaigns at a recent debate. The exact method of providing games has long been a difference in opinion between card rooms and tribes. According to Fairbanks, the tribes need a way to do so because they are not qualified to disagree in court.
However, according to Moilan, a professor of law, the idea that this will result in many advantages, assuming that the court has not yet established a process for treating frivolous litigation. For example. Moilan said that the court could apply sanctions to lawyers who filed unfounded lawsuits.
Calmatters is a public journalism venture that explains how the California Council functions and why it is important.
Comments
Post a Comment