A NO vote of this measure means:
Slot machines would not be authorized at racetracks and card rooms. Indian tribes would continue to be subject to current tribal-state gambling compacts. Local governments would not receive new gambling revenues
Governor Schwarzenegger Takes the Issues to Californians With the Ballot Proposition Voter Guide
ARNOLD’S TOP PROPS
Propositions 68 & 70 Threaten Governor’s Plan to Control Gambling in California and represent the worst kind of special interest politics. These propositions will bring Las Vegas style gambling to cities and suburban communities throughout California with no way to control it. These propositions would place casinos near 200 schools and major streets and freeways in Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego, further congesting our crowded roads, and will cost Californians billions of dollars in lost revenue by destroying compacts that I have negotiated with responsible tribes.
Please take a moment to read about these deceptive propositions and join me in voting NO on Proposition 68 and No on Proposition 70.
NO on Proposition 68
Governor Schwarzenegger’s Analysis:
This deceptive gambling proposition is a scheme by race tracks and card clubs to establish Las Vegas size gambling casinos throughout California. The promoters claim that Proposition 68 will make Indian casinos “pay their fair share.” It will not.
Not a single penny from this initiative can by used to help balance the state budget. Further, the promoters of Proposition 68 have written it so they are exempt from paying any future increases in state and local taxes.
This proposition will place casinos near 200 schools and major streets and freeways, further congesting our crowded roads.
I have been working hard and succeeding in getting responsible Indian tribes to pay their fair share to the state without moving casino gambling off Indian lands and into our cities and towns. Please vote Vote NO on 68. Stop this deceptive gambling proposition.
NO on Proposition 70
Governor Schwarzenegger’s Analysis:
Proposition 70 is also a special interest proposition designed to expand casino gambling throughout California without giving taxpayers their fair share of revenues.
Proposition 70 will wipe out agreements I have negotiated with responsible tribes that will give state government a billion dollars this year and billions more in the future. Instead, Prop 70 will give Indian tribes a 99-year “blank check” to unlimited casino gaming expansion without any requirement to pay their fair share to state or local government and no way for local voters to prevent tribes from bringing gaming to their communities.
Please vote NO on Proposition 70. It is a bad deal for California taxpayers.
Tribal leaders hail setback for California proposition
Tribal leaders attending a conference in Las Vegas on Thursday applauded the likely defeat of a voter initiative in California that threatened to remove their monopoly on slot machines but said they already are bracing for future political battles nationwide.
Backers of Proposition 68 dropped their campaign Wednesday to allow California's race tracks and card rooms to offer slots but said they will continue to pursue a lawsuit filed last month to block Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger from signing new casino deals with tribes.
One tribal leader said television ads for Proposition 68 were "slickly produced" but weren't able to win over voters.
Since the late 1990s, only about 30 percent to 35 percent of Californians tend to oppose tribes and gambling and any combination of the two, Macarro said.
The Pechanga tribe has been an outspoken advocate for tribal sovereignty and hasn't participated in recent compact negotiations with Schwarzenegger. A few tribes have recently renegotiated casino deals with the governor to offer for more slot machines in exchange for handing over a cut of slot revenue to the state and other concessions.
Macarro said the idea that tribes should pay their "fair share" into the state budget is wrong and doesn't take into account the human suffering of their ancestors.
He also said California's negotiated tax rate on slots is arbitrary and warned tribes that other states may force them to pay a similar rate for their slot machines.
"There's no science behind it other than two tribes in New England did it that way," he said. "We can't allow this to be the standard for governments to strongarm tribes."
Tribal leaders said they are becoming more effective political lobbyists but said their efforts are still misunderstood by the general public.
Lobbying is about survival and protecting what little culture is left of their tribes, Macarro said.
"This is not about wielding influence as an end in itself," he said.
Leaders also said they expect the biggest voter turnout among American Indians in history this November with a goal of one million votes.
Tribes have tended to support more Democrats than Republicans, though some Republicans have taken up tribal issues.
Former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore won New Mexico by only 376 votes in 2000 in a state with a 10 percent Indian population, said Stuart Paisano, governor of the Sandia Pueblo tribe near Albuquerque.
Paisano said the tribe is trying to get out the vote and has hosted elected officials on its reservation, he said.
The tribe's casino compact is valid until 2015 but potential competition from other forms of gambling has led the Sandia to diversify into other businesses such as office complexes and industrial industries, he said.
Tex Hall, president of the National Congress of American Indians, said tribal sovereignty "continues to be under attack."
Tribes need to better prepare for future political battles by monitoring legislation and creating a unified front, Hall said.
"Unity is a word that is common but is hard to accomplish," he said.
While lobbying and voting is critical for tribes, their ultimate success will depend on the perceptions of their non-Indian neighbors, said Anthony Pico, chairman of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians near San Diego.
"The voting public will decide the fate of Native Americans," Pico said. "The ability to move forward will be decided in the court of public opinion."
Last edited by legal on Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:40 am; edited 1 time in total
A bid to offer state-sanctioned online poker in California took a hit Tuesday morning when the leader of the California Senate shot down the idea of passing a bill in the closing month of the legislative session. Meanwhile, opponents of the idea say there is a growing movement against any action this year, and a poll commissioned by one major gaming tribe found that voters were hostile to the idea.
The effort is led by the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, which operates one of the largest tribal casinos in California, and several card clubs. They have been circulating a five-page draft bill that would create a centralized, online poker website they would offer to online customers within California’s borders. The consortium would have an exclusive right to offer online poker, but all California Indian tribes and card clubs would be eligible to be members. The draft also states a so-far unspecified percentage of fees would be paid to the state.
The California Tribal Business Alliance (CTBA), which represents several casino tribes, sent an opposition letter to legislators last week. On Tuesday, Marshall McKay, chairman of the Rumsey Indian Rancheria, also sent an opposition letter to members of the legislature. Rumsey operates a large casino about an hour from Sacramento, and is not a member of CTBA.
On Wednesday morning, Mark Macarro, the chairman of the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, sent out a letter to leaders of other tribes stating “Pechanga has had a standing oppposition to online poker since proposals first surfaced late last year out of concerns for the far-reaching legal, political and policy consequences of an expansion of this magnitude.” Not a CTBA member, Pechanga operates a 2,000-slot machine-casino in Temecula. Macarro also attached the results of a survey his tribe commissioned through EMC Research. According to the poll of 802 randomly selected California voters conducted August 9-13, 61 percent opposed legalizing online poker in California. This included 44 percent who were “strongly opposed.” Only 36 percent were in favor.
“I guarantee this bill is going nowhere in the next four weeks,” said CTBA lobbyist David Quintana. He added, “The opposition has broadened.”
On Tuesday morning, Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, was holding a press availability when a reporter asked about the proposal. “I don’t think it should be taken up in the last four weeks,” Steinberg replied. “I think it is a legitimate idea for consideration. I only have one question when I hear a proposal like that: how much money for the state General Fund? It’s all I want to know. You know, is it two, three hundred million dollars? If it is, I’d consider it. But I think it’s going to take more than four weeks to analyze that kind of proposal and the potential economic benefits.”
In a conference call with other tribes last Thursday, Morongo lobbyist Josh Pane indicated that Steinberg had been receptive to the idea in a recent meeting. The group held a second conference call with tribes on Friday afternoon as they sought to drum up support for the proposal.
Patrick Dorinson, an outside spokesman for the Morongo tribe, said the group was still meeting with legislators but did not yet have a bill sponsor. Reached last week, he defended the proposal by noting that Californians are already spending millions annually on online poker via websites headquartered in other countries. “Because of technology, you can identify your players” Dorinson said. “Right now, there are a lot of Californians playing Internet poker, but without consumer protection.”
The five-page bill draft estimates that Americans spend $4 billion annually on “off-shore, non-United States Internet gambling Web sites,” and that more than one million Californians already play Internet poker. It goes on to note that while the federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) bans the use of credit cards and fund transfers for Internet gambling, there is an exception for “intrastate” Internet gaming.
Keith Sharp, a spokesman for the Hawaiian Gardens Casino, said the proposal was born last fall when they approached the Morongo tribe with the idea. He said several other large Los Angeles area card clubs are also involved, including the Commerce Casino, the Bicycle Club, and the Hollywood Park Casino. “There was a general consensus among the large clubs that it was important at this point in our existence to build some bridges to some of the larger tribes,” Sharp said.
Sharp disputed the idea that the proposal basically created a monopoly. Instead, he said, it opens up the market to all of those who are best able to provide it—card clubs and Indian tribes. While many of the specifics were yet to be worked out, he said, the Consortium is prepared to create a secure system that will limit games to Californians over 21, and also build in limits on how much people can wager in a given session or month. “We’re regulated, we’re licensed, we’re back-grounded,” Sharp said. He added, “We’re the ones who know how to do it, and do it better. It makes sense in our minds to have the experts lead.” (emphasis added)
But Los Angeles-based gaming attorney Sanford Millar said the plan goes against standard approaches used in the dozen or so jurisdictions that license-online-gambling worldwide, a roster that includes Malta, Italy and Antigua. “None of them have provided for a single license per jurisdiction,” Millar said. He added, “There is no justification that anyone can put forth to grant a monopoly to these guys and this time just because they say they want it.”
In meetings with legislators and other groups, consortium members have reportedly been citing pending federal legislation as part of the reason to push through a bill with less than a month remaining in the 2009 legislative session. A pair of bills, one each in the House and Senate, have been submitted which would provide legal and tax framework for online poker and some other types of gambling. Some are skeptical that the potential of federal regulation is behind this end of session move. “Congress works at a little slower pace than state government does,” said John Pappas, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Poker Players Alliance (PPA).
California is home to about 20 percent of the country’s online poker playing population, said Pappas, as well as about a tenth of his group’s million-plus members. Pappas said that his group supports state and federal regulation to allow online poker, but opposes the Morongo consortium proposal due to the exclusivity it would entail. Even though players aren’t competing against the house the way they are with slot machines—instead, they take a percentage of the total money played, called the “rake”—Pappas said, more competition still means a better experience for players. “There would be no incentive for there to be a competitive rake,” he said. “Many sites offer bonuses, free rolls and opportunities for people to play for nearly nothing. I don’t know if there would be any incentive for that to be provided under a monopoly setting.”
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
