photo courtesy of Thomas Elias Thomas Elias writes the syndicated California Focus column, appearing twice weekly in 101 newspapers around California, with circulation over 2.3 million. He has been nominated three times for the Pulitzer Prize in distinguished commentary and has won numerous awards from organizations such as the National Headliners Club, the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the Los Angeles Press Club and the California Taxpayers Association.
Sports gambling lost, and badly, on California’s Nov. 8 ballot. But not to worry, all you would-be online gamblers and folks who want to lay wagers in Native American casinos or racetracks: Sports gambling will be back on the ballot soon.
The untold billions of dollars that promised to flow from either of this fall’s Propositions 26 or 27 — or both — were the reason Native American gaming tribes and the big national online sports bookmakers put up a record war chest of more than $440 million to pass these propositions. The same billions assure the idea will be back as often as it takes for something akin to Props. 26 or 27 to pass.
Maybe next time the campaigns will be more honest. For though lies are common in this state’s initiative politics, rarely if ever were they as obvious and obnoxious as those propounded by gaming interests this fall.
One remarkable pre-election poll showed that voters didn’t take long to recognize this: While both propositions ran about even among voters who saw no more than one or two of the ads backing Props. 26 and 27, those who saw a lot of ads were against the propositions by margins of almost 2 to 1. The ads were not merely ineffective; they were self-defeating.
Dishonesty began with the formal title of Prop. 27: the “California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Act.” That didn’t even mention gambling.
In fact, had 27 won, gambling revenues would have been taxed at slightly more than 10%. Of that money, 85% would have gone to homeless support agencies that already get billions in state tax money. So it would have made little difference in a field where big money has proved ineffective.
Meanwhile, commercials for Prop. 26 were also dishonest, implying that much of its take would go to mental health treatment of pretty much the same unhoused populace that 27 claimed to help. In reality, neither measure would have given away much of the proceeds.
That may have been one reason the falsely promoted Props. 26 and 27 lost among Republicans and Democrats along with Donald Trump supporters and Trump haters. This entire outcome was as counterintuitive as it gets. Early on, if you were a gambling man or woman, you would have felt foolish betting against either initiative.
The recent history of propositions aiming to legalize activities that were long illegal and considered vices suggested one or both would pass easily. That’s what happened first with medical marijuana and then with recreational pot. Now because of state initiative outcomes, it’s hard to find a city or county without at least one cannabis dispensary.
The same goes with gambling, for which voters in 2000 approved gambling on once-impoverished and desolate Native American reservations. Eight years later, voters eagerly expanded the number of slot machines in Native American casinos, many of which now double as luxury resorts complete with spas, tennis courts and sometimes golf courses.
But as the tide turned against online sports gambling, backers vowed they are not finished, that they will bring legalized online sports betting to the ballot again. This would not be unusual. Prop. 29, the third attempt in the last four years by the Service Employees International Union to unionize at least some of the labor force at dialysis clinics, failed badly again this month, but who’s to say the union won’t try again?
It was no surprise, then, when the CEOs of the FanDuel and DraftKings online sports bookies announced at an October gambling convention in Las Vegas that they would “live to fight another day.”
First, though, they’ll have to work with tribal casinos to share the wealth so they don’t end up with another set of competing propositions, something that pollsters said hurt their chances this year.
They will also need to sweeten the pot when it comes to sharing the new wealth they could get from California with positive civic causes and with impoverished Native American tribes. Giving these interests a minuscule share of the proceeds may have been another factor in the defeat of Props. 26 and 27. So the gambling folks have work to do if they want to milk the billions they seek to take from Californians.
Thomas Elias can be reached at tdelias@aol.com. To read more of his columns, visit californiafocus.net online.
Originally published at Thomas Elias