So let's go ahead and get
right to tonight's main point.
There are seven propositions on the
November ballot, but Prop 26 and 27,
they're making history.
More than $400 million have been poured
into campaigns for and against them.
And we have political reporter Morgan Reiner,
who's been looking into this for weeks.
But Morgan, what's really
going on with these? Props,
Alex, to get to the point.
These propositions,
which hope to legalize sports betting,
are about business.
Native American tribes are battling
gaming companies for control
over what could be another.
Multibillion dollar industry.
But ads for and against Prop 26 and
Prop 27 are bringing up other questions.
Is legalizing this industry
a way to fight homelessness?
What about gambling addiction?
And what have casinos already
done with gambling profits?
To look at what could be in store?
We're also looking at the past.
From donations to the fire station,
what did you do? Before this truck?
We had a severely outdated and quite frankly,
inadequate water tender that we utilized.
To a community health clinic on the way,
it's hard to ignore the benefits the town
of Esparto and Yolo County has enjoyed
since the neighboring Yocha Dehe went to
nation implemented gambling in the 1980s.
It was just tough. I mean,
tribes living in poverty.
A stark contrast to what yocha dehe
Wintun Nation chairman Anthony
Roberts says life was like growing up.
I'm struggling to make ends meet,
you know, not knowing where our
next meal was going to come from.
The tribe, which runs the
Cash Creek Casino and resort,
is now flooded. With cash,
the numbers exactly. We don't
usually share those types of things,
but I will tell you that it's growing.
It's growing tremendously.
60 year California veteran
journalist Dan Walters,
who has covered the history
of casinos in the state,
says combined casino tribes make billions,
billions and billions of dollars a year.
Dozens of tribes are supporting
Proposition 26 to legalize in person
sports betting at tribal casinos.
California's Indian tribes vote no.
And 27 but let's rewind.
How did California get to the point
where tribes operate casinos? In
1987, a California tribe won
a US Supreme Court case.
If the state allows any sort of
gambling at the time, bingo parlors.
The tribes were allowed to
have it on their land too.
They made money and they built better
facilities. Within a few years,
we're kind of expanding the definition
of the courts permission and started
putting in a form of slot. Stan
Walters reported on the efforts of the
California Attorney General at the time
who was trying to shut the casinos down.
State authorities said they were illegal,
but they fought over it,
continued to have a slot machines,
and finally made enough money on the slots,
finance and ballot measures in California
that gave them a monopoly over almost
full casino gambling in California.
In 2000, California voters
overwhelmingly supported Proposition
1 to permit tribes to operate
slot machines lottery games.
And bank and percentage
card games like blackjack
for the better part of two decades
have supported tribal gaming
here in California on our lands.
That's giving us the opportunity
to become economically viable,
to provide healthcare and education.
Fast forward 22 years and now
Californians are presented with
a similar gambling question.
If sports wagering should become
legal in California, who should
operate it? There are a number
of ways that ours are better.
Nathan Clarke is running the
yes on Proposition 27 campaign.
Which will legalize online sports
betting run through large corporations
like DraftKings and FanDuel.
It also creates a pathway to legalize
online betting on non sporting events
like award shows and video games.
But why is Prop 27 being promoted by
supporters as a way to fight homelessness?
Prop 27 would, for the
first time in state history,
create a permanent source of funding
for homelessness interventions.
These are things like
permanent supportive housing.
Put it in what experts call sweeteners,
some funding for homelessness and they
also partnered with three non gaming
tribes that don't enjoy the same financial
benefits that tribes with casinos do.
It's a common thing when people draft
ballot measures that they have what they
really want and then they throw in a
few goodies on the side so that people
would be more willing to vote for it.
And it goes back to think of the lottery
initially back in the 80s, the lottery.
Dishes was sold to the to the voters
on the on the assumption that, quote,
the schools went too with some of the money
from the lottery would go to the schools.
How much money will Prop
27 provide to homelessness?
Authors of the bill are calling it the
homelessness and mental Health Support Act.
90% of revenue goes out of state.
10% of the revenue goes to the state.
After taking out money for fees.
What's left of that ten percent,
85% is designated for homeless.
Funding. But a
small percentage of a large
amount is still a lot of money.
The independent Legislative
Analysts Office predicts it will
bring in hundreds of 1,000,000
a year for homelessness.
You know that the state
of California has already
put billions towards helping solve
homelessness, and numbers keep going up.
So is there a road map of how exactly this
money is going to be used? Absolutely.
The state has spent some one time money,
but that's only one time money.
But we haven't had a permanent
ongoing funding source,
and that's a revenue stream that will.
Help cities and counties
plan for the long-term.
One of many issues raised
with Prop 27 problem gambling.
As of right now, 3.7 million
Californians experience problem
gambling in their lifetime. Gambling
actually does create a high.
It creates a dopamine high,
but it doesn't create a high.
That's going to result in you,
for example, passing out.
Like if you're drinking,
eventually you pass out.
But people who gamble can
do it for days at a time.
Robert Jacobson
is the director of the California.
Council on problem gambling
the Council is neutral when it
comes to gambling propositions.
What they do give input on is if
propositions will provide funding
to help treat addiction that
will arise from them if passed.
Proposition 26 currently
includes dedicated funding for
problem gambling services.
Proposition 27 does not.
Proposition 27 does allow the
state legislature to decide if
they want to allocate money
toward problem gambling,
but Jacobson fears they won't.
The recurring theme that's going
to come through our conversation?
It's not enough research this
tribes have been doing this for
a better part of two decades.
They already have their policies
and regulations in place
to combat problem gambling.
Let's talk about underage
gambling. One ad against Prop
27 claims every digital device
will be turned into a sports
wagering tool and won't be able to
control minors from placing bets.
The yes on Proposition 27 campaign disagrees
27 has the strictest rules to
ensure that those who place bets.
Or over the age of 18, no one will
be able to place a bet who is a minor
more than 30 states legalize
online sports betting
since the 2018 Supreme Court
case allowed them to do so.
The more widespread the marketing for that
online gambling and the more exposure
that people have to that marketing,
ultimately the higher the prevalence
rates become and the speed with which
addictions develop and the severity
with which addictions develop. If
Proposition 26 is passed,
in addition to legalizing sports betting
in casinos on Native American land,
it includes 4 horse tracks in the state.
Why the horse tracks?
Well, by including it
didn't really cost anything,
but they kind of eliminated some
potential opposition. The car drew.
People still didn't like it.
They still particularly didn't
like it because Proposition
26 has a poison pill clause in
it that subjects the cardrooms
to some legal harassment that
they otherwise would not have.
In other words, it helps.
Eliminate opposition,
creating more of a monopoly.
The measure also they don't
talk about it very much,
also legalizes other games in Indian
casinos such as Roulette Pro 26
tribes fear they will
lose revenue of 27 passes.
We feel like this would be a huge
infringement on our brick and
mortars if this were to pass,
but Walter said 85 to 90% of the revenue
they currently make is from slot machines.
The physical aspect of pulling the lever,
it's almost the whole game, he said.
It's a separate, younger male base
that will generate revenue for
online sports betting or in person.
The question should be who will
get billions on top of the
billions they are already making.
They say it's unsafe now,
but in 2024, in just two years
when it's their initiative,
they'll be totally fine with it.
That's obviously incredibly
hypocritical and shows exactly
why they're opposing. Initiative
in a Sacramento Press Club debate with
both Proposition 26 and 27 campaigns.
Kathy Fairbanks with Proposition 26
said that the tribes were backing
the in person only initiative this
year are also backing an initiative
in 2024 for online sports wagering,
but run through the tribes instead
of large out-of-state operations.
Mobile sports betting is
something that that people want.
Again, we want to start slowly,
with responsibly.
People can vote yes on both.
The extent that they're in conflict
with each other, the one that has
the most votes will prevail will
probably be some court battles.
No on both, or yes on one of
them and no on the other.
It's not gonna go away.
If both of these measures are defeated,
I think it would be back in the 2024
ballot within at least one more measure.
So gear up for billboards,
TV and radio advertisements.
These campaigns have already
outspent every other initiative
in California history,
because the wind is worth the bet.
Well, as you can see, there are a lot
of factors that are playing into this,
so we're going to take a quick break.
Morgan is sticking around to answer
some more questions when we come back.
Welcome back before the break,
political reporter Morgan Reiner.
She broke down all of the
details behind Prop 26 and 27,
two items that are on the November ballot
that deal with legalizing sports betting.
Probably just saw one of those
ads during the break up.
Morgan, my first question for you though,
how are these props doing
in the polls right now?
The most recent polls from UC
Berkeley show that neither of them
are doing too hot in the polls right
now when it comes to Proposition 27,
the online initiative voters.
But no 53% of the time.
Yes, 27% of the time.
For Proposition 26 in person,
voters put no 42% of the time,
and yes 31% of the time.
Now, in an event in Vegas just last week,
you had representatives
from both propositions,
the tribes and FanDuel and draft King,
talking about how they understand
their propositions would likely fail.
Their representatives for FanDuel and
draft king were talking about how the
confusion between both propositions.
And the fact that the majority
of the casino tribes are against
their online initiative is the
reason why it will likely fail.
And before we go, I want to ask
you to because you mentioned the
homeless sweetener, how do homeless
advocates feel about this as well?
Well, first, governor Gavin Newsom
himself weighed in on this proposition,
saying to Californians to read through the
lines that this is not a homeless initiative.
Now, the San Francisco Chronicle,
they actually did a deeper dive and spoke
to homeless advocates across the state.
Many of them said that they were
nervous about attaching themselves.
To a political proposition such as this one.
All right, Morgan. I guess we'll see
what happens come election night.
Yes, we will. Thank you.