High stakes on gambling props battle
By: EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer
Voters to decide on increasing number of slots at 4 large casinos | ∞
The battle over expanded American Indian gambling agreements has become one of the most expensive ballot initiatives in state history.
Those supporting and opposing the agreements have raised nearly $94 million.
Propositions 94 through 97 would allow four Southern California tribes, including the Pechanga band near Temecula, to add a total of 17,000 slot machines in exchange for giving a larger share of their revenue to the state.
Typically, campaigns raise from a few millions to as much as $20 million, said Kim Alexander, a political analyst.
The most expensive single ballot initiative campaign in the state was 2006's Proposition 87, which unsuccessfully sought to impose a $4 billion tax on oil companies to promote alternative fuels and energy-efficient vehicles.
It raised a total of more than $155 million from both sides.
By comparison, the $94 million raised on Props. 94 through 97 is more than the $93 million that tribes and their opponents raised in 1998 on Proposition 5, which legalized tribal gambling in California (though in today's inflation-adjusted dollars, Prop. 5's $93 million would be $118.3 million).
Prop. 5 was later ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court, leading to a $69 million fight over Proposition 1A, which set the current rules for tribal gambling.
Political analysts say the reason that tribes are willing to wager such huge amounts is clear.
"If tribes are willing to spend tens of millions of dollars, there's got to be a lot more money at stake here," said Alexander, president of the watchdog group, California Voter Foundation.
There is, economists say.
California's tribal gambling industry generated an estimated $7.7 billion in 2006, according to Alan Meister, an economist with the Analysis Group consulting firm in Los Angeles.
Nevada casinos took in $12.6 billion the same year, according to Meister's "Indian Gaming Industry Report."
The tribes that stand to benefit from the new agreements are Pechanga, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in Palm Springs, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians near Cabazon and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation in East County.
Under the agreements, the Agua Caliente and Sycuan tribes would get up to 5,000 slot machines each. The Morongo and Pechanga tribes would get up to 7,500.
Tribes throughout the state have a total of 60,000 slot machines and most tribes agreed to a limit of 2,000 machines each.
Proponents of the new agreements say there is an unmet demand for the slot machines, which generate most of the tribal casinos' profits.
They say the state and the tribes stand to benefit by expanding the number of machines.
"We would argue that the revenues that will be provided to the state will help (alleviate its budget woes) and local governments will also benefit tremendously," said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the "yes" on Props. 94-97 campaign. "And yes, there's no question that the businesses will grow."
Together, the four tribes have raised more than $66 million to convince the voters that the agreements are good for the state.
Much of the money is spent on TV ads asserting that the state would receive more than $9 billion over the two decades that the agreements would be in effect.
But opponents, including a racetrack owner, a labor union and two tribes, say the agreements negotiated by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and approved by the Legislature last year amounted to "sweetheart" deals for four of the most influential tribes in the state.
"Just four (of the state's 108) tribes would control one-third of the state's gambling pie," said Scott Mcdonald, a spokesman for the "no" on Props. 94-97 campaign. "It's not what we want."
For the opponents, the campaign is also about money and competitive advantage, said Tim Hodson, executive director of the Center for California Studies at Sacramento State University.
"You have gambling interests from Nevada and other forms of gambling, and for these interests, it's really an economic fight," Hodson said.
One of the main donors to the "no" campaign is Terry Fancher, owner of the Hollywood Park and Bay Meadows horse racetracks.
The racetracks have provided $6.8 million of the more than $27 million raised by the campaign.
Mcdonald said race tracks stand to lose business to expanded tribal casinos, as do other tribes with casinos, such as the Pala Band of Mission Indians in North County.
The Pala band and the United Auburn Indian Community contributed a total of more than $17 million to oppose the agreements.
Unite HERE, a labor union representing service industry workers, contributed another $3 million to the campaign. Union leaders have said that the agreements make it more difficult for casino workers to unionize.
Despite the financial advantage, the four tribes face an uphill battle, Hodson said.
"Traditionally, California voters are cautious," he said. "If there is any doubt in their mind, they will vote 'no.' "
Supporters of the agreements acknowledge that they have much work to do before the Feb. 5 vote.
A Field Poll released Dec. 27 reported that 28 percent of likely voters were undecided.
Only a slight majority 39 percent said they were inclined to vote "yes." Thirty-three percent of those surveyed said they were inclined to vote "no."
However, Salazar said he was confident the campaign would win over enough of the undecided voters.
"We feel pretty confident that the voters are going to approve these measures," he said.
Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Temecula Resident wrote on Jan 17, 2008 10:24 PM:I'm voting yes. Indian gaming creates jobs in the Temecula valley.
Tom in SD wrote on Jan 17, 2008 11:37 PM:Anything that creates jobs must be the right thing to do. The porn industry feels the same way.
Nanchi wrote on Jan 18, 2008 6:33 AM:I've always voted for the Indians. But my question is why are only 4 tribes included? Why not any who want to participate, have more machines, and pay more taxes? It seems a little unfair.
Howiek wrote on Jan 18, 2008 7:00 AM:Let’s see, the state legislature approved the gambling agreements, the federal government has approved of them, why are we voting on this issue in the first place—the four tribes already have all the approvals they need. Do we have to wait for a federal judge to tell us that since they have been approved the vote is therefore invalid? I think all of us should also take a real hard look at who is supporting the No Vote—a race track owner who wants more gambling at his race tracks and unions who want more dues paying members. This is another complete sham thrown at California voters.
David wrote on Jan 18, 2008 7:23 AM:If the tribes are supporting it they must be getting a good deal. We need to get more $$$$$ out of them.
Vote NO.
Used To Be wrote on Jan 18, 2008 7:23 AM:Gambling used to be a vice. Now, we watch as the tribes fight over who gets what. I am certain that, if people can roll over in their graves with disgust, the great indian spirits are doing so now.
I think wrote on Jan 18, 2008 7:28 AM:the other tribes were given the opportunity to sign on but did not want to pay the state that much in taxes. Someone correct me if I am wrong. The only real way to solve this is to legalize gambling throughout the state on or off the reservations. Cities can zone for casinos and they can then be regulated and taxed the same. People are gambling anyway from the reservations to Vegas. California might as well get its share. We are a minimum of $14 billion in debt. Legalizing gambling would go a long way to take care of this, lower taxes, tuitons, fix roads etc.
THis is not about helping indians wrote on Jan 18, 2008 7:34 AM:Tribal members from each of these tribes get $10,000 to $30,000 per month. EACH MEMBER GETS 10-30 THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH. How much is enough? This is obsene, and non gaming tribes get almost nothing.
jim wrote on Jan 18, 2008 7:50 AM:Legalize casino gambling off the reservation and tax as Nevada does. Reduce the 10% income tax, the 7.75% sales tax and provide more and better services. People are gambling anyway. Why have only $9 billion going to the state when we could get over $30 billion?
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Jan 18, 2008 7:58 AM:The lack of a consensus among tribes ought to send up a red flag for voters. It definitely seems selfish interests (ie, greed) are driving these measures. Much of what has transpired since the inception of tribal gaming has occurred behind closed doors. It's about time California voters are given the opportunity to have a say on any further expansion. VOTE NO on 94, 95, 96, and 97!!!
MarieY wrote on Jan 18, 2008 8:05 AM:Vote NO on all the gaming propositions. Enough is enough! We are always told how poor the Indians are. What a crock!!
GFN wrote on Jan 18, 2008 8:10 AM:Are the Indians GUARANTEEING the NINE BILLION DOLLARS???????????????
NO WAY wrote on Jan 18, 2008 8:35 AM:VOTE NO. Stop The Greedy.
More Money for California wrote on Jan 18, 2008 8:36 AM:To THIS IS NOT ABOUT HELPING THE INDIANS,
You are right.. this is NOT about helping the Indians..its about helping the State of California's budget crisis, its about helping the local communites with jobs, its about helping local businesses... .The "Indians" as you put it are doing just fine... its the rest of you that seem to need some help...
It's a Business wrote on Jan 18, 2008 8:55 AM:I look at this as a business. These tribes are running successful businesses, and they want to expand. They negotiated a deal with the state and the feds and the deal was approved. The No Vote is a defiant act initiated by self interest groups. All that said, I really don't care, the tribes will not get a dime of my money. Non-gambling, C-1.
Artist wrote on Jan 18, 2008 8:57 AM:Have out tribes become the new money changers? Go to a casino at the first of the month and watch all the seniors gamble away their Social Security checks.
Vote no
AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Jan 18, 2008 9:06 AM:Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes! So the tribes make money helping bail California. Gee, where could I ever have heard the concept of investing money to make money? As for the larger tribes getting the larger share of the pie; that concept also sounds familiar. Poor Nevada; having to put up with a little thing like 'free' enterprise.
Roy wrote on Jan 18, 2008 9:09 AM:Look around town and understand that there are many service sector employers that are on the brink of closing. Now imagine a triple sized Pechanga ( or the other three for that matter)suctioning even more discretionary income away from local business. Do we want to do damage to our local businesses so that the tribes can triple their already high income? Think about it and then VOTE NO 94 95 96 97 and also call all your friends from outside our area and ask them to do the same. Two thirds of the IE already polled feel that these casinos are large enough and it is time for our voices to be heard!
David wrote on Jan 18, 2008 9:30 AM:What? They need more machines because people can gamble fast enough? How sad and stupid.
Peter wrote on Jan 18, 2008 10:07 AM:How much dollars do Californians spend in Las Vegas? What is the state doing to capture those dollars? Legalize gambling?
Encinitas wrote on Jan 18, 2008 10:59 AM:I'm voting NO. While the state may get more $$$, it's not clear how much of that will trickle back to the souther California communities in which these gaming businesses exist.Tax monies have way of finding a home in Sacramento, and not being returned to the communities from whence they came. Just look at our property taxes as an example. Who's gonna pay for the road widening, extra sheriffs, etc? We were given all sorts of promises about Hwy 76 before the casinos opened, and the road remains a death trap. We haven't yet absorbed the cost associated with the introduction of all of the casinos in the first round.
thank you Roy wrote on Jan 18, 2008 11:01 AM:The difference between discretionary spending done in town is the fact that sales tax is collected. Not to mention that gambling is s sick sick disease. Those gamblers need serious help.
blm wrote on Jan 18, 2008 12:21 PM:"white man" made outrageous profits selling vice (firewater) to "Indians", now "Indians" make outrageous profits selling vice (gambling) to "white man". Poetic justice it appears to me; I think it's great (but then I would legalize and tax all gambling in the state...)
Pandora's Box wrote on Jan 18, 2008 12:36 PM:Sure legalize gambling in California. Then legalize prostitution and drugs. You might as well, they'll be there anyway. Then we might just legalize guns too because it won't be safe without one. Personally, I don't want to live in Las Vegas. It's a slippery slope folks. Regards, C-1.
LEGALIZE.... wrote on Jan 18, 2008 12:36 PM:victimless, so-called "vice" crimes like gambling, prostitution, and drug use. We waste billions in criminal justice dollars to enforce these laws mainly upon the least powerful in society: the poor and non-white. Rich whites can travel to Las Vegas, hire a prostitute, and get high while the poor cannot enjoy any of these acts without fear of the police arresting them. It is a typical double standard of racist, capitalist America.
Tom wrote on Jan 18, 2008 1:01 PM:Vote no! If you want to gamble go to Vegas.
Jeff wrote on Jan 18, 2008 2:14 PM:There are no good guys here. We're voting on this because the unions were unable to get "card check" in the pact so they could get more of the gambling booty. The could care less about whether they were "sweetheart" deals if they could have directed more of it into their pockets.
someone who knows wrote on Jan 18, 2008 2:23 PM:Most of the members of other tribes with casinos are not getting 10-30k a month or even close to it.
To Pandoras Box wrote on Jan 18, 2008 2:27 PM:Guns are already legal. We should just all be able to carry one to protect ourselves. Gambling is already here and prostitution, well it isn't the oldest profession by chance. People make choices, some bad some good. We can't watch out for all, we have to look out for the majority. Legalize gambling would bring much needed revenue to to the state which afterall is us taxpayers.
Matt wrote on Jan 18, 2008 2:46 PM:It's a very deceptive plan. While it looks like it will help California, it also gives the indians more money, and they can put more slots. But at the same time, it's bad, because it doesn't give back to California, and takes away from them, not they they need more anyway. I am so condfused ! ! !
To: someone who knows wrote on Jan 18, 2008 3:11 PM:Your Right and even if they all were, How and Why is it anyone elses business? Is every one else running around blurting about there payroll? I know I don't, ( embarrassed of the low amount I guess) If I were a betting man (and I sometimes am) I would bet Thay are the same people making $300 a week and jealous as h%## of the guy in the next room making $350 a week. You will never make them happy because you can give them $50,000 a week and they will still be jealous of the one making $51,000 a week. It does not matter what you do or make there will always be someone making more than you, just ask D.Trump, plunty of people make more then he does. Thats life. 20 years ago when most people were living in towns and citys going from job to job all with in a few miles from home, I bet you diden't think twice about that Indian tribe out in the middle of nowere trying to just servive and now some jealous minded people want a limit on what they should be aloud to make, Thats the real crime. If it were any other race we would be in court right now and the ACLU would be all over the place defending it, of that I'm sure.
Taxpayer wrote on Jan 18, 2008 3:48 PM:There is too much hidden in these propositions. Somehow the taxpayers will get the short end of the stick. Remember how we were told how great the lottery would be for schools. VERY little of the lottery goes to schools. And the money that does go has restrictions on it. These casinos don't even help with the road conditions as they build their casinos. I think the taxpayer is being fooled with these propositions. Don't give the casinos anymore than they have right now.
To: someone who knows wrote on Jan 18, 2008 4:06 PM:I apologize, It should have read " I bet MOST PEOPLE diden't think twice," NOT "I bet YOU diden't think twice," SORRY.
Claudia wrote on Jan 18, 2008 4:44 PM:Don't some of the ads say that there isn't a specific percent of the casino money which would be allotted to the state of California if these props were passed? If we're supposed to vote on something that will make the casinos and Indian tribes more money as well as also benefitting California, shouldn't we know exactly what percentage of revenue California will get? Seems fishy.
Karl wrote on Jan 18, 2008 4:52 PM:I am simply against all propositions for gambling because I think it is harmful to the dolts that lose their paychecks every week. Call me stupid. I just don't like it. I will be voting NO.
Simple answer wrote on Jan 18, 2008 5:55 PM:Simple answer to a simple problem. I think race based advantages are always wrong, especially in business. Since casino gambling is here to stay in California, why not allow others to invest in this opportunity, and not just Native Americans? Use Nevada as a boilerplate, and use a similar system of taxation. That way all Californians would be participating in the casino's winnings through taxation. Right now, the amount that Indian casinos pay is very small compared to any other state with legal gambling. Additionally, the amount of state financial oversight is also below the industry standard of any other state with legal gambling. The citizens of California are currently getting the short end of the stick. Indian casinos have had it too easy, for too long. I'm voting "NO" on propositions 94-97. I'm also hopefull that in the future, the ownership of casinos will be open to all, instead of just the race based "gift" that the indians are now monopolizing.
Its a business??? wrote on Jan 18, 2008 5:55 PM:Selling heroine is a business too. The indians should not be congratulated on actually turning a profit peddling gambling. As for helping the tribes, that is a joke. My wife went to work at the clinic by alpine. She is native from a non-casino tribe. What shw witnessed thee was complete corruption and insanity. GREED GREED GREED The casino tribes have completely lost their culture, now it is the almighty buck they worship.
Neanderthal wrote on Jan 18, 2008 6:37 PM:I may only have a caveman mentality like I have been told but it sounds to me like all of this boiles back down to the same old resurrected Prop.5 and 1A arguments mostly by the same old groups. and the way this Neanderthal sees it, You are ether in favor of the casinos and gambling or you are not, and let's not forget about everyone who has no openion about it one way or the other. There is not one sole in the real world that I know and talk to anyway who gives a rats backside about any one of the thousand other arguments, except those with a financial stake one way or another in the outcome. So maybe let that be your guide as to the real motivation behind a lot of what you read and hear. the paid guys you read in here will always O.D. there issue to death,and tell you the world is going to come to an end and your a fool if you don't see it there way and the rest of us with lower blood pressures are more balanced, respectful and reasonable about there openion.
Bo wrote on Jan 18, 2008 6:43 PM:What happened to the concept of sovereign nations? Why do any native tribes have to seek State permission to install casinos on reservations? I have some Federal regulatory experience on reservations concerning food processing, the States (California and Washington)had no jurisdiction in these cases and showed absolutely no interest in getting involved...is there a law that grants jurisdiction to the States for reservation casinos? I'm on the fence for this issue. I hate the crowds and noise that the casinos have brought to Valley Center, but it does appear that there has been some improvement in the quality of life on the reservations....a lot of third-world like shacks have been replaced with new homes.
Why stop at Gambling? wrote on Jan 18, 2008 7:19 PM:Let's allow the Indian tribes to cultivate and sell marijuana on their reservations and have the proceeds from one joint out of a thousand go to Sacramento to end California's budget crisis. Just think of the great time we'll all have playing the slots and smoking a few bowls in the peace pipe! It's good for California.
me wrote on Jan 18, 2008 7:34 PM:I have a food addiction....how about we close all the grocery stores and fast food places.....get a clue, people and get over your jealousy.
CAROLE wrote on Jan 18, 2008 8:52 PM:Gosh, I guess it's OK if it creates jobs! While we're at it, let's sell cigarettes to kids - that creates jobs, right? Let's legalize prostitution, that'll create jobs too. And by all means, let's legalize and start selling meth and heroin. How about we mandate that high-school kids start appearing in porn films? That'll bring in some tax revenues, too!
Gambling is immoral. It bankrupts people, creates crime, and ruins lives. That there is even one person posting here in favor of allowing it is appalling. That the state condones it - and worse, profits from it - is truly obscene.
Those of you in favor of this ought to be ashamed.
amazing coincidence wrote on Jan 18, 2008 9:23 PM:Interesting timing coincidence of the budget crises announcement and this ballot initiative.
Lots of Talk wrote on Jan 19, 2008 11:37 AM:My O My, there are a lot of racist and ignorant people posting here. ... Are you kidding me? This world is too small for such BS talk, ... Hate and ignorance like all this I read in these comments makes me sick to my stomach. You who spew such filth should be ashamed of yourselves. Many of the rest of you should study and learn the realities of this issue before posting your ignorant comments too. There are an aweful lot of lies and mistatements in here.
To "Lots of talk" wrote on Jan 20, 2008 1:55 PM:Well, I don't see you sharing any of your vast knowledge on the subject. "Lies and misstatements"? Why not address them, if they exist? I also didn't see anything even remotely racist posted in the other comments. It sounds like you have a vested interest. "Lots of talk" is appropriate. You're full of hot air.
Lots of Talk wrote on Jan 20, 2008 11:21 PM:The statements I spoke of have been removed from this site by the NC Times. One that clearly stood out was from Jay which was clearly racist, and some others as well. All have been removed from this site by the NC Times because the editor clearly agreed with me after posting the comments. They even edited the quotes out of my post as you will see ... in 2 places indicating the removal of those statements. In regards to To Lots of talk, you are clearly one of the people who is posting the kinds of comments here that I am speaking about, as your tone is clearly confrontational. You also have posted your comment without a true understanding of my post earlier. If you would educate yourself before you speak or rant, you would find that there is in deed truth in my statements. However, you are one of the hot heads in here who speak before you think and write outrageous comments like, ... That is simply an ignorant position and statement that has no merit amongst serious, thinking people. How about a meaningful dialog that speaks only to facts and not emotional garbage that has no place in a real debate over the issues.
Lastly, I am a person who hates to see people hating or disrespecting other people just because they are a different color or have more money than others. Those things don't mean anything to me. We are all one people and should treat others accordingly, especially those who have been wronged because of their minority position in society. You sir, are full of hot air yourself and should cool yourself down a bit before taking on people who are pointing out societal wrongs in comment postings on this site.
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Jan 21, 2008 9:52 AM:"...pointing out societal wrongs in comment postings on this site." LOT, so to rectify your sense of entitlement for minorities, you advocate that money will be the elixir and that California voters continue to allow the expansion of a runaway train. It seems to me that the majority of the postings disagree with your stance regardless of race. And don't forget that the four tribes with a vested interest in these compacts have spent nearly $100 MILLION to promote this expansion! Money has a way of changing people the same way drugs and alcohol do. PS, you should try to keep your emotions in check!
Lots of Talk wrote on Jan 21, 2008 11:00 AM:I do keep my emotions in check as long as people unlike yourself are tolerant of others. My comments are directed at intolerant, ignorant people.
In terms of this vote coming up, I think that the Indians should be able to do what they want on their own land. We removed them from their ancestial lands and dumped them on these infertile and useless lands and told them that as long as they stay put on these reservations, they could do what they wanted. Well, our ignorance and intolerance of the Indians has us where we are today. Now that those people are making money, people like yourselves can't stand it. So, what do we do? We decide to get involved in their affairs, once again, breaking our treaties and our words.
I quoted others in my post, quotes that clearly exhibited outrageous view points, and once again, even though I was quoting others comments that have been read by everyone reading these entries for days, NC Times again removed the quoted dialog. And again, Whoa Nellie brought up drugs and alcohol in this debate, but NC Times editors did not squelch him. Interesting...
Long live the Spirit of Crazy Horse! Good luck to the Indians. I wish them well.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement