Quantcast

Indian Gaming update

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/07/GAMING.TMP

Sacramento -- Card club and racetrack owners Wednesday abandoned their campaign to pass Proposition 68, which looked to sprinkle slot machines among their businesses and end Indian tribes' voter-granted monopoly on big-time gaming in California.

The sudden end to the campaign - one of two measures that voters will see on the November ballot -- followed weeks of charged television ads it fashioned to portray tribal casinos as runaway moneymakers that should be forced to share their wealth to a greater degree with the state, or face competition from longtime gaming interests.

Wednesday's decision to formally end the push for Prop. 68 -- whose backers had already spent $24 million, half of it on television -- came after both internal and independent polls showed the measure heading for defeat, and as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's opposition has become more vocal.

The governor appeared in Southern California against the measure and its tribally backed rival, Proposition 70, on Wednesday, and will campaign against them in San Jose today.

"The Proposition 68 campaign is in full retreat," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "My sights are now set squarely on Proposition 70."

Prop. 68's own recent tracking polls projected it would likely garner no more than 40 percent of the vote, campaign officials said. An August Field Poll put it at about 30 percent, with Prop. 70 not faring much better.

Rick Baedeker, the campaign's chairman and president of Southern California's Hollywood Park racecourse, acknowledged that the governor's position stood to have "heavy influence" on voters. But he blamed the initiative's troubles primarily on the 16-word title it was given in state election pamphlets -- a jumble of confusing legalese, he said, that left voters estranged.

"The voter doesn't understand what Proposition 68 is," Baedeker said. "The ballot label is almost incomprehensible, if not incoherent. The voter that supports the elements of 68 reads the ballot label and becomes either opposed or confused."

Prop. 68, which will remain on the ballot, would allow slot-machine gambling to spread from tribal reservations -- where voters allowed it to take root years ago -- to 11 card clubs and five race tracks unless all of the state's 53 gaming tribes agreed to pay 25 percent of their net gaming revenue to California.

The traditional gaming interests would then share 33 percent of their gaming proceeds, the majority of which would be directed into a fund to benefit local public service agencies. Either through the profits of tribes or the tracks and card clubs, the measure projected it would bring in at least $1 billion for the state annually.

The push to pass Prop. 68 itself reflected the changed political landscape of gaming in California. In a state where racetrack owners once loomed large, tribal casinos have become a multibillion-dollar industry with enough political power to be key players at the highest levels of government. Prop. 68, and the slot machines it promised, looked to offer deliverance for the waning businesses, whose leaders now find themselves on the margins of a pastime they helped popularize.

But the measure's backers faced a tough, barbed fight from the outset, with direct mailers unflatteringly depicting pornography magnate Larry Flynt -- who owns a Southern California card club -- as its unseemly ally. Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger dismissed both gaming measures as meaningless. And Prop. 70 pumped millions into pushing its alternative: unlimited expansion of gaming on reservations in exchange for tribes' paying the state's roughly 9 percent corporate tax rate.

Baedeker reiterated Wednesday that card clubs and racetracks were in a fight for their lives and said the industry would pursue lobbying efforts and most likely reappear with a second ballot initiative in coming years.

"Our industry has been in California for 70 years," he said. "You're going to see us in court, you're going to see us in Sacramento, and you're going to see us back at the ballot box."

Prop. 68 backers have sued the state for its first round of new gaming compacts, which among other things guaranteed tribes would retain their exclusive hold on casino gaming in California and tied future expansion to pro-rated fees paid to the state. Administration officials have said the deals should be worth about $125 million to the state annually.

The lawsuit seeks to void the compacts on the grounds that the two-thirds majority vote by which they were ratified in the Legislature was unconstitutional.

Beyond working to overturn the compacts, I. Nelson Rose, a gambling law expert at Whittier College in Southern California who was hired as a consultant to the measure early on, said the industry's likely wish list could now include an overhaul of older state laws that leave them at a disadvantage to tribes. "Card clubs can't play blackjack, they can't play '21,' " and are barred from partnering with established gaming firms as tribes have done, he said.

"Card clubs can probably survive with liberalized rules," he said, but "if it wasn't for off-track betting, the racetracks would be closed. They're probably going to be able to survive this, although they're going to be hurting more and more."

Elizabeth Garrett, who directs the Initiative and Referendum Institute from the University of Southern California, said the withdrawal of Prop. 68 from the election reiterated Schwarzenegger's potent ability to shape elections.

"In a way, it can help Prop. 70 because the number of ads that lead to ... confusion will go down," she said, but the governor "very much comes out the winner in this. He's managed to persuade them to surrender before the election. Schwarzenegger is a key player in how these things work, and when he decided to oppose 68 and 70, what was already a bleak future became even bleaker."
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/10993799p-11911115c.html


Tribes place their bets on Prop. 70
By Steve Wiegand -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Wednesday, October 6, 2004
There are 55 Indian casinos in California - and at least that many opinions among casino tribes when it comes to expanding their businesses.
Some, such as the Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians in Yolo County or the United Auburn Indian Community in Placer County, have chosen the give-and-take of negotiations with the governor in order to grow. Others, like the Jackson Rancheria of Miwuk Indians in Amador County, are content to stand pat with what they've got.


And then there is Proposition 70, which would make moot the whole question, at least from a legal sense.
Placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by a Southern California tribe, the measure would allow any federally recognized tribe to operate as many casinos and as many slot machines as it wanted on its land, along with currently prohibited games such as craps and roulette.

In return, the tribes would share their casinos' net revenues with the state, at a level equivalent to the corporate tax rate. That's currently 8.8 percent.

The ostensibly simple measure is the fruit of a convoluted issue that took root five years ago.

Under terms of gambling compacts agreed to between 61 tribes and then-Gov. Gray Davis in September 1999, and ratified by voters in March 2000, no tribe could operate more than 2,000 slot machines or two casinos.

It was Davis' stated goal to limit the total number of slot machines in the state, and the tribes acquiesced in order to get a deal before federal officials made good on threats to close down "gray area" casinos many tribes were already operating without compacts.

Besides, at the time 2,000 slots sounded like a lot of machines, as many or more than most of the casinos in Nevada.

For most tribes, the limits have posed few difficulties. Fewer than 20 tribes are at or near the 2,000-slot limit, and only one tribe operates the maximum of two casinos.

But for those "big casino" tribes, most of which are in Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties, the limits have posed very real problems.

"We are in a competitive market, and we need to be able to grow as the market dictates," Deron Marquez, chairman of the San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians in San Bernardino County, said during an interview this summer.

"It's very simple: When we have customers standing in line on the weekends to play a slot machine, we need more machines, or they will go somewhere else."

Even as some tribes were outgrowing the 1999 compacts, California voters were changing governors, recalling Democrat Davis last year and replacing him with Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger came into office determined to make some changes in the one-size-fits-all-tribes deals Davis had made.

For one thing, he wanted more money for the state. Under the Davis deals, the state's general operating fund received no money from the tribes, although they contribute about $130 million a year to two special funds, most of which goes to tribes with no, or very small, casinos.

Schwarzenegger also wanted tougher environmental and consumer protection rules than were in the Davis compacts.

The new governor made new deals with 10 tribes, although only nine have been approved by the Legislature. In some cases, the number of slots per tribe is still limited.

But in others, the tribes can have as many slots as they want, in return for sharing revenues with the state and agreeing to more state oversight when it comes to environmental protection and consumer issues.

In total, the deals are estimated to be worth around $200 million per year for the state, along with financing for a one-time $1 billion transportation bond issuance.

But most of the state's casino tribes either have chosen to stick with the Davis deals, which don't expire until the end of 2020, or have sought new deals, only to balk at Schwarzenegger's terms.

"I think it is a sad day in Indian country," Richard Milanovich, chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, said when five of the new deals were announced in August.

"They are holding (tribes) hostage in ways that any good businessman would not agree to."

Milanovich and other tribe leaders argued the new compacts' requirements for state oversight and regulation in many areas were an assault on the tribes' positions as sovereign governments, separate from and equal to the state.

Thus prodded by the need to expand, and unable or unwilling to make a new deal with the state, Milanovich and his Palm Springs-based tribe decided to go over the governor's head, directly to the voters.

The tribe spent more than $1 million collecting signatures to qualify the initiative. Along with the San Manuel tribe, it had spent more than $20 million through mid-September to convince voters of its worth, and planned to spend at least $30 million more.

Under Proposition 70, the governor would be required to sign a new or revised compact with any federally recognized California tribe that wanted one.

The compact would make four basic changes to the 1999 deals. It would remove the limits on slot machines, and on the number of casinos a tribe could operate on its trust lands. It would allow the tribes to expand the kinds of gambling they offer. It would require the tribes to share net casino revenues equal to the state's corporate tax rate. And it would last 99 years.

Tribes supporting the proposition argue that the state will make more money from it than from individual deals with a few tribes, because most of the casino tribes in the state will opt for the new compacts.

Proposition 70 consultants have estimated the initiative would generate $1.95 billion in revenues to the state in its first five years.

They also argue that tying the percentage of shared revenues to the state's corporate tax rate ensures the casino tribes will pay the same "fair share" as other businesses.

Opponents, led by Schwarzenegger, counter that the measure fails to give the state the ability to audit tribes' books and ensure they are actually forking over the right amount, a charge the measure's supporters hotly dispute.

The governor also argues that it's bad public policy to take the ability to negotiate the specifics of gambling compacts out of his hands.

Complicating things further is Proposition 68, which in essence would allow a group of racetracks and card rooms to operate a total of up to 30,000 slot machines.

Lawyers for the campaign Schwarzenegger is heading to oppose both 68 and 70 have raised an interesting specter. If voters approve both measures, they assert, various provisions might nullify each other so that tribes paid nothing to the state and could operate unlimited casinos, and the tracks and card rooms would get slots, too.

That possibility is disputed by attorneys for Proposition 70, who contend that if both gambling measures pass, the one getting more votes prevails, and none of the provisions of the other would take effect.

Which leads to the safest bet of the entire campaign: If both measures pass, it will be the courts, and not voters, that decide how it all comes out.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------