presents
Voter's Edge California Voter Guide
Get the facts before you vote.
Brought to you by
MapLight
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
KQED’s 2022 Voter Guide@KQEDnews
Tuesday November 8, 2022 — California General Election

State of California
Proposition 27 — Online Sports Betting Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute - Majority Approval Required

To learn more about measures, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.

Election Results

Failed

1,862,514 votes yes (17.7%)

8,682,857 votes no (82.3%)

100% of precincts reporting (25,554/25,554).

ALLOWS ONLINE AND MOBILE SPORTS WAGERING OUTSIDE TRIBAL LANDS.

Allows Indian tribes and affiliated businesses to operate online/ mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands. Directs revenues to regulatory costs, homelessness programs, nonparticipating tribes.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly in the hundreds of millions of dollars but not likely to exceed $500 million annually. Some revenues would support state regulatory costs, possibly reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually.

Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures.

What is this proposal?

Easy Voter Guide — Summary for new and busy voters

Information provided by The League of Women Voters of California Education Fund

The way it is now

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that each state can decide whether to legalize sports betting. Sports betting is illegal everywhere in California, including on tribal lands.

What if it passes?

Prop 27 would:

• Legalize online sports betting in California (not on tribal lands) for people 21 and over.

• Bets could only be placed through a gaming tribe or qualifying businesses.

• Most of the revenue from betting fees and taxes would address homelessness and the mental health needs of people who are homeless. The rest of the money would support Native American tribes.

Budget effect

Legalizing online sports betting could raise up to the mid-hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Regulating online sports betting could cost up to the mid-tens of millions of dollars each year.

People FOR say

  • Regulating online sports betting would protect gamblers and end illegal online gambling operations.
  • The measure would guarantee extra funding to address homelessness and mental health in California.

People AGAINST say

  • Large out-of-state gambling companies would profit off of Californians and block smaller operations from the market.
  • Online sports betting makes gambling more accessible than ever, and more people would become addicted to gambling.

Pros & Cons — Unbiased explanation with arguments for and against

Information provided by League of Women Voters California Education Fund

The Question

Should California allow online and mobile sports betting for people 21 years of age or older?

The Situation

The California Constitution and California statutes define what types of gambling are allowed in the State. Currently the California Lottery, card rooms, betting on horse racing, and gambling in American Indian owned casinos are allowed. The casinos are allowed to operate slot machines, lottery games, and certain types of card games. The rules governing American Indian owned casinos are set by compacts that are agreements between the owner tribe(s) and the State. Betting on sports events is not legal in California.

The Proposal

Prop 27 would:

  • Allow adults 21 or older to bet on adult sports events online. No betting could occur on events such as high school sports. The bettor need not be in a casino to make a bet.

  • Allow tribes to offer online sports betting under the tribe’s name and branding. Tribes would have to pay a one-time $10 million licensing fee to the State and a renewal fee every five years.

  • Allow gaming companies to offer online sports betting if they strike a deal with a tribe to operate in California and pay a one-time licensing fee of $100 million plus a renewal fee every five years. Create a new division within the state’s Justice Department to regulate online sports wagering.

  • Impose a 10% tax on all companies or tribes offering sports betting. The tax is imposed on a gross amount minus how much money is paid out to winning bets, promotional bets, and federal gambling taxes.

  • After paying the State’s regulatory costs, revenue from the tax and the licensing fees would go into a new
    fund. Of the money in the fund 85% would be used
    for homelessness and related mental health programs. Fifteen percent of the fund would go to American Indian tribes that are not involved in sports betting.

  • None of the revenue or licensing fees would be included in the state’s General Fund for purposes of allocating money to programs such as public education.

Prop 26 and Prop 27 both legalize sports betting in some way. If both pass it is possible that both will take effect.

If a court finds that parts of the propositions are in conflict, the one that received the most yes votes will be law.

Fiscal effect

The size of Prop 27’s fiscal impacts depends on variables such as the number of entities that offer online betting, the renegotiation (if any) of compacts caused by offering online betting, and the number of people that engage in online betting.

There is a potential for increases in state revenue reaching from hundreds of millions up to $500 million each year. There will be increased regulatory costs estimated to be in the mid tens of millions of dollars each year. Some or all of these costs would be offset by the payments sports betting operators must pay to the State for regulation.

Supporters say

  • Prop 27 will provide hundreds of millions of dollars to support programs that alleviate homelessness, mental health and addiction in California.
  • Prop 27 will benefit every California tribe—especially rural and economically disadvantaged tribes which don’t own big casinos.

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters:

Yes on 27 - Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support
yestoprop27.com

Opponents say

  • Prop 27 is a deceptive measure promoted by out-of- state companies to legalize online and mobile sports gambling in California.
  • Online gambling is not a solution to homelessness or other social ills and will open more people to gambling addictions.

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Opponents:

No on 27 - Coalition for Safe and Responsible Gaming
noon27.com

No on 27 - Protect Tribal Sovereignty and Safe Gaming
noprop27.org

Details — Official information

YES vote means

  • Licensed tribes or gambling companies could offer online sports betting over the Internet and mobile devices to people 21 years of age and older on non-tribal lands in California.
  • Those offering online sports betting would be required to pay the state a share of sports bets made.
  • A new state unit would be created to regulate online sports betting.
  • New ways to reduce illegal online sports betting would be available.

NO vote means

  • Sports betting would continue to be illegal in California.
  • No changes would be made to the way state gambling laws are enforced.

Summary

p. 22 of the Official Voter Information Guide

PROPOSITION 27 OFFICIAL SUMMARY (prepared by the Attorney General)

  • Legalizes online and mobile sports wagering for persons 21 years and older.
  • Such wagering may be offered only by federally recognized Indian tribes and eligible businesses that contract with them.
  • Individuals placing bets must be in California and not located on tribal lands.
  • Requires licensing fees and imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering revenues.
  • Directs tax and licensing revenues first to regulatory costs, then remainder to homelessness programs (85%) and nonparticipating tribes (15%).
  • Specifies licensing, regulatory, consumerprotection, and betting-integrity standards for sports wagering.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:

  • Increased state revenues, possibly in the hundreds of millions of dollars but likely not more than $500 million annually, from sports betting payments and penalties. Some of these revenues would be a shift from existing state revenues.
  • Increased state costs to regulate online sports betting, possibly reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by the increased revenues. 

Background

Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (pp. 22-23 of the Official Voter Information Guide)

Sports Betting. State law currently bans sports betting in California. However, state law allows some gambling, such as tribal gambling, the state lottery, cardrooms, and horse racing betting.

Tribal Gambling. Native American tribes have certain rights under federal law to govern themselves, such as certain rights to offer gambling. This means that the state generally cannot regulate tribal gambling except as allowed by

  • (1) federal law and
  • (2) federally approved agreements between a tribe and state (known as tribal-state compacts).

When a tribe wants to offer gambling on its lands, federal law requires that the state negotiate a compact with the tribe. If the tribe and the state cannot agree, the federal government may issue a compact instead. In California, compacts allow tribal casinos to offer slot machines and other games on tribal lands. These compacts lay out how gambling will be regulated. They also require certain payments, such as to the state and local governments. Tribes can ask for these compacts to be changed, such as when new types of gambling become legal in the state.

California currently has compacts with 79 tribes. Tribes currently operate 66 casinos in 28 counties. Last year, tribes paid around $65 million to support state regulatory and gambling addiction program costs. Tribes also pay tens of millions of dollars to local governments each year (annually). Additionally, tribes operating larger casinos pay nearly $150 million each year to tribes that either do not operate casinos or have less than 350 slot machines.

State Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAPP). HHAPP provides funding to local entities (such as cities) and tribes to help them achieve their goals related to addressing homelessness. Currently, 80 percent of HHAPP funds go to local entities generally based on their share of the state’s homeless population, 2 percent to tribes, and 18 percent to the state to provide bonuses to local entities and tribes who meet their goals. The program received $1 billion in state funds this year.

Impartial analysis / Proposal

Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (pp. 23-24 of the Official Voter Information Guide)

PROPOSAL

Proposition 27 allows tribes or gambling companies to offer online sports betting. It requires tribes and gambling companies that offer online sports betting to make certain payments to the state for specific purposes— such as to support state regulatory costs and to address homelessness. The proposition also creates a new online sports betting regulatory unit. Finally, it provides new ways to reduce illegal online sports betting.

Allows Tribes or Gambling Companies to Offer Online Sports Betting. Proposition 27 changes the California Constitution and state law to allow online sports betting over the Internet and mobile devices. People 21 years of age and older in California, who are not on tribal lands, would be able to place bets no later than September 2023. The proposition allows bets on athletic events (such as football games) and some non-athletic events (such as awards shows and video game competitions). However, it bans bets on certain other events such as high school games and elections.

The proposition allows the following groups to apply for a five-year license to offer online sports betting:

  • Tribes With Tribal-State Compacts. Licensed tribes, or their contractors, could offer sports betting under the tribe’s name. The proposition requires tribes to give up some of their rights under federal law to get a license. For example, tribes must agree to a certain amount of state regulation.
  • Certain Gambling Companies. Licensed gambling companies could offer sports betting under their own name or brand. These companies must partner with a tribe with a tribal-state compact. The proposition limits licenses to larger companies, such as those that have online sports betting licenses in at least ten U.S. states or territories.

Requires Payments to State. Proposition 27 requires various sports betting payments to the state. For example, tribes and gambling companies with sports betting licenses must pay 10 percent of sports bets made each month to the state, after subtracting various expenses. These expenses include:

  • (1) any bets made with credits from promotional offers,
  • (2) prize payments, and
  • (3) federal gambling taxes.

Losses, which result when expenses are more than bets, may be used to offset these payments. A portion of these monthly payments must be made in advance when the sports betting license is approved or renewed. This reduces the actual monthly amount owed. Specifically, a tribe must pay $10 million when its five-year license is approved. It must also pay $1 million each time its license is renewed. A gambling company must pay $100 million when its five-year license is approved. It must also pay $10 million each time its license is renewed.

Creates New Fund. The above payments to the state would go into a new California Online Sports Betting Trust Fund (COSBTF). Proposition 27 requires COSBTF revenues first be used for state regulatory costs. The rest would be used for two major purposes:

  • 85 percent to address homelessness and for gambling addiction programs. The money to address homelessness would be provided to local entities generally in the same way as HHAPP funding.
  • 15 percent for tribes that are not involved in online sports betting. Tribes could use these funds for tribal government, health, economic development, or other purposes.

Exempts Revenues From State Spending Limit and Minimum Education Spending Levels. The California Constitution includes various rules that impact the state budget. These rules include a state spending limit and require a minimum amount of spending on K–12 schools and community colleges each year. Proposition 27 changes the California Constitution to exempt sports betting revenues from these rules.

Creates New State Online Sports Betting Regulatory Unit. Proposition 27 creates a new unit within the California Department of Justice to regulate online sports betting. This unit would set the requirements to get a license. It would also decide what types of events and bets are allowed. Additionally, this unit would investigate illegal activities (such as the “fixing” of events). However, the proposition puts limits on the unit. For example, the unit could not limit the amount of promotional credits offered to bettors. The proposition also creates a 17-member group to provide advice and recommendations to the unit, including written feedback on any potential regulations.

Provides New Ways to Reduce Illegal Online Sports Betting. Proposition 27 creates new ways to reduce illegal online sports betting. When people place online sports bets with any unlicensed entity, the proposition requires those people pay the state a penalty. This penalty equals 15 percent of the amount that they bet. The proposition also allows for a $1,000 penalty for each day this money is not paid. These payments would go into the COSBTF. Additionally, the state’s new regulatory unit could take certain enforcement actions. These actions can include requiring unlicensed entities provide the names of people placing bets with them and blocking online access to these entities.

Financial effect

Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (pp. 24-25 of the Official Voter Information Guide)

Proposition 27 would impact both state and local government revenues and costs. The actual size of these effects, however, is uncertain and would depend on how the proposition is interpreted and implemented. For example, this proposition expands legal gambling. In response, it is unclear whether tribes will ask for changes to their tribal-state compacts (such as to reduce the amount paid to local governments) to reflect potential impacts on tribal casinos. The fiscal effects would also depend on how many licensed entities offer sports betting and the amount of expenses they subtract from the monthly amount owed to the state. Finally, the fiscal effects would depend on the number of people who choose to make sports bets.

Increased State Revenues. Proposition 27 would increase state revenues from sports betting payments and penalties. The size of this increase is uncertain. The increase could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, but likely would not be more than $500 million annually. Some of this revenue would be new. For example, the state currently does not receive any share of illegal sports bets made online. This means the state would receive new revenue when people make sports bets legally rather than illegally. However, some of this revenue would not be new. For example, the state currently receives revenue when people spend money on certain things, such as lottery games or shopping. This means the state might not receive new revenue when people spend less on those things so they could make sports bets.

State revenues from sports betting payments and penalties would go into the COSBTF. The monies would first be used for state regulatory costs. The rest would support

  • (1) homelessness programs,
  • (2) gambling addiction programs, and
  • (3) tribal economic development and other purposes.

Increased State Regulatory Costs. Proposition 27 would create work for the state to regulate online sports betting. The amount of work would depend mostly on how sports betting is regulated. Key examples of this include: the number of sports betting licenses approved, the type and number of betting options and events offered, and how much state enforcement is done. Total costs for this work could reach the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by COSBTF revenues.

Other Fiscal Effects. Proposition 27 could result in other fiscal effects on the state and local governments. For example, state and local revenue could increase from people coming from out of state to place sports bets and spending more than they otherwise would. However, some or all of this increased local revenue could be offset. For example, tribes might ask for their tribal-state compacts to require less payment to local governments to reflect potential impacts sports betting has on their casinos. Additionally, state and local governments could have increased costs. For example, online sports betting could make it more difficult for people with gambling addictions to avoid placing bets. This could increase the number of people who might need government assistance. The net effect of the above effects on the state and local governments is unknown.

Published Arguments — Arguments for and against

Arguments FOR

Proposition 27 is supported by California Tribes and homelessness and mental health experts.

For the first time, Prop. 27 PERMANENTLY funds housing, mental health and addiction treatment by regulating and taxing online sports betting.

Prop. 27 contains strict rules protecting minors, regular audits, and oversight by the Attorney General.

— p. 6 of the Official Voter Information Guide

Arguments FOR

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 27

Vote YES on Proposition 27

Permanent Solutions for Homelessness, Mental Health, Addiction & Tribal Funding

Non-profit leaders, mayors, and California Tribes support Proposition 27 because it will provide hundreds of millions of dollars in permanent solutions to homelessness, mental health, and addiction in California. All funding will be subject to strict audits and oversight to ensure it is spent effectively.

Proposition 27 will also benefit every California Tribe—especially rural and economically disadvantaged Tribes who don’t own big casinos.

By taxing and regulating safe and responsible online sports betting for adults 21 and over, California can help solve homelessness and provide thousands of Californians mental health care and addiction treatment.

Proposition 27 provides the most solutions for California:

  • Prop. 27 protects minors and strictly prevents those under 21 from betting.
  • Prop. 27 requires mandatory audits to ensure homelessness and mental health funding is spent effectively.
  • Prop. 27 is the only sports betting measure that will fund permanent homelessness and mental health solutions.
  • Prop. 27 is the only measure that guarantees funding for disadvantaged Tribes.

Proposition 27 will fund hundreds of millions of dollars each year in shelter, housing, addiction treatment and mental health support for Californians who need it most.

Ricardo Flores, non-profit leader and housing advocate, on why his organization supports Prop. 27:
“California’s homelessness crisis is a statewide emergency. Our state has never fully invested in permanent solutions to end homelessness. Prop. 27 allows organizations like mine to have an ongoing revenue source to fund desperately needed services: shelter, housing, and support. All with strict audits to ensure every dime is spent effectively. No other sports betting proposition will generate significant revenue for homelessness and mental health services.”

Tamera Kohler, CEO of San Diego’s Regional Task Force on Homelessness, on Prop. 27:
“One in six Californians experiences mental illness. It’s a crisis affecting nearly every family. Prop. 27 will help generate hundreds of millions of dollars every year to fund mental health treatment, and solutions to homelessness and addiction. By passing Prop. 27, we can give more people the care they need and the hope they deserve.”

Chairman Jose “Moke” Simon of Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, on Prop. 27:
“My tribe has had so much taken away from us—our land, our ceremonies, our culture—and our sovereignty is constantly under attack. Unlike Tribes with large casinos, my Tribe struggles to provide basic needs for our people. Prop. 27 is the only proposition that helps disadvantaged Tribes like mine, and Prop. 27 is the only one that ensures every California Tribe benefits.
“Don’t believe the false attacks on Prop. 27. By taxing and regulating online sports betting for adults over 21, we can finally address homelessness in California while protecting tribal sovereignty.”

Vote YES on Prop. 27—tax and regulate safe and responsible online sports betting, support California Tribes and finally do something to solve homelessness, mental health, and addiction in California.

YEStoProp27.com

Tamera Kohler, CEO
San Diego Regional Task Force on Homelessness

Jose “Moke” Simon, Chairman
Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California

Ricardo Flores, Executive Director
Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) San Diego

— pp. 26-27 of the Official Voter Information Guide

Arguments AGAINST

Prop. 27 is a deceptive scheme funded by out-of-state gambling corporations to legalize a massive expansion of online and mobile sports gambling.

Prop. 27 is NOT a “solution” to homelessness. 90% of profits would go to out-of-state corporations.

Prop. 27 is opposed by 50+ California Tribes. Vote NO on 27.

— p. 6 of the Official Voter Information Guide

Arguments AGAINST

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 27

JOIN CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRIBES, PARENTS, TEACHERS, HOMELESS ADVOCATES, PUBLIC SAFETY LEADERS: VOTE NO ON 27—THE CORPORATE ONLINE GAMBLING PROPOSITION

Prop. 27 is a deceptive scheme written and promoted by out-ofstate corporations to legalize online and mobile sports gambling in California. It won’t solve homelessness, but it will turn virtually every cellphone, tablet and laptop into a gambling device.

Proponents are deceptively marketing Prop. 27 as a “solution” to homelessness. But just like when we were told the state lottery would be a solution for public education, we can’t believe these false promises. Here’s why our broad coalition urges NO on Prop. 27.

UNDER PROP. 27, OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATIONS WIN—BUT CALIFORNIANS LOSE

The out-of-state online gambling corporations wrote Prop. 27 to benefit themselves. Prop. 27 would give these corporations near total control over online sports wagering. Ninety percent (90%) of the profits would end up in the pockets of out-of-state corporations without creating real jobs or investments in our state. Not a single dime would fund state priorities like public schools, firefighting or even problem gambling prevention programs.

PROP. 27 IS NOT A “SOLUTION” TO HOMELESSNESS

California has spent over $30 Billion to address homelessness in the last 5 years, but things have only gotten worse. A recent report by the independent State Auditor said California’s spending on homelessness is “disjointed” and “has not fulfilled its most critical responsibilities.” Rather than legalize this massive expansion of online gambling, we should more effectively manage the billions the state is already spending as well as any new funding needed in the future.

PROP. 27 IS FULL OF LOOPHOLES THAT SHORTCHANGE CALIFORNIA

Prop. 27 caps revenues going to homelessness programs at just pennies on the dollar of what the online gambling corporations will make. Buried in Prop. 27 is a “promotional bets” loophole. States that allow this same loophole have seen revenues fall far below what was promised. The big gaming corporations also say they will pay a licensing fee. In reality, the corporations can reduce their tax one dollar for every dollar they pay in licensing fees. More money for them; less money for the homeless.

PROP. 27 EXPOSES KIDS TO ONLINE AND PROBLEM GAMBLING.

Prop. 27 would legalize the largest expansion of gambling in California history—but it has NO IN-PERSON AGE VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT to prevent minors from gambling. Studies show that online and mobile gambling are especially attractive to youth and those prone to compulsive gambling.

CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRIBES STRONGLY OPPOSE PROP. 27

“Prop. 27 is a direct attack on tribal gaming rights and selfreliance. In fact, it even prohibits online sports wagering on tribal lands. Prop. 27 jeopardizes vital funding tribes use to provide housing, healthcare, firefighting services, education and other services for our communities.”—Lynn Valbuena, Chairperson, Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations

PLEASE JOIN INDIAN TRIBES, PARENTS, TEACHERS, PUBLIC SAFETY, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HOMELESSNESS ADVOCATES: NO ON 27!

• Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations • More than 50 California Indian tribes • NAACP California • California League of United Latin American Citizens • California District Attorneys Association • CalAsian Chamber of Commerce • Goodwill Southern California • Veterans of Foreign Wars Department of CA

NO ON PROP. 27

Lynn Valbuena, Chairperson
Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations

Sara Dutschke Setshwaelo, Chairperson
Ione Band of Miwok Indians

Steven Pinckney, Business Administrator
Salvation Army of San Bernardino 

— pp. 26-27 of the Official Voter Information Guide

Replies to Arguments FOR

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 27

PROP. 27 WAS WRITTEN AND PAID FOR BY OUT-OF-STATE ONLINE GAMBLING CORPORATIONS

Prop. 27 is a deceptive scheme promoted by out-of-state corporations to legalize a massive expansion of online and mobile sports gambling in California. These corporations have contributed more than $100,000,000 to sell Prop. 27. They aren’t spending that money to help California. They are doing it to enrich themselves.

CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRIBES OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSE PROP. 27

More than 50 California Tribes strongly oppose Prop. 27. It is a direct attack on tribal gaming and Indian self-reliance that would jeopardize funding tribal governments use for education, healthcare, fire protection and other vital services.

PROP. 27 IS NOT A “SOLUTION” TO HOMELESSNESS

Decades ago, gaming companies passed the California Lottery with misleading promises of massive new revenues for schools. Now, out-of-state gambling corporations are using similar bait-and-switch tactics to promote Prop. 27.

Prop. 27 includes hidden loopholes that would give massive profits to its corporate sponsors, while leaving only a few pennies per dollar for California. Under Prop. 27, 90% of the profits will go to out-of-state corporations and little if anything would go to public schools.

PROP. 27 PROMOTERS HAVE A HISTORY OF BROKEN PROMISES AND BAD ACTS

The corporate sponsors funding Prop. 27 have been fined millions of dollars for allowing underage gambling and marketing to children. In other states that have passed laws like Prop. 27, the big-money promises have failed to materialize. We can’t trust the false promises of these out-of-state corporations.

REJECT THE OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATIONS’ DECEPTIVE CAMPAIGN. VOTE NO ON 27.

James Siva, Chairman
California Nations Indian Gaming Association

Robert McElroy, Executive Director
Alpha Project for the Homeless

Claudia Brundin, Tribal Chairwoman
Blue Lake Rancheria of California 

— pp. 26-27 of the Official Voter Information Guide

Replies to Arguments AGAINST

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 27

Vote YES for PERMANENT SOLUTIONS for Homelessness, Mental Health, and Addiction.

Opponents of Prop. 27 are wrong. Here are the facts:

STATE WATCHDOG: ONLY PROP. 27 PROVIDES PERMANENT SOLUTIONS FOR HOMELESSNESS

For the first time in state history, local communities will receive yearly funding to create permanent solutions for homelessness. The state’s independent budget watchdog found only Prop. 27 will generate hundreds of millions of dollars each year to address homelessness, mental health, and addiction. Prop. 27’s funding must be spent on creating housing and providing services like mental health and addiction treatment.

PROP. 27 CONTAINS STRICT REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT MINORS

Prop. 27 is the only proposition requiring background checks and state of the art technology to protect minors and ensure they can’t place bets. 23 states have safely legalized online sports betting, proving you can do so responsibly while generating significant state funding.

PROP. 27 IS THE ONLY INITIATIVE THAT HELPS DISADVANTAGED TRIBES

Tribes support Prop. 27 because every Tribe will benefit. Prop. 27 is the only proposition that dedicates funding to economically disadvantaged Tribes—more than doubling the amount of funding these smaller Tribes receive each year.

PROP. 27 REQUIRES YEARLY AUDITS & STRICT SAFETY OVERSIGHT

Proposition 27 requires yearly audits and strict oversight to ensure funding is spent effectively. Under Prop. 27, the Attorney General will tightly regulate sports betting to ensure safe and responsible gaming.

Join California Tribes, leaders in homelessness and mental health care, social workers, faith leaders, and civil rights groups—VOTE YES on Prop. 27.

YesToProp27.com

Gloria Baxter, Mental health non-profit leader

Phillip Gomez, Chairman
Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria, California

Leo Sisco, Chairman
Santa Rosa Ranchera Tachi Yokut Tribe 

 

— pp. 26-27 of the Official Voter Information Guide

Who gave money?

Contributions

Yes on Proposition 27

Total money raised: $169,117,798
Bar graph showing total amount relative to total amount for this entire campaign.

No on Proposition 27

Total money raised: $237,842,522
Bar graph showing total amount relative to total amount for this entire campaign.

Below are the top 10 contributors that gave money to committees supporting or opposing the ballot measures.

Yes on Proposition 27

1
BETFAIR INTERACTIVE US LLC D/B/A FANDUEL SPORTSBOOK(RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: CORY FOX)
$35,007,506
2
CROWN GAMING INC. D/B/A DRAFTKINGS
$34,104,050
3
BETMGM LLC(RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: ANDREW HAGOPIAN)
$25,000,000
3
PENN INTERACTIVE VENTURES, LLC(RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: JON KAPLOWITZ)
$25,000,000
4
BALLY'S INTERACTIVE LLC(RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: CRAIG EATON)
$12,500,000
4
FBG ENTERPRISES LLC(RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: ARI BOROD)
$12,500,000
4
FBG ENTERPRISES OPCO, LLC(RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: ARI BOROD)
$12,500,000
4
WSI US LLC(RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: JACQUI KRUM)
$12,500,000
5
CUNNING, JOSHUA
$1,000
6
DAVIS, DANNY
$250
6
RIGGS, DANA
$250

No on Proposition 27

1
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
$103,279,308
2
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians
$30,453,955
3
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
$30,150,000
4
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
$22,914,507
5
Barona Band of Mission Indians
$10,462,433
6
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
$10,251,868
7
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
$10,100,000
8
Chumash Casino and Resort Enterprises
$6,131,035
9
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
$5,387,944
10
Pala Casino Resort Spa
$3,043,000

More information about contributions

Yes on Proposition 27

By State:

Nevada 29.57%
California 20.70%
Massachusetts 20.17%
Florida 14.78%
Pennsylvania 14.78%
Other 0.00%
29.57%20.70%20.17%14.78%14.78%

By Size:

Large contributions (100.00%)
Small contributions (0.00%)
100.00%

By Type:

From organizations (100.00%)
From individuals (0.00%)
100.00%

No on Proposition 27

By State:

California 100.00%
100.00%

By Size:

Large contributions (100.00%)
Small contributions (0.00%)
100.00%

By Type:

From organizations (100.00%)
From individuals (0.00%)
100.00%

More information

Videos (2)

Prop. 27 would allow large gaming companies that partner with a Native American tribe to offer online sports betting. This 2022 ballot measure is backed by FanDuel and DraftKings. CalMatters reporter Grace Gedye explains Prop. 27 in 1 minute. *The 2022 CalMatters Voter Guide is sponsored by the California State Library.
— September 29, 2022 League of Women Voters of California
This video explains Proposition 27. ------------------ LWVCEF Video Series Explaining the 2022 Statewide Ballot Measures | cavotes.org

Contact Info

Yes on Proposition 27
Yes on 27
Misc. Item:

Yes on 27 - Californians for Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support, a Coalition of Housing and Mental Health Experts, Concerned Taxpayers and Digital Sports Entertainment and Gaming Companies.

Committee major funding from Penn Interactive Ventures, FBG Enterprises Opco, BetMGM.

Email info@yestoprop27.com
No on Proposition 27
NO on Prop. 27
Misc. Item:
YES on 26, NO on 27 - Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming, Sponsored by California Indian Tribes.
 
Committee major funding from:
  • Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
  • Pechanga Band of Indians
  • Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
 
Email info@NoProp27.com
Phone: (888) 256-8602
Address:
1017 L Street #408
Sacramento, CA 95814-3805
Use tabs to select your choice. Use return to create a choice. You can access your choices by navigating to 'My Choices'.

Who supports or opposes this measure?

No on Proposition 27

Organizations (290)

Elected & Appointed Officials (84)

Please share this site to help others research their voting choices.

PUBLISHING: SERVER:PRODUCTION