Alexa California Sports Betting Vote Fails Despite Potential Record Gains
Company Logo

California Sports Betting Vote Fails Despite Potential Record Gains

Gaming And Vfx

California Sports Betting Vote Fails Despite Potential Record Gains

On Tuesday, California voters soundly said no to two opposing ballot measures that would have legalized sports betting. The defeat is significant for online gambling companies and Native American tribes, who invested heavily in the initiatives. The campaign for and against the measures raised more than $570 million, which is the most spent on any U.S. ballot measure issue. The enormous investment reflects the potential for billions of dollars in revenue from the legalization of sports betting in California’s massive market. However, those who are in favor of the legalization of sports gambling can access CA sports betting current information to find the best legal sites.

What do the past votes mean?

Supporters and opponents of the duelling measures spent millions of dollars on advertising for propositions that would have legalized sports gambling. The proposals would have allowed gambling at tribal casinos, horse tracks, or through mobile and online wagering.

With final contributions being tallied, the money raised and spent in the campaign was more than double the record amount deployed in 2020 by Uber, Lyft and other similar apps and delivery services to prevent drivers from becoming employees eligible for benefits and job protection.

Numerous polls conducted before the election showed that both propositions would struggle to receive majority support. Currently, gambling in California is restricted to Native American casinos, horse tracks, card rooms, and the state lottery. However, over 30 other states allow sports betting in the US.

Proposition 26

The proponents of the two initiatives proposed different ways to offer sports gambling and each boasted other benefits that they said would come to fruition if their measure was approved.

If Proposition 26 had passed, casinos and the state's four main horse tracks would have been allowed to offer sports betting services on-site. The initiative, funded by a coalition of tribes, would also have permitted roulette and dice games at casinos. If a 10% tax had been implemented, it would have gone towards programs to help those with gambling addiction and pay for law enforcement.

In early results, 70.5% of voters decided against legalizing in-person sports betting at tribal casinos and horse racing tracks through Proposition 26.

Proposition 27

Proposition 27 would have legalised online and mobile sports betting for adults, which means the activity would be legal for people 21 years and older. Large gaming companies could have partnered with a tribe already involved in gambling, or the tribes could have entered the market alone. The measure is backed by big names such as DraftKings, BetMGM and FanDuel -- the latter being the official odds provider for The Associated Press. Other national sports betting operators and a few tribes are also in support.

The initiative was being promoted for the funding it promised to funnel through tax revenues to help populations that have typically been underserved, such as the homeless, mentally ill and poorer tribes.

A whopping 83.3% of voters rejected Proposition 27, which would have allowed sports gambling companies to operate mobile betting in partnership with a tribe independent from the state government's regulation.

Although it is unclear by how much, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office found that both initiatives would have increased state revenue. According to the office, Proposition 26 could have generated tens of millions of dollars, while Proposition 27 could have brought in hundreds of millions.

What does the government say?

However, if people spent money gambling on sports instead of buying lottery tickets or shopping, that revenue could have been nullified. When questioned about either proposal, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom stated that Proposition 27 was "not a homeless initiative.''

The California Republican Party was opposed to both of the proposed measures. While State Democrats opposed Proposition 27, they were nonpartisan when it came to voting on Proposition 26. Prop 27 was supported by Major League Baseball.

The No on Prop 26 campaign, largely funded by card rooms that would lose business, said the measure would have given a small number of rich and powerful tribes "a virtual monopoly on all gaming in California.''

The No on 27 committees claimed that the proposal was founded on false statements and said that the gaming companies who crafted it "did so for their own interests, not for homeless individuals."

Final thoughts

In the end, voters decided that both propositions were too risky and would have had detrimental effects on Californians. Many worried that they could increase problem gambling and further entrench existing gaming interests in California. It remains to be seen whether other states will follow suit and implement their sports betting measures shortly.

As the results of Proposition 26 and Proposition 27 show, there is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding the legalization of sports gambling in California. Many factors are at play, including political support, financial incentives for certain groups, and concerns about addiction and gambling-related issues. Regardless of what happens, this debate will likely continue well into the foreseeable future.

Business News

Recommended News

© 2022 CIO Bulletin Inc. All rights reserved.