No on Proposition 27
Online gambling, but only with a $100 million licensing fee
What is it?
Proposition 27 is an Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute which would legalize online sports gambling for organizations which partner with a Native American tribe and pay a $100 million license fee. Some of the revenue raised would be used for homeless services.
Why is this on the ballot?
According to Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, amendments to the California Constitution may be introduced by collecting signatures (8% of the votes cast in the most recent Governor's race). The amendment must then be approved by voters with a simple majority of 50% + 1.
The campaign, paid signature gatherers nearly $18 million to get this on the ballot.
The campaign has raised nearly $100 million in favor, mostly from large online sports betting companies like BetMGM (of MGM Resorts & Casinos), DraftKings, and FanDuel.
Fiscal impacts
Increased state revenues, possibly reaching hundreds of millions of dollars annually, up to an estimated $500 million. Some of these revenues would support increased state regulatory and enforcement costs that could reach the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually.
- See "Fiscal Effects" section of the Legislative Analyst Office report (PDF)
Why vote No?
While both Prop 26 and Prop 27 do some good things (legalize and regulate more types of gambling, raising taxes for public services including homelessness, mental healthcare, and gambling addiction treatments, etc), they are transparent attempts at regulatory capture.
Prop 27 legalizes online sports betting in California, but prevents new entrants into the market with its obscenely high license fees ($100 million dollars per license for the first five years). Prop 27 also institutes over sixty pages of new rules around tax collection, spending, and social programs that can only be amended by the legislature with a five-sixths supermajority!
This blatant attempt for tribes and corporations to write their own laws that give them a permanent advantage over their competitors while handcuffing Californians with laws that are nearly impossible to alter should be opposed.