Local

Experts weigh in on Calif. sports betting measure

The Midterm Elections aren’t until November, but there are already dueling television advertisements about a California measure regarding sports betting.Proposition 27 would allow online and mobile sports wagering. The ads in support of Prop 27 say it would help end homelessness by bringing more money into the state, whereas, the ads against the proposition say, if passed, Prop 27 would increase homelessness by allowing more people to be addicted to gambling.KCRA 3 talked to two experts on the claims made in both ads: Isaac Hale, an assistant professor of politics at Occidental College, and Mary-Beth Moylan, the associate dean for Academic Affairs at the McGeorge School of Law.Below are the claims made and one of the two expert’s responses on how much truth there is behind the claim.Watch the ‘Yes on 27’ campaign ad here Claim 1What the ad says: My tribe (Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California) has lived on this land for 12,000 years … Our people once expansive, now whittled down to a small community.Moylan: I don’t know about his particular tribe. I do think that it is true that there are certainly California tribes that have been on the land for a long period of time that have been diminished over time. Moylan’s rating: FactHale: It’s no secret that the history of California is full of genocide and decimated populations for indigenous peoples in the state, and the Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California is no exception. Hale: FactClaim 2What the ad says: Only one proposition supports California tribes like ours while providing hundreds of millions in yearly funding to finally address homelessness in California.Moylan: There are two propositions that both address some forms of sports wagering and only one that addresses online gaming: That is Prop 27. The providing hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to address homelessness and the support of tribes like the person in the videos — what Proposition 27 does is it takes some of the taxes from the online sports wagering online gaming. It enables 85% of those funds to go to homelessness and mental health issues and 15% of it goes to a newly created fund called the Tribal Economic Trust Fund. That trust fund would be for money to be distributed to non-gaming tribes. So, when he says that this supports tribes, the answer is it will support some tribes, tribes like his. The hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to address homelessness really depends on how much the total pool is that the state collects from the online gaming operations. There are some complex funding and tax provisions in this measure. The measure is over 60 pages long and it has a number of different provisions. It allows for credits to be given to some of the online gaming operators. So how much we actually will see of the amounts that the gaming companies are bringing in to go into homelessness and to tribal economic support is not clear. Moylan’s rating: Partially true, somewhat misleadingHale: It’s not the only proposition on the ballot that would do this. And that’s, I think, a false claim … The second statement about addressing homelessness in California is half true. It will generate revenue dedicated to homelessness and tribal economic development. The exact amount is uncertain, though it’s likely to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. But, you have to think about this sort of like the lottery. It’s not a magic bullet for homelessness, just like the lottery isn’t a magic bullet for education spending in the state. It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money the state would need to spend to solve homelessness. Hale’s rating: Half true, mostly falseClaim 3What the ad says: Tax online sports betting and protect tribal sovereignty and help Californians who are hurting the most.Moylan: It does tax online sports betting. I think depending on your perspective on what it means to protect tribal sovereignty, or who the Californians are who are hurting the most, some people might say, “Yes, that’s true; it’s going to protect tribes that don’t have gaming casinos on their land, and it’s going to help Californians who are experiencing homelessness and mental health issues.” Some people might argue that it’s not really addressing tribal sovereignty at all. It’s merely providing some money to certain tribes, and not all tribes in California. In fact, the lion’s share of the money that has been raised on the no side of the Prop 27 campaign, tens of millions of dollars have been raised by other tribes. It’s mostly tribes who are opposing Proposition 27, so I think those tribes would say that this doesn’t protect their sovereignty.Moylan’s rating: Partially true Hale: Yes, it will tax online sports betting, which is currently illegal in the state of California. It’s not clear how this protects tribal sovereignty, especially as it shifts the locus of gambling in the state away from the tribes where it’s historically been located to online sports betting companies like DraftKings. In terms of helping Californians hurting the most, yes, they will raise money for homelessness, but as with Prop 26, let’s not kid ourselves that increased gambling legality will necessarily be a net economic benefit for vulnerable populations. Hale’s rating: Half trueThe final verdictMoylan: I would say overall, the ad is misleading, although it does have elements of truth Hale: I would give this ad half true. Watch the ‘No on 27’ campaign ad here Claim 1What the ad says: Proposition 27 is being promoted by out-of-state gambling corporations.Hale: Corporations like BetMGM located in New Jersey, FanDuel located in New York, and DraftKings located in Massachusetts are all major backers of Proposition 27. In addition, there will be a $100-million fee for operators who wish to engage in online sports betting in California, which critics argue would put market access out of reach for most gaming tribes in the state. Hale’s rating: TrueMoylan: This is big companies like BetMGM and DraftKings. The monetary force behind this initiative is from out-of-state, very large gambling companies. Moylan’s rating: TrueClaim 2What the ad says: It would authorize a massive expansion of online sports gambling in California, turning every cell phone, laptop, tablet and even video game console into a gambling device, opening up online gambling to anyone, anywhere, anytime.Hale: Yes, it massively expands sports betting, which is a form of gambling and makes it extremely easy to access for adults. However, this statement implies that it’s legalizing online gambling of all types. This doesn’t legalize things like poker or blackjack online. This is specifically about sports betting. Hale’s rating: Half trueMoylan: It certainly would allow for online sports gambling. It certainly does allow cell phones, laptops, tablets, and video game consoles to be used for gambling. There are provisions in the law that say that gaming operators would need to use geolocation technology and geo-fencing technology to ensure that people who were putting bets in were actually physically present in California and also were not on tribal lands. So, it doesn’t necessarily open it up everywhere in California. There are also provisions that indicate that there needs to be checks in place to ensure that children are not gambling. Again, are there ways around these things? Yes. Moylan’s rating: Partially trueClaim 3What the ad says: That could lead to more addiction, financial ruin and homelessness while exposing millions of children to online gambling.Hale: It’s absolutely true that gambling is associated with economic hardship. Casinos and sports betting companies are not running a charity. The second claim about exposing millions of children to online gambling I would say this is half true. Updates with online gambling, like New Jersey, have methods to safeguard against children engaging in online gambling, such as using requiring social security numbers or utility bills in order to play online. There isn’t much evidence one way or the other on how many kids are gambling online in states where it’s legal versus states where it’s not legal. It is definitely true that it’s easier to keep kids from gambling in person for obvious reasons. But in terms of whether millions of children are going to be exposed to online gambling in a way they aren’t currently, I think that’s a dubious claim. Hale’s rating: Half trueMoylan: This is hyperbole and maybe an exaggeration. It’s certainly possible. I’m not going to say it’s untrue that gambling is addicting. I think that there are many studies that suggest that it is. In terms of financial ruin and homelessness, that’s speculative. I suppose it’s possible that it could lead to that. There are provisions that say that it is only allowed for people 21 or older. That’s obviously difficult to enforce in the cyberspace.Moylan’s rating: ExaggerationThe final verdictMoylan: I would say overall, this one is true. Hale: I would say the “No on Prop 27 Campaign” messaging is about half true, maybe leaning towards mostly true.

The Midterm Elections aren’t until November, but there are already dueling television advertisements about a California measure regarding sports betting.

Proposition 27 would allow online and mobile sports wagering. The ads in support of Prop 27 say it would help end homelessness by bringing more money into the state, whereas, the ads against the proposition say, if passed, Prop 27 would increase homelessness by allowing more people to be addicted to gambling.

KCRA 3 talked to two experts on the claims made in both ads: Isaac Hale, an assistant professor of politics at Occidental College, and Mary-Beth Moylan, the associate dean for Academic Affairs at the McGeorge School of Law.

Below are the claims made and one of the two expert’s responses on how much truth there is behind the claim.

Claim 1

What the ad says: My tribe (Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California) has lived on this land for 12,000 years … Our people once expansive, now whittled down to a small community.

Moylan: I don’t know about his particular tribe. I do think that it is true that there are certainly California tribes that have been on the land for a long period of time that have been diminished over time.

Moylan’s rating: Fact

Hale: It’s no secret that the history of California is full of genocide and decimated populations for indigenous peoples in the state, and the Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California is no exception.

Hale: Fact

Claim 2

What the ad says: Only one proposition supports California tribes like ours while providing hundreds of millions in yearly funding to finally address homelessness in California.

Moylan: There are two propositions that both address some forms of sports wagering and only one that addresses online gaming: That is Prop 27. The providing hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to address homelessness and the support of tribes like the person in the videos — what Proposition 27 does is it takes some of the taxes from the online sports wagering online gaming. It enables 85% of those funds to go to homelessness and mental health issues and 15% of it goes to a newly created fund called the Tribal Economic Trust Fund. That trust fund would be for money to be distributed to non-gaming tribes.

So, when he says that this supports tribes, the answer is it will support some tribes, tribes like his. The hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to address homelessness really depends on how much the total pool is that the state collects from the online gaming operations. There are some complex funding and tax provisions in this measure. The measure is over 60 pages long and it has a number of different provisions. It allows for credits to be given to some of the online gaming operators.

So how much we actually will see of the amounts that the gaming companies are bringing in to go into homelessness and to tribal economic support is not clear.

Moylan’s rating: Partially true, somewhat misleading

Hale: It’s not the only proposition on the ballot that would do this. And that’s, I think, a false claim … The second statement about addressing homelessness in California is half true. It will generate revenue dedicated to homelessness and tribal economic development. The exact amount is uncertain, though it’s likely to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. But, you have to think about this sort of like the lottery. It’s not a magic bullet for homelessness, just like the lottery isn’t a magic bullet for education spending in the state. It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money the state would need to spend to solve homelessness.

Hale’s rating: Half true, mostly false

Claim 3

What the ad says: Tax online sports betting and protect tribal sovereignty and help Californians who are hurting the most.

Moylan: It does tax online sports betting. I think depending on your perspective on what it means to protect tribal sovereignty, or who the Californians are who are hurting the most, some people might say, “Yes, that’s true; it’s going to protect tribes that don’t have gaming casinos on their land, and it’s going to help Californians who are experiencing homelessness and mental health issues.”

Some people might argue that it’s not really addressing tribal sovereignty at all. It’s merely providing some money to certain tribes, and not all tribes in California. In fact, the lion’s share of the money that has been raised on the no side of the Prop 27 campaign, tens of millions of dollars have been raised by other tribes. It’s mostly tribes who are opposing Proposition 27, so I think those tribes would say that this doesn’t protect their sovereignty.

Moylan’s rating: Partially true

Hale: Yes, it will tax online sports betting, which is currently illegal in the state of California. It’s not clear how this protects tribal sovereignty, especially as it shifts the locus of gambling in the state away from the tribes where it’s historically been located to online sports betting companies like DraftKings.

In terms of helping Californians hurting the most, yes, they will raise money for homelessness, but as with Prop 26, let’s not kid ourselves that increased gambling legality will necessarily be a net economic benefit for vulnerable populations.

Hale’s rating: Half true

The final verdict

Moylan: I would say overall, the ad is misleading, although it does have elements of truth

Hale: I would give this ad half true.

Claim 1

What the ad says: Proposition 27 is being promoted by out-of-state gambling corporations.

Hale: Corporations like BetMGM located in New Jersey, FanDuel located in New York, and DraftKings located in Massachusetts are all major backers of Proposition 27. In addition, there will be a $100-million fee for operators who wish to engage in online sports betting in California, which critics argue would put market access out of reach for most gaming tribes in the state.

Hale’s rating: True

Moylan: This is big companies like BetMGM and DraftKings. The monetary force behind this initiative is from out-of-state, very large gambling companies.

Moylan’s rating: True

Claim 2

What the ad says: It would authorize a massive expansion of online sports gambling in California, turning every cell phone, laptop, tablet and even video game console into a gambling device, opening up online gambling to anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Hale: Yes, it massively expands sports betting, which is a form of gambling and makes it extremely easy to access for adults. However, this statement implies that it’s legalizing online gambling of all types. This doesn’t legalize things like poker or blackjack online. This is specifically about sports betting.

Hale’s rating: Half true

Moylan: It certainly would allow for online sports gambling. It certainly does allow cell phones, laptops, tablets, and video game consoles to be used for gambling. There are provisions in the law that say that gaming operators would need to use geolocation technology and geo-fencing technology to ensure that people who were putting bets in were actually physically present in California and also were not on tribal lands. So, it doesn’t necessarily open it up everywhere in California. There are also provisions that indicate that there needs to be checks in place to ensure that children are not gambling. Again, are there ways around these things? Yes.

Moylan’s rating: Partially true

Claim 3

What the ad says: That could lead to more addiction, financial ruin and homelessness while exposing millions of children to online gambling.

Hale: It’s absolutely true that gambling is associated with economic hardship. Casinos and sports betting companies are not running a charity. The second claim about exposing millions of children to online gambling I would say this is half true. Updates with online gambling, like New Jersey, have methods to safeguard against children engaging in online gambling, such as using requiring social security numbers or utility bills in order to play online.

There isn’t much evidence one way or the other on how many kids are gambling online in states where it’s legal versus states where it’s not legal. It is definitely true that it’s easier to keep kids from gambling in person for obvious reasons. But in terms of whether millions of children are going to be exposed to online gambling in a way they aren’t currently, I think that’s a dubious claim.

Hale’s rating: Half true

Moylan: This is hyperbole and maybe an exaggeration. It’s certainly possible. I’m not going to say it’s untrue that gambling is addicting. I think that there are many studies that suggest that it is. In terms of financial ruin and homelessness, that’s speculative. I suppose it’s possible that it could lead to that. There are provisions that say that it is only allowed for people 21 or older. That’s obviously difficult to enforce in the cyberspace.

Moylan’s rating: Exaggeration

The final verdict

Moylan: I would say overall, this one is true.

Hale: I would say the “No on Prop 27 Campaign” messaging is about half true, maybe leaning towards mostly true.

Experts weigh in on Calif. sports betting measure Source link Experts weigh in on Calif. sports betting measure

Related Articles

Back to top button