NO ON PROP 27
THE CORPORATIONS DIDN’T WRITE
PROPOSITION 27 FOR THE HOMELESS.
THEY WROTE IT FOR THEMSELVES.
In his entire presentation (which you can find here),
Robins did not say one word about homelessness.
California has ballot referendum that we and 6 others in our coalition in the industry are behind and are supportive of…. Really great bill too. The tax rate, everything is set in a very reasonable way because you can actually write the whole piece of legislation on the ballot, which is nice.
Here’s what the CEO of DraftKings Jason Robins told a crowd of Wall Street investors on June 6, 2022:
Read The Fine Print
Learn how Proposition 27 benefits the companies that wrote it and shortchanges California, the homeless, & our tribes
For details and the text, click on the italics
-
The “reasonable” 10% tax rate gives 90% to the companies
-
A lower rate than many other states.
-
Only 8½% (that’s 85% of 10%) goes to fight homelessness, but even that isn’t real
-
Taxes “adjusted” gross online sports betting receipts, driving down their receipts
-
A $100 million license fee…that is fully refundable.
-
Exempted themselves from all other state and local taxes
-
Deducting the state’s costs, including the cost of regulations.
-
Hidden huge promotional bets loophole in the fine print. Tax revenues are far below promised levels in the few states with this loophole.
-
Prop. 27’s fine print undermines accountability and transparency
-
The fine print exempts the national gaming corporations from public disclosure and transparency laws
-
Prevents state regulators from requiring the companies to provide information on the amount of money spent betting on individual sporting events or types of bets.
-
Prop 27’s claims that it prevents minors from betting can’t be trusted
-
The fine print says the gaming companies are only required to use “commercially reasonable efforts” to verify that bettors are old enough to place a legal bet.
-
Then sets low fines for violations of underage betting.
-
The national gaming companies claim prop 27 protects tribes but the fine print reveals the abuse of our tribes
-
California’s tribes must “irrevocably” surrender their tribal sovereignty to qualify for an online sports betting operating license.
-
Out-of-state companies need a tribe to operate, but Prop 27 will invariably place the tribes in a subordinate role.
-
The national gaming corporations wrote fine print to prevent competition
-
Prop 27 says an online sports betting operators license can only be given to qualified gaming entities (like the corporations who wrote Prop 27) that already are licensed in multiple other states.
-
The fox will guard the hen house - companies made sure online sports betting will be regulated their way
-
Instead of the two state agencies who already regulate gaming, the out of state gaming corporations decided to create a separate agency and wrote the rules and regulations themselves.
-
The companies wrote fine print that requires the new agency to adopt regulations similar to other states where online sports betting already is legal.
-
Prop 27 creates an “independent” advisory committee inside the new agency whose members do not need to be California residents.
-
Out of state gaming corporations are guaranteed to have a minimum of four members on the oversight committee.
-
The fine print requires the new agency to get written input from their own committee before it can propose, adopt, amend or rescind a regulation or emergency regulation. That gives the committee the ability to disrupt the regulatory process by delaying or withholding its written input.