Welcome to the Virtual UU Meeting House
Proposition 70
Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State.
Upon tribe's request, should the Governor be required to execute a 99-year compact? Tribes contribute percentage of net gaming income to state funds, in exchange for expanded, exclusive tribal casino gaming.
- Official Summary, Pros & Cons
- Other Resources : Organizations , Articles, Reports, Links
- UU Commentaries
- Other California Ballot Propositions
Virtual UU Meeting House discussion: come on in, and read what people had to say.
Official Summary and Arguments
Upon tribe's request, Governor must execute 99-year compact. Tribes contribute percentage of net gaming income to state funds, in exchange for expanded, exclusive tribal casino gaming. Fiscal Impact: Unknown effect on payments to the state from Indian tribes. The potential increase or decrease in these payments could be in the tens of millions to over a hundred million dollars annually.
Official
Voter Information Guide (pdf)
Source: California Secretary of State / Elections and Voter Information
Campaign
Finance Information
Source: California Secretary of State / Cal-Access
Related Proposition
Proposition
68
A YES vote on this measure means:
Tribes entering a new or amended tribal-state gambling compact would make payments to the state based on their gambling income. These compacts would last 99 years and place no limits on the types or number of casino games.
A NO vote on this measure means:
Tribes would continue to be subject to existing tribal-state gambling compacts, which require various types of payments to the state. Existing compacts will last up to 26 more years and place some limits on the types and number of casino games.
Arguments FOR Proposition 70
Proposition 70 will provide billions of dollars to the State and will
restrict tribal gambling to Indian reservations. Both the taxpayers
and Indians win: Tribes pay the same amount as every other business
pays in state income taxes: in return, they can operate their casinos.
That's only fair!
FOR Proposition 70: Richard M. Milanovich, Tribal Chairman, Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians
Arguments AGAINST Proposition 70
Proposition 70 is a bad deal for California. Governor Schwarzenegger's
negotiated agreements with Indian gaming tribes guarantee they pay their
fair share and respect California laws. Proposition 70 effectively
destroys these agreements. Join Governor Schwarzenegger, law enforcement,
labor, environmental groups, and seniors in voting No on Proposition 70.
AGAINST Proposition 70: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California;
Larry McCarthy, President, California Taxpayers' Association; Sheriff
Bill Kolender, First Vice President, California State Sheriffs' Association;
David W. Paulson, President, California District Attorneys Association;
Jack Gribbon, California UNITE HERE!; John T. Kehoe, President, California
Senior Action Network
For Proposition 70
Citizens for
a Fair Share of Indian Gaming Revenues
Against Proposition 70
Governor Schwarzenegger's
Committee for Fair Share Gaming Agreements
Nonpartisan
Institute
of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley
Gambling and the Future of California: Propositions 68 and 70
Selected Articles:
2
bad bets on gambling
San Francisco Chronicle, September 26, 2004
Both
gambling measures failing but voters favor funding stem cell research
and requiring businesses to pay for health coverage
Los Angeles Times, September 24, 2004, as posted by NewsBank
Casino
battle taken to television
Los Angeles Times, September 21, 2004, as posted by NewsBank
Passage
of gambling initiatives could cause legal tangles
The Desert Sun, September 16, 2004
Foes
say gambling vote could foil state
Los Angeles Times, September 15, as posted by NewsBank
Propositions
68 and 70 are a bad bet
San Jose Mercury News, August 30, 2004, as posted by NewsBank
Last updated on September 30, 2004
UU Commentaries
No commentary was received prior to our deadline. Please add your opinion and voice to the discussion below.
"Money often costs too much."
— Ralph Waldo Emerson
SUPPORTERS SAY the state should treat tribal gaming as it would any other business, and tax it the same way. Gaming would be operated as a normal business, subject to market forces, paying revenues equal to other California businesses, considering environmental problems, and consulting with public and local government agencies to solve matters of mutual concern. Casinos not on Indian Reservations would continue to be banned.
OPPONENTS SAY its monopoly status makes tribal gaming unlike other businesses, and that the fiscal relations between gaming tribes and state and local governments are best governed by the compacts negotiated by the Governor. Proposition 70 extends the Indian gaming monopoly for 99 years without forcing the Tribes to pay their "fair share" in revenues to the state. This measure provides no funds to local law enforcement agencies to help fight crime in the communities surrounding Indian casinos.
Could not connect to MySQL because: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (2)