Ballot Measures - What or Who are We Voting For ?

Looking at the opposition against the amended compacts, the people who pushed the referendums onto the Feb 5 ballot, leads me to believe that their efforts to rescind these deals originate from curbing competition and looking out for their own special interests rather than thinking they are trying to protect the people of the State of California from what they call “sweetheart deals” for the tribes.

First, let’s look at UNITE HERE, the hotel employees union. They are against the deals because they don’t allow the union the ability to establish a union simply by persuading a majority of workers to sign cards in support of a union instead of the standard secret election process. The card system basically gives the Union a stronger position in the process because then they would know who hasn’t signed and then go after them. Sometimes relentlessly where workers have had to get restraining orders to make them leave them alone.

The truth is that unions have the right to organize under the existing compacts as well as the newly negotiated compacts. In fact, several casinos including San Manuel have been organized by the UAW via the existing compacts. UNITE HERE just doesn't like the terms under which they need to negotiate within these compacts. If employees want a union to represent them indeed they will organize. UNITE HERE has never tried to unionize at Morongo despite an invitation to do so.

Is UNITE HERE opposing these compacts for you and me? I don’t think so.

Next we have The Pala Tribe and the United Auburn Tribe who negotiated new compacts with the governor over two years ago that allow them UNLIMITED slot machines. This one smacks you right in the face. These two tribes can lawfully add as many class three slots as they want, yet they don’t think that other tribes should even be able to add 5000 more. Why? Pala and Auburn say they are concerned that additional slot machines will negatively impact small, Native-owned casinos. They didn’t think about that when they signed up for unlimited slots. Who has the “sweetheart” deal here? Is it these tribes who are allowed UNLIMITED slots or the tribes seeking to be able to add up to 5000 more and who will pay more to the state?

Why are Pala and United Auburn campaigning against these deals? Is it to protect you and me? I don’t think so.

BTW - The most recent campaign ad by the SIO (Special Interest Opposition) is well made and heartfelt except that the narrator who says” “there are more than 100 Indian tribes in California, but the gambling deals on the ballot benefit the richest tribes and could devastate other tribes. It’s unfair to let four powerful tribes control a third of the state’s Indian gaming pie.” is Leroy Miranda, who is vice chair of the Pala Band of Mission Indians, one of the richest and most powerful tribes in the state. Nice try….

Then there’s Terry Fancher. Fancher is a Harvard business and law school graduate, and the executive managing director of a development investment partnership, Stockbridge Real Estate Funds. His holdings include the famed Hollywood Park and Bay Meadows horse racing tracks ( hey, don’t people bet on horses… kinda like gambling? ) along with guess what … he is a co-partner in the Sahara Hotel & Casino on the Las Vegas Strip.

Gee I wonder what his motives might be. Is he looking out for his ventures? Naw… he is just worried about you and me.

You gotta love Fancher though. In October 2006, a vote of the California Horse Racing Board was about to go against Fancher, The board was awarding a disputed racing week to the Santa Anita horse track instead of Fancher's Hollywood Park. Fancher flat out told board members that he was disappointed that he wasn't getting his money's worth for his political donations. He believed that his contributions to a few Democratic leaders in 2006, when it looked like their campaigns for re-election were slipping away, should have bought support from the racing board. Everybody knows that a lot of political donations are illegal and unethical and yet pretty much a way of life and Fancher ducked all the usual pretense and peeled that banana without blinking. “C’mon now, I paid you very well, now give me what I want!”

Fancher's horse racing and property firms are among major donors behind the Feb. 5 ballot referendums.

The $4.3 million that Hollywood Park, Bay Meadows and their land development companies have put up to fight the casino expansions so far brings political spending by Fancher's business entities since 2004 to more than $11 million.
In 2004, Fancher personally donated $22,300 each to rival Democratic gubernatorial candidates Phil Angelides and Steve Westly, then both voting members of state pension boards. His business entities have contributed to more than 60 legislative candidates since 2005 and have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to both Democratic and Republican political committees.

Two weeks before the November 2006 election, a campaign committee heavily funded by Fancher's business interests rushed more than $375,000 to help three Democrats in tight races – Assembly candidate Cathleen Galgiani of Stockton, Assemblywoman Nicole Parra of Hanford and Sen. Lou Correa of Santa Ana. All won. Yet they went on to vote for the Indian gambling compacts. Poor Mr. Fancher. The "system" was failing him miserably.

Fancher’s costly battle over the Indian casino pacts has been in a work in progress for over a year now. He was lecturing the racing board for "kicking in the teeth the one ownership" – his – working hardest to save California's horse racing industry.
He declared his determination to keep Hollywood Park open as a racing venue by posing a question. Why else, he asked, "would we spend the millions of dollars … on independent expenditure committees" and "lobbyists, many of whom are in this room?"
This guy is great! “Hey! I paid my dues, now give me some love!!”

He said he stood firm with union activists in stalling the Indian gambling compacts in the Legislature last year. And he proclaimed he was "the only person in the racing industry willing to put his name on the line" in a lawsuit against other Indian casino agreements which he believed to be the death knell for the horse racing industry in CA.

Strange bed fellows? Pala and United Auburn were unsuccessfully sued by horse racing interests, and individually by Fancher, over gambling exclusivity clauses in their 2004 tribal casino agreements. It’s nice to see that they have made up and are fighting for a common cause. Themselves. Kiss Kiss…

Some critical racing industry officials fear that Fancher, a fund manager with no historic ties to horse racing, is waging a ballot fight that may only worsen the woes of beleaguered, financially struggling racetracks.

"I think this is a huge mistake," said Richard Shapiro, the chairman of the state racing board. "It's a mistake for horse racing. We need to find alliances with the tribes rather than to fight them with no upside for racing. This simply antagonizes people.”

Roger Salazar, a campaign spokesman for the four tribes says it all when he states, "It seems to me that the only interest of Mr. Fancher is in crushing the competition. It's putting his own interests above interests of the people of California."

Drew Cuoto, president of the Thoroughbred Owners of California, says Fancher is pushing a losing strategy in fighting the tribes.

"His view of what will save the industry doesn't necessary correlate with the views of the rest of us. And that has created tension," said Cuoto, whose organization endorsed the compacts.

So, what do you think? Do these groups and individuals have yours, mine and the rest of the good people of this state in mind as they try to defeat what our governor and state legislatures and the BIA have already agreed on? I really don’t think so.

Now I don’t mean to bore you with real studies and data that actually mean something but it might be a refreshing contrast to the above blatant self interest displayed above.

Dr. Alan Meister, PhD is an economist with Analysis Group, Inc. Dr. Meister has received national recognition for his annual studies on Indian gaming. His work is regularly cited by the press and relied upon by the gaming industry, governments, and the investment community. Dr. Meister's research and analyses have also been relied upon before the United States Supreme Court and a panel of the World Trade Organization, and he has been commissioned by the National Indian Gaming Commission to analyze the effects of proposed regulatory policy changes. Furthermore, he has written extensively on the subject and presented his work at various academic, professional, and industry conferences and has testified before the California State Senate regarding Indian gaming issues.

The Coalition to Protect California’s Budget & Economy has released the results of a study conducted by Alan Meister on the potential economic and fiscal benefits of Propositions 94, 95, 96 & 97. Dr. Meister’s findings show that the net direct total statewide fiscal benefits over the life of the amended compacts included in the initiatives are approximately $16 billion, including:

- $10.2 billion in revenue sharing payments to the State’s General Fund;
- $5.4 billion in State and local taxes;
- $275 million in revenue sharing payments to local governments and;
- $128 million in revenue sharing payments to non-gaming tribes.

"The amended compacts would generate significant fiscal and economic benefits to California’s economy," Dr. Meister said. "California is getting a better deal under this amended revenue sharing formula than it ever has before."

The study also shows the amended compacts would generate significant direct and indirect economic benefits for California over the life of the amended compacts as a result of increased gaming activity and construction expenditures:

- $116.5 billion in economic output;
- $44.5 billion in wages;
- 875,500 jobs.

The agreements would also:
- Increase state regulatory oversight by allowing the state to conduct random
audits and inspections of the tribes’ gaming;
- Share tens of millions from tribes’ gaming revenues with non-gaming tribes;
- Create stronger environmental standards for casino-related tribal projects;
and require the tribes to increase coordination with local governments,police
and fire agencies and compensate local communities for services.

In reading peoples comments to numerous articles relating to the amended compacts,the social costs of gambling seem to be a common thread.

Congress authorized The National Gambling Impact Study Commission on June 3, 1996. The report was extensive and took 2 years to complete. The Commission was an independent commission which was not under the auspices of any executive agency, nor specifically controlled by the legislative or judicial branches of government.

The NGISC determined that "the vast majority of Americans gamble recreationally and experience no measurable side effects related to their gambling, or they choose not to gamble at all." In other words, approximately 99% or more of the people going into the casino are perfectly normal happy citizens who go, by their own free will, to enjoy and entertain themselves by gambling, or to see a show or perhaps have dinner or perhaps all three.

Anti-casino groups paint a picture of a building full of sick people gambling away their houses and families and the Tribes laughing all the way to the bank. The fact is, according to the report, that only about 5% of the gaming industry’s revenue is generated by individuals with a gambling disorder. Overall, casino patrons spend their money wisely. According to a 2002 poll conducted for the AGA by Peter D. Hart Research Associates and The Luntz Research Companies, 80 percent of customers always or usually set a budget before they gamble.

Let’s look at Alcohol/Drug abuse compared to pathological gambling. The national prevalence rate is about 1% for lifetime pathological gambling. Lifetime alcohol dependence is 13.8 % while drug dependence is 6.2 % So why is saving the 1% of problem gamblers more of a priority than being concerned with the 20% who have a much more devastating and lethal disease? Murder comes into play when you talk about alcohol and drug abuse. I would bet (pun intended) that these anti-casino factions like to go home and have a drink after work or have a glass of wine with their dinner or a cold beer with their buddies. How would these anti-casino groups view a group of people who don’t drink and campaign to make alcohol illegal so they can try and save the 13% of the problem drinkers at the expense of the 87% of the population who drink responsibly? Surely this would be a better case than them trying to save the 1% of problem gamblers at the expense of the 99% who gamble responsibly. I imagine they would fight pretty hard against that campaign. But, by God, they are determined to save that 1% of problem gamblers.

Opponents of gaming have made outlandish allegations about social costs of $200 billion annually. The commission-funded research conducted by NORC (the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago) placed the annual cost to society of all forms of gaming — casinos, lotteries, pari-mutuel wagering and charitable gaming, as well as illegal gambling — at about $5 billion. $5 billion is not a small number, but when compared to the annual cost of alcohol abuse which is $166 billion, and heart disease which is $125 billion it seems rather insignificant.

So, on Feb 5 when you vote, think about poor Mr. Fancher who believes he is getting a raw deal because he has spent so much to buy off the lawmakers and has pretty much nothing to show for it.

Think about the poor union who won’t be able to see who the workers are that are not for unionization and thus not know who to harass to try and change their mind.

Think about Pala and Auburn who have it all but think that the door should be closed behind them. They don’t want the competition.

What are we voting for on Feb 5th? Are we voting in favor of this very small coalition that was brought together under one common cause… their own personal gain?

I know how I will vote.