Proposition 68


My take on Proposition 68 - NO

This is part of my ongoing series of posts on each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my scorecard and links to each of my arguments.

Proposition 68 - No

There's a couple different ways of looking at this proposition. You can say the Indian tribes will go along with the strict requirements, in which case they will pay 25% to protect their monopoly on gambling. The other possibility is that they won't, or this Prop will be thrown out in court, in which case there will be a bunch of new, non-Indian casinos authorized to have gambling, but at a 33% rate.

Basically, what this Prop amounts to is extortion - either you give us a really hefty chunk of your gambling revenues, or we give more gambling to other people so they can compete with you.
To be honest, it's not unreasonable to leverage the tribes this way - most business owners would gladly pay 25% of their revenues if it meant they could keep a monopoly for good. But they don't really have that guarantee, so the more likely option would be they simply refuse the tax and allow the new gambling sites. When we are looking at things from a statewide level, 30k new slot machines is not a lot. They could easily be placed in areas that don't directly compete with the tribal gaming locations - which would be good not only for the tribes, but for the new gambling sites.

So what I think this proposition boils down to is essentially whether or not we want to allow 30k more slot machines to operate if it means we can tax them heavily. Personally, I think that large scale organized gambling is evil (see Dr. Reynold's thoughtful take on organized gambling - scroll to the bottom), and unduly preys on poor people who can least afford to lose the money. Therefore, I oppose what is essentially a way of allowing more organized gambling.

Bottom line: At best, its extortion. At worst, its a thinly veiled attempt to expand gambling. If you're against gambling, you're voting no. If you're for it, you should vote no and choose a law that doesn't hide its intentions.

Posted: Mon - November 1, 2004 at 07:49 PM | | | | | | |

©