CA props 68 & 70

[drmom]

Okay, I admit it...I've been a bad citizen, and haven't been following these two Propositions, both having to do with Tribal Gaming. All I really know is that Schwarzenegger opposes both, so that makes me think I am for them.

Could someone who has done the research let me know the bottom line on these issues? Thanks!!

[still_one]

1. vote no on both of them

They potentially allow casinos to go in any area, but most important they lock the state into a 100 year contract that cannot be re-negotiated even if costs go up

Incidently, I voted for Davis, and detest Schwarenegger for his lies at the repug convention, but he is definitly pushing a reasonable environmental package in California, and he has gone against his party by pushing the stem cell research.

Not everything he does is wrong. We have to read the details. Just my two cents

[Jack_Dawson]

2. I'm inclined to agree with you

The "Indians need to pay their fair share" argument is misleading from what I understand.

[judy]

3. I read the analysis in the SF Bay Guardian

68 seems to be a no-brainer for a NO. To quote the Guardian, 68 is a bid by the non-indian gambling institutions - Nevada casinos, race tracks and card rooms - to get into the lucrative slot machine game in California.

As for 70, it is more of a toss up, as it challenges Indian Sovereignty. The Guardian says that it is a bid by several Indian tribes to lock in a monopoly of slot machine gambling in CA. If they keep that monopoly, they will pay the state a percentage of revenues. If the state allows non-Indian slot machines outside of reservations, they will stop paying.

The Guardian says No on both.

I don't like gambling, but I support sovereignty on Indian lands. I am not even sure that Indian tribes should be required to pay anything to the state. I also don't think anyone should lock a monopoly on anything, thus maybe 70 is not good either.

I hope this helps :)

[JI7]

5. true, if it excluded the monopoly then it would be easier to support it

and one of the other problems is that many native americans are not benefiting and many non natives are. there was a long series of articles on this not too long ago that i read about.

[Robbie67]

4. Definitely no on 68

I'm voting yes on 70, but you don't have to.

Democrats and Republicans oppose 70. The Green Party of CA has no position.