Although Californians are getting ready to cast a historic vote in November on whether or not they should allow adding online wagering to the current California sports betting setup and on what terms, it does not seem that many campaigns are hitting the target. 

The activists who are attempting to enforce their point of view are, in the matter of fact, creating more confusion than they are addressing many questions, which is a problem.

Ideal PoliciesFor Online Sports Betting   

The majority of the advertising that are now being shown on television and online in the state of California are focused on demonstrating why the many other proposed ballot initiatives should be rejected. 

Campaigners who do this are missing an opportunity to provide voters with the virtues of their own ballot proposals and teach them about those qualities. The adverts oppose rival ballot proposals by using a wide variety of linguistic strategies. 

In an advertisement, it is said that electors should vote “no” on the sole qualifying tribal gaming issue that will be on the ballot in November; however, the context of this statement is not explained.

However, it would seem that the fighting parties are mostly divided along the lines of where they stand with regard to the California Sports Wagering Regulation and Unlawful Gambling Act. 

Nobody is disputing the fact that sports betting has to be regulated. It all boils down to how exactly it ought to be governed. The passage of this vote and the acquisition of the majority of the sports betting rights is a priority for Native American casinos. 

Native American tribes are not only interested in obtaining the rights to sports betting, but they are also ready to limit the access of other enterprises to it if it helps them achieve their goal. 

The fact that individuals who are opposed to the measure proposed by the tribes want to get rid of cardrooms that are employing the “player-banked” method in order to compete with tribal properties is the most worrisome aspect that they all have in common. 

It is feared that if the California Sports Wagering Regulation and Unlawful Gambling Act initiative is successful, it would provide Native American tribes with the legal ability to go after cardrooms and shut them down.

Top 4 Online Casinos For Players From California in 2022

• Slot Title
• Pay Back
• Key Features

1

225% First Deposit Bonus

• Payout rate: 98.56%
• Payout Speed: 1-5 days

225% First Deposit BonusPlay NowOur score:

225% First Deposit Bonus

Read more

2

250% first deposit bonus up to $1,500

• Casino Payout: 98.01%
• Payout Speed: 3-5 days

250% first deposit bonus up to $1,500Play NowOur score:

250% first deposit bonus up to $1,500

Read more

3

Up to $12,500 Welcome Bonus

• Casino Payout: 98.01%
• Payout Speed: 3-5 days

Up to $12,500 Welcome BonusPlay NowOur score:

Up to $12,500 Welcome Bonus

Read more

4

Welcome Bonus Up to $5,000

• Payout rate: 97.92%
• Payout Speed: 1-2 days

Welcome Bonus Up to $5,000Play NowOur score:

Welcome Bonus Up to $5,000

Read more

A Different Approach to the Use of Tribal Measures

However, closing down such cardrooms will not have the purifying impact that tribal casinos anticipate it to have. Opponents of the initiative believe that whole town would be devastated by the closure of cardrooms if the legislation were to pass, as is the desire of tribal casinos. The California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Act was enacted in order to address these issues. 

This initiative’s primary objective is to address social problems, such as homelessness, and its proponents hold the belief that the state stands to benefit the most from legalizing both online and in-person sports gambling within the state, without granting exclusivity to either of the two competing parties. 

Due to the fact that sports bettors and gamblers are unable to place legal bets online at this time, millions if not billions of dollars are now fleeing the state. The passage of a statute that regulates gambling on sports in a way that is fair to everyone ought to alter this.

Rob Stutzman, a representative for Tribal Sovereignty and Safe Gambling, submitted a remark in which he criticized the California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Act for being insufficiently effective in addressing the issue of homelessness in the state. According to Stutzman, even after making a large number of cutbacks, the total money that would be allocated to finding a solution to the problem would not exceed three percent of the total levels that are now in place.