New California Field Poll Shows Term Limits and Tribal Slot Machines Expansion Initiatives “Too Close to Call”

Hi Frank,

Would you agree that the age discrepancy in "Yes" verses "NO" on 93 is that the older folks are wiser, more life experienced and tired of seeing yet another round of politicians attempt at pulling a fast one on the electorate?

This would dovetail nicely with older folks becoming more conservative (or merely less so liberal) with age. As folks age, they accumulate more experience with life and don't want to lose/compromise what a lifetime of their hard work has accomplished, for them OR their children.

What say you?

A bad advertising campaign is most likely the result of the loss in traction on the "YES" for Prop 93 campaign. All their mailers and TV adds ONLY say how term limits will be "strengthened" and politicians will be "better" with more time in one house, etc. However, the DELIBERATE OMISSION of how this will benefit 42 incumbent otherwise TERMED OUT politicians including the controversial Speaker Nunez/Pro Tem Perata? Well, folks don't like to be deliberately misled and so brazenly too by politicians.

Thanks for your time.

Nobody ever tells us how many Indians are enrolled in the four tribes affected by Props. 94-97. The answer is "About 2,000." They will split up an additional sum of at least $1 billion per year from the new machines. That's about $500,000 per year for each person. Indian casinos were adopted to make the Indians self-sufficient. That's been done; the largest of the four tribes, the Pechangas (Prop. 94), reportedly draw a stipend of about $30,000 per month per person. They don't need more slots to become self sufficient.

Nobody ever tells us how many Indians are enrolled in the four tribes affected by Props. 94-97. The answer is "About 2,000." They will split up an additional sum of at least $1 billion per year from the new machines. That's about $500,000 per year for each person. Indian casinos were adopted to make the Indians self-sufficient. That's been done; the largest of the four tribes, the Pechangas (Prop. 94), reportedly draw a stipend of about $30,000 per month per person. They don't need more slots to become self sufficient.

I find the ads very funny the pro expansion side says the negative ads are paid for by a Las Vegas casino owner and two race tracks. Meaning that these are bad people trying to move into gaming in California I guess.

Who do you think is paying for all the pro gaming ads? The people making the big bucks the wealthy Indian tribes who want to get richer and more powerful. I don’t believe they will give up to 9 billion over 20 years. I’ve heard estimates that it may not even reach ½ that amount.

If expanding gambling into other areas that have existing gambling (card clubs and race tracks)is bad, them any expansion should be considered bad for California.

We California voters approved limited Indian casino gambling 10 years ago to help the tribes out of poverty. We were shown pictures of Indian tribes living in squalid condition, and we responded generously and compaasionately. Now certain tribes have become wealthy and seek to take advantage of us, by demanging a further increase in their gambling monopoly, while other tribes remain poor. And our representatives in Albany are taking so much money in campaign contributions from these wealthy tribes, they are not looking after our best interest. Vote NO on these 4 propositions!

In Connecticut, the Pequots (FOXWOOD) and the Mohegan Sun were paying 25% to the State while some of our California tribes wanted to pay essentially nothing. I expect that these include the two tribes against Prop. 94-97 and these are the greedy side of the 94-97 propositions.

Take a look at how much the tribes pay in Illinois and you will see how softly Governor Davis treated the tribes--he gave away the store. Look at the political contributions of the tribes at that time and you will see why he did so. I am not a supporter of Arnold but I must give him credit for trying to remedy the situation that Davis left. A vote against the propositions is a vote for the two greediest tribes. Were they not so greedy, I'm certain they could make similar compacts with Arnold. I 'm sure that the Connecticut arrangements would me more than fair to the California tribes. As FDR said in 1936, "We have earned the hatred of entrenched greed."

As California's great budget falls into a great deficet, it still amazes me how Californians are so pridefull and honary to say no to the four Props. with the market slowing down and our Economy in a tangle we'd rather say no to a new source of revenue, just because these four Native American tribes have been successfull there are some of you out there who now feel they should be held accountable for the entire state of California's troubles. Californians need to know that this is their federally granted right to have gaming as a source of income and how unfair is it to hold their success against who they are there success is not a free ride and their struggles to recieve such oppurtunity were not so easy either, Californians should sieze the oppurtunity on securing more revenue for the State and keep the dollars circulating in the State. California stands to benefit more than it would currently should these Props. go through , thus allowing the Tribes to reinvest their revenues to their local economy , charitable donations and other California benefiting ventures. There are some of you out there who contest this, but please focus on what you believe if you really believe in fairness then lets have Grocery stores , Clothing Stores, Restraunts and all your other places you do your business with be subject to a 25% tax and see if your willing to support the new cost to you the consumer!

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.