Please spread the word. Vote no on props 94-97…

What: Join the San Francisco Democratic Party in joining hands with Labor, Community, Progressive, and Environmental leaders in opposition to a destructive, anti-worker statewide ballot initiative that will appear on the February ballot.

When: Tuesday, December 11th, 12PM

Where: Front steps of City Hall

Who: The San Francisco Democratic Party, Labor, and Community leaders

Next week the San Francisco Democratic Party will be sponsoring a labor/community rally against the casino expansion deals that Governor Schwarzenegger made with the tribes that undermine the right of unions to organize. These sweetheart deals unfairly benefit 4 wealthy tribes at the expense of other tribes. Many tribes oppose the deals because they give just 4 of California ’s 108 tribes control over one-third of the state’s Indian gaming pie. Their mega-casinos would dominate the market and could economically devastate smaller tribes. Meanwhile, the Big 4 deals fail to increase revenue sharing opportunities for even the poorest of tribes.

The most important goal for the San Francisco Democratic Party in the February 5 California election is defeating the Big 4 Unfair Deals. Why?

The deals fail to protect casino workers
Labor unions are opposed because while the Big 4 tribes would make billions in profits, their deals lack the most basic protections for workers. They would not be covered by minimum wage protections, sexual harassment protections, anything! These are the same 4 tribes with a history of denying affordable health care to their employees. For instance, a study conducted by a UC Riverside Professor of Economics found that Agua Caliente’s health coverage was so expensive that 56% of the dependent children of casino workers were forced onto taxpayer-funded health care programs.

The deals are exempt to environmental protection laws
Previous compacts with other tribes included a process that mirrors the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, but the Big 4 deals failed to include the most fundamental protection: the standard 55-day comment period for stakeholders. They eliminated the only real opportunity community members have to voice environmental concerns about the proposed expansions.

They benefit the 4 wealthy tribes at the expense of others
Unfairly Benefits 4 Wealthy Tribes at the Expense of Other Tribes
Other tribes oppose the deals because they give just 4 of California’s 108 tribes control over one-third of the state’s Indian gaming pie. Their mega-casinos would dominate the market and could economically devastate smaller tribes. Meanwhile, the Big 4 deals fail to increase revenue sharing opportunities for even the poorest of tribes.

The big 4 tribes are allowed to underpay the state and not 1 penny guaranteed to schools!
The Big 4 revenue claims are wildly exaggerated. Even the state’s independent, non-partisan Legislative Analyst says their figures are unrealistic. The deals require them to pay a percent of their “net win” gambling revenues, but guess who decides what that figure is? Independent financial accountants? No. The deals let the Big 4 tribes themselves make that calculation, and ambiguous language lets them manipulate the “revenue sharing formula” and underpay the state. What about their promises to fund public education? Consider this: The deals are opposed by the California Federation of Teachers. Not one penny is guaranteed to our schools. The revenues are not even subject to the state’s minimum education funding guarantee (Prop 98).

Questions & Answers

What are the Big 4 gambling deals?
Four of the state’s wealthiest and most powerful tribes – Pechanga, Morongo, Agua Caliente and Sycuan – cut themselves a Sacramento deal for one of the largest expansions of casino gambling in U.S. history.

So the same legislators who benefit from tens of millions of dollars in political contributions from the Big 4 tribes, approved the Big 4 gambling deals?
Exactly.

Don’t voters get a say?
The Big 4 tribes spent millions to prevent voters from having a say. But thanks to nearly 3 million referenda signatures, voters will finally get a chance on the February 5 ballot to overturn this legislative giveaway. And we should get a say. These deals represent a dramatic shift in the state’s Indian gaming policy.

A dramatic shift in the state’s Indian gaming policy?
Nearly a decade ago, California voters gave tribes the exclusive right to operate casinos in return for the promise that casino growth would be modest and revenues would be fairly shared with taxpayers. The Big 4 deals break both those promises.
Just how much casino expansion are we talking about? Take the number of slot machines at 12 Vegas casinos, including the Bellagio, MGM Grand, Mirage, and Mandalay Bay . Now add them all together. That’s how many additional slot machines: 17,000. The deals let Sycuan and Agua Caliente increase their maximum number of slot machines from 2,000 to 5,000, and Pechanga and Morongo increase theirs from 2,000 to 7,500. California would become home to some of the largest casinos in the world.
And the revenues won’t be fairly shared with taxpayers?
The deals require them to pay a percent of their “net win” gambling revenues, but guess who decides what that figure is? As the San Francisco Chronicle put it, “They’re horrible deals for the state. … They allow the tribes themselves – instead of an independent auditor – to determine the amount of net winnings that would be subject to revenue sharing with the state.”
So the Big 4 tribes make the calculation of how much they’ll share with the state?
Yes, and it gets worse. Ambiguous language in the compacts lets them manipulate the revenue sharing formula and underpay the state.

Manipulate the amount they’ll pay the state?
Recent compacts required other tribes to pay an easily verifiable per-machine fee. By contrast, the new deals let the Big 4 tribes decide which of their slot machines to even include in their “revenue sharing formula.“ That is, the revenue sharing formula the Big 4 tribes themselves get to calculate.

But what about the billions they promise for the state?
Even the state’s independent, non-partisan Legislative Analyst says their figures are unrealistic. And those promises of Big 4 revenues to our schools, well, not exactly. In fact, not one penny in new revenues is guaranteed to our schools.

Not one penny in new revenues to our schools?
That’s right. The new gaming revenues are not even included in the state’s minimum education funding calculation (Prop. 98). Just ask the California Federation of Teachers. They’re opposed to the Big 4 deals.

But the Big 4 deals would still help tribes, right?
If by “tribes” you mean 4 of the wealthiest, most powerful tribes, then right. But other tribes oppose the deals because they give just 4 of the state’s 108 tribes control over one-third of the state’s Indian gaming pie. Tribes fear the new Big 4 mega-casinos would dominate the market and could economically devastate smaller tribes. And the Big 4 deals don’t increase the revenue sharing opportunities for even the poorest of tribes.

So the deals are unfair to California taxpayers and other tribes?
And to California workers. The Big 4 tribes would make billions more in profits, but their deals do not ensure basic health care, safety, and anti-discrimination protections for their employees.

The Big 4 tribes would make billions, but their casino workers can’t even count on health care?
The Big 4 tribes have a history of denying their workers basic rights, and at great cost to California taxpayers. A study conducted by a UC Riverside Economics Professor showed Agua Caliente’s health coverage was so expensive that 56% of the children of casino workers were forced onto taxpayer-funded health care programs. Recent compacts with other tribes included important worker protections. The Big 4 deals failed to do so. That’s why California labor unions oppose these deals.

For more information, go to http: //www.nounfairdeals.com