[calcowgirl]

I'm struggling with the second one, not the first.

Prop 68 - A BIG NO

Prop 70 - Maybe

From Yes On 70

Endorsements:

California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA)

California State Conference of the NAACP

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

The National Tax-Limitation Committee

Hon. Jim Brulte (R), State Senator, District 31, California State Senate

Hon. Tom McClintock (R), State Senator, District 19, California State Senate

Hon. Bill Morrow (R), State Senator, District 38, California State Senate

Hon. Jack O'Connell, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Department of Education

Howard Jarvis Tax Foundation Support of Prop 70:

"The governor is going to spend a significant amount of time making sure Californians understand how bad (Propositions) 68 and 70 are for the state," Harris said.

"You'd rather have the governor on your side than against," Russo said. "But the Howard Jarvis organization said it quite well. They've supported the governor on everything he's done. But on this one particular instance, he's wrong."

The governor has reached compact agreements with a half-dozen tribes that currently run casinos. Forty-seven other gaming tribes have not. But Schwarzenegger argues that he should retain the right to negotiate future deals -- a right that Propositions 68 and 70 would take away.

Source

[tubebender]

I'm not really up to speed on this Indian Gaming. Most of the tribes are just fronts for Vegas etc operators and they must share the profits between them. Do the taxes just come from the tribes or do the operators pay also and at what rate? Does anyone regulate "payback" and protect the players as the Nevada Gaming Commission does to the clubs there. I wonder as the states take increases does that mean the operators just increase the ""take" from it's players?