California’s card room industry recently engaged in a significant political struggle, investing over $3 million to challenge lawmakers supporting Senate Bill 549, which allows tribal casinos to sue card rooms over gaming rights. This legislative battle has highlighted the fierce competition between card rooms and tribal casinos in the state’s political arena.
Despite their substantial expenditures, the card rooms were unable to prevent the bill from passing, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law. The legislation grants tribes the right to bring legal action against card rooms operating games like blackjack and pai gow poker in violation of their claimed exclusive rights. This outcome poses a significant threat to card rooms, as many cities rely heavily on revenue from these establishments to fund essential services such as police and fire departments.
In retaliation for the bill’s passage, card rooms targeted incumbents and candidates who played crucial roles in advancing the legislation. Notably, three of these lawmakers were defeated in the recent election cycle, a rare political outcome that underscores the financial muscle card rooms are willing to flex to protect their interests. Their political campaign involved extensive spending on ads, mailers, and other outreach efforts, all aimed at influencing voter opinions.
Laurie Davies, a Republican, managed to retain her seat despite a robust financial challenge from the card rooms, which spent heavily on her opponent. Meanwhile, other lawmakers, like Evan Low and Brian Maienschein, who faced significant opposition from the card rooms, were not as fortunate. They encountered substantial attack campaigns, with the card rooms spending hundreds of thousands of dollars against them. This spending pattern sends a clear message to lawmakers about the potential consequences of their legislative decisions when they intersect with powerful industry interests.
The bill’s primary author, Democratic Senator Josh Newman, also fell victim to the card rooms’ campaign strategy. Though he had a significant fundraising advantage, Newman lost his seat after a targeted campaign portrayed him as lenient on crime and criticized his stance on immigration. Despite this setback, Newman defended his legislative efforts, asserting that he prioritized giving tribes their rightful day in court and questioning the rationale behind the card rooms’ extensive post-defeat spending.
This political saga underscores the deep-rooted rivalry between tribal casinos and card rooms in California’s gaming landscape. While tribes continue to outspend card rooms in political contributions, the card rooms’ recent actions demonstrate their capacity and willingness to engage in high-stakes political maneuvers.
The recent legislative battle in California serves as a stark reminder of the influence and stakes involved in the gaming industry. As tribal casinos and card rooms vie for control and legitimacy, the financial and political implications of their actions remain significant. Lawmakers and industry stakeholders must now navigate a complex landscape where legal disputes and political capital are interlinked.
