Subscribe to CalMatters’ free daily newsletter to get news and commentary that holds your elected leaders accountable.
By clicking subscribe, you agree to the Terms.
They say money can’t buy you happiness — and that was likely true Tuesday for the proponents of two dueling initiatives on California’s Nov. 8 ballot to legalize sports betting.
After all the money raised by the four campaigns on both sides of Propositions 26 and 27 — nearly $441 million so far, nearly double the previous record of $226 million set in 2020 — both measures are significantly underwater with voters, according to a new a poll from UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.
The campaigns don’t have much time to change Californians’ minds: County elections offices are required to begin mailing ballots to all active, registered voters no later than Monday, and Election Day is just five weeks away.
The poll also found that the campaigns’ oodles of cash may actually be a liability: Voters who reported having seen lots of ads about Props. 26 and 27 were more likely by “wide margins” to oppose both measures than voters who had seen few or no ads.
It probably doesn’t help that many of the ads are confusing and possibly even misleading, and that they’re funded by four different ballot measure campaigns composed of a complex cast of players.
Kathy Fairbanks, a spokesperson for the Yes on 26/No on 27 campaign, told the Los Angeles Times that her side is grateful “that voters appear to be rejecting the out-of-state gambling corporations and their $170-million campaign of deception.”
Nathan Click, a spokesperson for the Yes on 27 campaign, told the Times that Prop. 27 has faced “over $100 million in misleading and false attacks — $45 million before we even qualified for the ballot. It’s telling these same opponents haven’t spent a dime supporting their own sports betting proposal,” Prop. 26.
Props. 26 and 27 have also struck out with the editorial boards of major California newspapers, none of which have endorsed either measure, according to a list maintained by the Sacramento-based I Street Public Affairs.
Other key takeaways from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll:
Get ready to vote: Find out everything you need to know about voting in California’s Nov. 8 election in the CalMatters Voter Guide, which includes information on races, candidates and propositions, as well as videos, interactives and campaign finance data.
From CalMatters political reporter Ben Christopher: As California campaigns rush to raise cash in the five weeks left until the Nov. 8 election, the committee opposed to Prop. 30 — which would raise taxes on millionaires to fund electric vehicle programs and other climate initiatives — has turned to a novel funding source: stocks.
According to campaign finance numbers filed with the state at the end of September, “No on 30” has taken in a little more than $2.3 million worth of corporate equities this year.
As financial portfolios go, it’s heavy on tech, pharmaceuticals and, yes, even fossil fuel investments. Some of its bigger holdings include:
By clicking subscribe, you agree to the Terms.
The committee’s small mountain of stock is still just a fraction of the $9.1 million it’s raised in cash so far. And it’s just a drop in a sea of corporate donations compared to the $47 million vacuumed up by Yes on 30 — more than $45 million coming from the ride-share giant Lyft, which also spent $49 million in support of a successful 2020 ballot measure (the initiative that set the previous spending record) to exempt itself from a state labor law.
Latest coverage of the 2022 general election in California
Giving stocks seems to be a uniquely Silicon Valley way to influence elections. Roughly a quarter of the funds raised by the successful campaign to recall San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin came in the form of company shares, the San Francisco Standard reported.
For donors with stocks that have boomed in value since they first purchased them — the hallmark of a successful venture capitalist’s portfolio — that makes for a particularly enticing tax break.
CalMatters reviewed every non-cash contribution reported to statewide ballot measure committees over the last two years. “No on 30” is the only one that received stock. San Francisco election lawyer Jim Sutton said he isn’t surprised.
For supporters of Prop. 30, who have spent weeks denouncing the “No” side as a campaign funded by self-interested millionaires looking to avoid higher tax bills, the stock contributions provided yet more ammunition.
No on 30 spokesperson Amelia Matier said the stock contributions were of little importance compared to the millions of dollars Lyft has spent in support of the proposition. She said the rideshare company has spent “50x that of any other donor on any other side.”
Why are Californians voting — for the third time — on whether to establish new rules for dialysis clinics? Behind Prop. 29 is California’s largest health care workers union, Service Employees International Union-United Health Workers West, which is known to routinely turn to voters and use the initiative process as a negotiating tactic — including at the local level. On Nov. 8, voters in the Southern California cities of Duarte and Inglewood will determine the fate of SEIU-UHW initiatives to set a minimum wage requirement of $25 per hour for some of the lowest-paid workers at private hospitals, integrated health systems and dialysis clinics, CalMatters’ Ana B. Ibarra reports. The union — which earlier this year tried to hash out a last-minute legislative deal to boost the statewide minimum wage for health care workers in both public and private facilities — is betting that local wins could help spur a larger movement. Meanwhile, California’s hospital lobby and health systems across the state have poured at least $17 million into defeating the Duarte and Inglewood measures.
CalMatters columnist Dan Walters: California is moving closer to the Western European model of extensive public services and benefits.
It’s time to remake California’s water laws: The principles under which California water rights were assigned during the 20th century simply don’t hold up in the 21st. The Legislature must ensure sinister legal decisions don’t burden vulnerable communities and native species with trying to survive with extremely limited water, argue Walter “Redgie” Collins and Amanda Cooper of CalTrout.
How can California workers transition to green energy jobs? // CalMatters
On the Orange County coast, voters fume about gas prices but fear for climate’s future. // Los Angeles Times
After deadly downtown shootings, Sacramento announces nightlife manager to coordinate with businesses. // CapRadio
Police release video of person of interest in possible serial killings in Stockton and Oakland. // San Francisco Chronicle
High court to hear social media terror suits, including one involving death of Cal State student. // Mercury News
Contra Costa judge rules prosecutors violated state’s new Racial Justice Act during murder trial, reverses convictions. // Mercury News
‘Just take care of me’: How a corrupt FBI agent protected an L.A. crime figure for cash. // Los Angeles Times
A cannabis bribe and arson: Former Adelanto councilman sentenced to federal prison. // Los Angeles Times
California law school sued by namesake’s descendants over name change. // Fox News
Supreme Court rejects Oakland lawsuit against the NFL over Raiders’ move to Las Vegas. // San Francisco Chronicle
L.A. to end COVID eviction protections by February. // Los Angeles Times
State declares emergency as work begins to stabilize sliding San Clemente railroad tracks; Amtrak, Metrolink remain unavailable. // San Diego Union-Tribune
Court orders state to re-evaluate widely used rat poison because of risks to other animals. // San Francisco Chronicle
Wildfires are getting worse. Can scientists save California’s forests from going up in smoke? // Los Angeles Times
One Bay Area harbor is trying a first-in-the-nation strategy to combat plastic pollution. // San Francisco Chronicle
Tips, insight or feedback? Email emily@calmatters.org.
Follow me on Twitter: @emily_hoeven
Subscribe to CalMatters newsletters here.
Follow CalMatters on Facebook and Twitter.
CalMatters is now available in Spanish on Twitter, Facebook and RSS.