| Personally it seems like that BOTH sides are distorting things to their advantage. It's what campaigning is all about. The Anti-68 campaign implies that voting yes on this ballot is saying yes to a huge influx of massive gambling sites all over California, right next to schools and parks. On the other hand, the Pro-68 campaign implies that Indian tribes are freeloaders who are sitting on their rich fat asses and doing nothing to help California while they reap the benefits of their casinos. Even the flash intro of the pro-68 website represent the tribal casinos as these quickly expanding buildings that grow into uncontrolled skycrapers.
It's all about exaggeration, and each side is guilty of it. Yes casinos will be allowed in California if 68 passes, but only in the 16 predisgnated areas. Yes the tribes currently have a monopoly on gaming, but they already volunteer a percentage to the state, in addition to helping to support the smaller tribes who have no casinos. Yes some of their casinos are kinda big, but I've seen them and they look more like ranches than towering crowds of Las Vegas-like structures. |