Assembly Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Good morning, everyone. It's 9:05. I would like to start the hearing already. We don't have a quorum, but we'll go ahead and start as a Subcommitee so that we can move it along.

I know that the Assembly session starts at 10, so I want to make sure that we're done so that everyone can get to the respective sessions. And so I'm calling the Government Organization Committee to order.

For each Bill heard today, there will be an opportunity for two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition to each provide two minutes of testimony. Sergeants, can you please call the absent Members? And noticing the absence of a quorum, we will begin as a Subcommitee.

Establish a quorum after 12 Members are here and Madam Secretary, can you. Well, there's no. We're starting as a Subcommitee anyway. Okay, okay. And then today, measures on consent. No, different one.

There we go. All right. Yes, we'll go ahead and get started. We have Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez. So we're going in. File order AB770 by Mark Gonzalez. Advertising display, City of Los Angeles Exempt exemption ordinance and it's an urgency Bill. Assembly Member Gonzalez, good morning.

Good morning. Start over. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning. Members, I am pleased to present AB7 Sandy, which would build upon existing law and authorize the City of Los Angeles to establish a flexible signage framework at the Los Angeles Convention Center.

Only this framework will allow the city to unlock a critical revenue stream to support the long planned renovation and modernization of the convention center, a key venue for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Located in downtown Los Angeles, the convention center is one of the largest in the country and hosts a wide variety of events, including concerts, trade shows, exhibitions and conventions. The Senate amendments remove the exemption and mitigate the potential risk of Federal Highway Fund reductions by requiring Caltrans pre approval of any signage plan by the city.

Here to testify in support of the Bill is a good friend, Sarah Flocks with the California Federation of Labor Unions.

Madam Chair, Members, Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions we are here. Even though this project is specific to Los Angeles, because of the fantastic economic impact it will have on the state, it is going to be a huge draw for tourism. It is creating at least 8,700 construction jobs, 2200 more permanent jobs, all good union jobs.

This plan is smart, flexible financing that avoids the burden on the taxpayers of Los Angeles. It is a model for the entire state and would like to see it replicated and also does a lot to mitigate any loss of federal highway funds.

Because we also care very deeply and our Members care very deeply about having that funding for our transportation infrastructure. For these reasons, we urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris Micheli here on behalf of my clients, the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, and strong support.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Brandon Chu on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Okay. Any witnesses in opposition? Okay, Seeing none. Let's see. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Dixon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm actually in favor of the Bill. I'm just. Just for clarification purposes, are you citing the number of jobs from constructing the signage or just because of the construction work that's going to result because of the Olympics at the convention center? What's the specific job connection other than installing new signage?

No, the convention center. Yeah. The signage allows for the financing of the convention center. .

So there's the expansion of the convention center itself, which is part of the like part one of the job piece of it, and then it's obviously sustaining it where then the conventions are existing. Thus, therefore the jobs are created as a result of it.

But it's the revenue to have this specific area for the convention center that will have the displays that provide the revenue to pay.

How much revenue is coming in from the signage?

I think with the option that we've put and we've worked extremely hard, I think it's. Our option was about 36 million a year. From the signage, it's advertising at 32 to 36, if I remember correctly.

That's advertising.

Correct. Dollars in revenue.

It goes directly, and you're creating a special district, goes directly to the convention center to provide the financing for the capital improvements as well as ongoing.

Correct. So. So back right into paying for it. Yes. And the City of LA needs it especially,

and the business community is supportive of it.

Yeah. Look, I was going to use this in my closing, but I have never seen such business and labor groups coming together. I want to thank Brad and Vincent and everybody on my team who've come together. We've had call after call after call to get to this point, even with the opposition. Who's. Who's.

Most of them have gone neutral at this point. And we just. We just need to get this project done and ready to go.

Very good. Well, thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Hearing none. Assembly Member Gonzalez, you may close.

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And we do not. We do not have a quorum yet, so we'll take a vote when appropriate. Thank you, Senator Archuleta. Good morning, Senator. You may go ahead and begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning to you and. And all the Assembly Members in the. This morning I come to you to present a bill that has already been through the system, already been approved. So we're just going to add a little bit and clean it up. I'm here to present Senate Bill 451.

This Committee, as I mentioned, has already previously approved it on consent. And so this is to clarify the Department of Justice investigative authority outside of a licensed gaming establishment. For today's hearing, obviously, we're discussing the 50/50 raffle provision that has been added to Senate Bill 451.

Senate Bill 451 will allow a 50/50 charitable raffle at the championship game if held at the designated venue where an affiliated sports team plays their home games. This is a technical fix to a gray area in California's existing code section surrounding 50/50 raffles in regard to the Super Bowl.

The Department of Justice has cautioned that without the statutory clarity provided in Senate Bill 451, the San Francisco 49ers and the Los Angeles Rams would not be able to host the 50/50 raffle at Super Bowls 60 and 61. The 50/50 raffle program has a track record of proven success.

As the premier sporting event of the year, the super bowl is an important opportunity for teams to give back and support their communities by helping to financially support worthwhile charities and nonprofits. This bill has no opposition. With me to testify and support on behalf of the NFL, the Rams, and the 49ers is Andrew, Governor.

And I asked for an Aye vote and respectfully asked for that Aye vote.

Andrew Governor, on behalf of the San Francisco 49ers. I wish I had the NFL and the Rams as well, but they'll be up here as well. We are just doing a slight amendment to allow for the super bowl for the San Francisco 49ers foundation to operate a 50/50 raffle.

California legalized 50/50 raffles almost a decade ago to help raise money for charitable causes. It's been a great success. It's raised millions of dollars for local charities up and down the state.

According to the definition of the law, if The San Francisco 49ers actually aren't in the super bowl, we hope they are, then we'd be unable to operate a 5050 raffle. It doesn't change any of the other rules of the raffle.

The raffle program, we actually lifted the sunset in 2023 after having three different sunsets to make sure the program worked successfully. Every year there's audits, so it's transparent. They're posted on the DOJ's website, so anyone from the public can go and see how the raffles operate.

So this is just a slight tweak to allow the super bowl San Francisco 49ers to do a raffle at the Super Bowl. All the other leagues, NBA, MLB and NHL, actually the home team is always going to host it when they're in the championship.

But in football, as you know, they have a designated location and that may or may not depend on whether the team is in it or not. So we ask for your support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Good morning. Silvio Ferrari, on behalf of the National Football League, in support.

Thank you. Any other. Any others in support? Members in opposition or anyone in opposition?

Good morning. Madam Chair Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of Count on Profits. We don't have a formal opposition position. I just wanted to take the opportunity to register the long standing concerns we've had since the initiation of this program in 2015. Count on Profits represents 10,000 nonprofit organizations as a policy alliance.

And our concerns have always been with respect to the equity or the inequity of this program that all other non pro sports charities can only operate 9010. So where Raffles, where 90% of the proceeds must go to programs and 10% can go to the winnings.

And we've also registered long standing concerns that this is an expansion of gambling that could put the public's trust in charities at risk. So understand this is a narrow expansion, but these are long standing, ongoing concerns that count on profits and thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Okay, bringing it up to the D Assembly Member Dixon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I think this is great program. I honestly didn't know about it until I'm looking at this Bill. And so I'm appreciative of the success it has, maybe for the edification of the public. You talk about being audited and it's been great for charities in the nonprofit world.

You just talk a little bit of how, which charities, how does a charity apply for the funds or how is the distribution made and just to kind of give a little bit more color to what's going on, the context for this.

Yeah, so there's really a couple ways that it's done. A pro teams charitable foundation can either work with local charities and those local charities can apply every year, or some raffles are actually held for and on behalf of specific charity.

So you may go to a baseball game or a football game, and on that particular game they may actually have a designated charity or two that everybody knows it's for or it goes to the foundation.

And as you know, our teams work with hundreds, if not a thousand charities throughout the state that they designate and it changes from year to year. Or you have ones that you actually work with on an annual basis. Education programs, after school programs, obesity programs, youth sports programs, building fields in underserved areas.

So it really depends on year to year for a lot of these. And any charity is allowed to reach out to a professional sports team and ask to be included to either get their own night or to be a recipient of funds.

Well, and it's wonderful, obviously, noble cause. I've been involved in many charities over the last many years. Maybe this is more recent. I've just never been aware, like the United Way in Los Angeles and Orange County. I've never heard them talk about being recipients. Maybe they are and I just didn't know.

So I just think it's an opportunity for number one, nonprofits to make sure they're applying for these funds. And number two, give credit where credit is due to the teams that are making these in the foundation supporting the teams that are making it possible. I think it's laudable.

I do hear the speaker who it's just concerned that it's benefiting the nonprofits. That's where I'm coming from. My line of question is making sure the nonprofits in our communities are benefiting. So that's where it's coming from. My questioning is coming from. Thank you.

Anyone else in the Committee, questions or comments?

No comments. Just like to move the bill when we have the quorum.

Okay. We're one short of a quorum.

Yes, we'll go. Well, Senator, you may close and we will take a vote when we have a quorum.

Thank you all. And I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Actually, we'll go ahead and establish quorum. Madam Secretary, can you take the roll on the quorum?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. All right, we'll move on to item two, AB 831, Assembly Member Valencia. Actually, if you could give me a minute so we can go ahead and have motions and vote on the previous two bills. So I need a motion on AB 770 by Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez. Okay. Motion by Assembly Member Soria and second by Assembly Member Fong. Okay. Madam Secretary, can you call a roll?

AB 770, González. The motion is to concur. [Roll Call]

Thank you. And then moving on to item three, SB 451. I need a motion and a second. Moved by Assembly Member Davies and second by Assembly Member Wallis. Madam Secretary, call the roll, please.

SB 451, Archuleta. The motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

Okay, that measure has 12 votes. We'll leave the roll open for Members to add on. All right, thank you very much, Assembly Member Valencia. We are on Item number two, AB 831, Valencia. Assembly Member, you may begin.

Absolutely, Madam Chair. Thank you so much, Members, for this morning. AB 831 specifically addresses online sweepstakes that use dual currency models. The bill makes it unlawful for online sweepstakes who use dual currency models to operate in our State of California. Importantly, the bill does not ban social sweepstakes casinos that do not award cash prizes.

Want to make that very clear. Over 25 years ago, California voters affirmed tribes their exclusive right to conduct gaming activities, which are highly regulated, as we all know serving on this Committee. Tribal gaming activities are critical to our economy, contributing to more than $25 billion and supporting over 112,000 jobs. Online sweepstakes casinos have increased in popularity.

They exploit false, no purchase necessary disclaimers and use dual currency models to take advantage of a legal gray area. These online sweepstakes casinos offer no consumer protections, leaving youth, our community, and those with gambling addiction vulnerable and provide no economic benefit to our state. To be clear, players of these online sweepstakes casinos are able to convert their winnings to actual cash.

So this isn't just a fictitious model. By operating as online casinos with real cash payouts, these sweepstakes casinos are circumventing the will of California voters and sidestepping the state's gaming framework. With me to provide testimony today is my good friend Juan Herrera, the director of intergovernmental affairs for of Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.

Good morning, Chairwoman Rubio and Committee Members. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation is a proud sponsor of Assembly Bill 831. This important and much needed bill closes a loophole in sweepstakes law being exploded by offshore operators who use dual currency models to simulate online casinos.

These sites mislead consumers, target all our vulnerable populations, your constituents, and expose our children to gambling, all without providing the protections or benefits to the state. This bill does not affect traditional lawful sweepstakes.

It is narrowly focused on stopping unlawful online operations using dual currency that allow for real cash payouts and undermine California's gaming framework. For tribes like San Manuel, gaming revenues fund critical services and community investment. Unlawful operators, mostly out of state and international, siphon those resources while sidestepping the laws that lawful operators must follow.

Working with Mr. Valencia, the tribe joined the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations and the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, which collectively represent over 60 federally recognized Indian tribes in California, and other stakeholders to reach consensus amendments.

I'd like to really emphasize this bill has nothing to do and does not affect daily fantasy sports, sports betting, card rooms, the horse racing industry, or the lottery in any way, shape, or form. It only addresses online dual currency sweepstake casinos. Assembly Bill 831 has passed the Senate unanimously. There is not a single no vote on file. On behalf of the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Charles Wright on behalf of Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation in support.

Morning, Madam Chair and Members. Nick Brokaw here on behalf of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Natalie Rodgers on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians in support.

Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Paula Treat on behalf of Pechanga in full support.

Madam Chair and Members. Frank Molina on behalf of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians in strong support.

Carolyn Veal-Hunter on behalf of Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation in full support of the bill.

Morning, Madam Chair and Members. Greg Campbell on behalf of the Sports Betting Alliance. We represent DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, bet365, and Fanatics in support.

Chair and Members. Andrew Govenar on behalf of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and also the California Nations Indian Gaming Association in support.

Madam Chair and Members. Kris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Good morning. Pam Lopez on behalf of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe in support.

Thank you. Okay. Witnesses in opposition? Thank you. You have two minutes each.

Members of the Committee, good morning. Shane Lavigne on behalf of the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance in opposition to AB 831. I want to begin by saying the entire premise of this bill is false. The proponents have consistently said that the online sweepstakes throughout this process are illegal. If that were true, then why are we running AB 831?

Why make something illegal that is supposedly already illegal? The reality is the proponents know this industry is legal. The bill isn't about clarifying the law. It's about changing the law, claiming sweepstakes as gambling, which it is not, to give a few wealthy tribes exclusivity while shutting down a legal industry that generates significant economic activity across California.

It's been said, and is also untrue, that social gaming companies contribute nothing to this state. This bill would wipe out more than $1 billion in annual economic activity to the State of California. Additionally, we've offered a regulatory and taxation framework that would generate more than $300 million a year in new revenue to the State of California, while also codifying best practices like rigorous age verification and consumer protections. Those proposals have all been rejected.

Most critically, this bill silences our tribal partners who rely on digital opportunities, while the proponents, who've invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Las Vegas and California coastal properties to seek to deny our tribal partners the very opportunities the proponents themselves have used. The rhetoric from some of the proponents reveals the real motive.

They've said they want to curb stomp us and that toe tags will be helpful to identify our next of kin. That violent language underscores that this is not about fairness or consumer protection, but eliminating competition at any cost. For these reasons, we urge you to stand up for legal industry, for fairness, and for our tribal partners who will be harmed by this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm Eric Wright, CEO of the Kletsel Economic Development Authority, testifying respectfully in opposition of AB 831. We didn't win the geographic lottery that blessed some tribes with prime casino locations near major tourism and population centers. While certain established gaming tribes generate hundreds of millions annually, we struggle with the basics.

No potable water on the reservation, inadequate infrastructure, and limited economic opportunities. AB 831 would eliminate one of the few viable economic pathways available to isolated tribes like ours. Digital commerce offers legitimate, legitimate business opportunities to fund essential services such as health care, education, housing, food security programs our people desperately need.

It's deeply troubling that tribes who've already achieved massive success through location advantages now seek to slam the door shut on emerging opportunities for those of us who weren't blessed with prime real estate. This bill lacks unanimous support among California tribes obviously, has advanced without meaningful consultation. We urge you to vote no on AB 831. Support policies that expand economic opportunity for all tribal nations. Thank you.

Any others in opposition?

Sam LaHood on behalf of Virtual Gaming World in opposition.

Evan Corder on behalf of the Social and Promotional Games Association in opposition.

Charlie Wright, tribal chairman for the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, strongly opposed to AB 831.

Devin Wammack, Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation supporter, opposed to the 831.

Roseanne Buckley, opposed to 831.

Shane Cox, environmental technician for the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, oppose AB 831.

Marlena Wammack, and I oppose 831.

Debbie Phillips, and I oppose 831.

Tabitha Bill, and I oppose 831.

Tristen Groteguth, and I oppose 831.

Dustin Holmes. I oppose 831.

Hello. My name is Kashaya Wammack, and I am a member of the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, and I oppose bill 831.

Good morning. My name is Germaine Burrows. I'm with the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, and I oppose the 831.

Anthony Flores, citizen of Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, Puhtwin peoples, in opposition.

Hi. I'm Bradley Denman. I oppose 831.

My name is Aaron Farris, and I oppose AB 831.

My name is Michelle Lang, and I oppose 831.

Good morning. I am Tyler Denman, and I oppose 831.

Good Morning. My name is Avis Bill. I am the tribal treasurer for Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, and I strongly oppose AB 831.

My name is Elisa Canales, and I oppose AB 831. I am part of the Kletsel Dehe Nation as well, sitting on the board. Thank you.

Bernadette Smith, and I am a member of the Manchester Point Arena Band of Pomo Indians, also an ally to the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, and I oppose AB 831.

Hi. I'm Bing Buckley, and I am with the Dehe Wintun Nation, and I oppose AB 831.

Good morning. My name is Bailey Buckley, and I'm with Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, and I oppose AB 831. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is David Bill. I'm a Kletsel Dehe citizen and I also sit on the economic board for Kletsel Dehe, and I oppose this bill.

Matthew Swearinger, tribal citizen Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, and I oppose AB 831.

Bev Anne McDaniel. I'm with Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, and I strongly oppose AB 831.

Good morning. My name is Aimee Polit. I am tribal council secretary of the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation and I strongly oppose this bill.

Good morning. My name is Cassie Finley. I am with Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation. I strongly oppose AB 831.

Madison Finley with Kletsel Dehe, and I oppose 831.

My name is Hillary Goss. I'm with Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, and I oppose 831.

Good morning. My name is Donna Goss. I'm with the Kletsel, and I oppose AB 831. Thank you.

Connie Gomez with Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, and I oppose AB 831.

Miguel Solano, Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, opposed to 831.

Derrick McCain from Sherwood Valley Rancheria, and I oppose AB 831.

Cody Brandon from Sherwood Valley, and I oppose AB 831.

Diamante Mccain from Sherwood Valley, and I oppose 831.

Ruben Swearinger, I oppose 831.

Nick Crawshaw. I oppose 831.

Sharon Crawshaw. I oppose 831.

Good morning. My name is Doc Bill Jr. I am the Chairman of the Kletsel Economic Development Authority and a citizen of the Kletsel Wintun Nation, and I oppose 831.

Good morning. My name is Bill Duncan and I oppose AB 831.

Good morning. My name is Linda Shoutz, and I oppose AB 831.

Good morning. My Name is Natalia Prince, and I'm tribal councilwoman for Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation and I'm also on our economic development board, and I oppose AB 831.

My name is Ryan Bill, and I oppose 831.

Jeremy Bill, Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, oppose AB 831.

Nathan Bill, the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation. I oppose 831.

Natalie Burrows, and I oppose 831.

Good morning. Kyle Bill, Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, Lake County resident. On behalf of our people who didn't get to choose the land that they're on and that aren't able to drink their water, I strongly oppose and ask you to vote no on AB 831.

Good morning. Kim Weisenberg. I oppose 831.

Elaine Wright, and I oppose 831.

Good morning. Nadine Crawshaw. I oppose 831.

Anthony Douglas, and I oppose AB 831.

Nathan Baslow. I oppose AB 831.

Annalise Bentley, and I oppose AB 381.

Good morning. My name is Danielle Bentley, and I oppose AB 831.

Good morning. My name is Juan Guerrero. I oppose AB 831.

Good morning. My name is Andrew Peter, and I oppose 831.

I'm Nate Forbes and I oppose 831.

Lonnie Forbes, and I oppose 831.

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee. I'm Sandra Knight of... Sandra Knight, Vice Chair of the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, and we support tribal equity and we oppose this bill.

Good morning. LaTrisa Sheridan with Sherwood Valley Rancheria. I oppose 831.

Thank you. Any others in opposition?

Derek Frankman on behalf of my fellow California based Virtual Gaming World employees, I oppose AB 831.

Stephen Bragg. I oppose 831.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else? Seeing none. Questions and comments from the committee? Assembly Member Dixon.

Well, it's excellent to have this discussion and hear from both important sides. One voice that I'm not hearing from. If dual currency gaming is not good for everyone, consumers, why aren't we hearing from the consumer community? Isn't it bigger? Isn't this issue bigger? I mean, I'm hearing that there are issues across the country, but I respect both points of view from the tribal nations.

I think that's very critical information. It's really hard sitting up here and hearing about this group and then the other group. What are we really trying to accomplish? Are we really trying to help consumers who unwittingly get involved in dual currency gaming? It's so pervasive or available to anyone with a cell phone. And I'm just struck by the fact there's no consumer interest represented.

Appreciate the question, and that's really at the core of this policy to protect California consumers through what's now developed as an illicit market. Right. Some of these corporations, these offshore companies accept payment and then don't pay out. Again, to the opposition, they want to regulate their industry because they're not regulated. Right. So I do appreciate this last minute attempt to legitimize their industry.

But the fact of the matter is that California voters gave gaming sovereignty to tribes in our state. And again, so it's twofold. Protecting consumers, our youth, our seniors from being taken advantage of, gambling addiction, so on, so forth. We know those issues that plague our communities across the state. And in addition to that, the sovereign right of tribal gaming.

Well, just to again provide the context for this. Outside of California, where their tribal interests are not competitive, I don't know the answer to this question. Are consumer groups actively opposing this and petitioning their state legislatures to regulate or to ban dual currency? Is that happening? I really haven't read about it, but maybe it's going on.

Assembly Women, across the nation, 16 states have actually taken action to do basically what California, we're attempting to do in California, which is really go after the dual currency model, which is a form of gambling, and while making sure that traditional sweepstakes games continue to be legal in those jurisdictions. So we are seeing a push, a national push on this issue.

And then the players in dual currency have primarily offshore, non-US based type of companies?

That is correct.

I see. Okay. All right, thank you very much.

Okay. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Hearing none. This has been a controversial issue already since the last couple years. Some of the Members of the Committee were here for other measures. And I know, and I can see already that we are moving towards more regulation being that we have technological innovations and, you know, continued nationwide expansions.

I do appreciate the author's willingness to amend the bill to clarify legislative intent. And I think part of that is in the analysis. I know that we all have differences of opinion and we do respect the tribe's sovereignty. That is an exclusivity. This is a little bit different, in my opinion.

It's not necessarily exclusivity as the types of game that are being played. So I believe, and I think that all of us here stand with the tribes on their exclusivity to this, but I want to be careful not to muddy the waters. I think this is a good bill. I think that you are correct.

We have 16 states that already are banning the use of online gaming. It is dangerous. And to Assembly woman Dixon's point, the. The consumer groups also should be at the table.

So I encourage all of us to start working with some of those consumer groups because I know this is not going to be the last bill that we hear in this topic, especially coming next year. And again, it's because of the innovation. We're all getting creative when it comes to. To online gaming and online everything.

I strongly, again, encourage all of us to sit and talk about the regulations that. That would have made this. Unfortunately, this was a gut and amend and we are here today. But there were some requests that I had made about information and I never got that information. I sat with both the.

The supporters, obviously, and the opposition. And I did request some detailed information on, you know, the, the amount of money that was created or generated for the State of California. And I have not gotten that information. So I just want to make that clear because I did ask for that early on.

Did you not receive the economic report that we provided to you in the meeting? No, I'm. We handed you. We handed you an economic report.

It was a verbal communication and I had several other requests that we did not receive. And so I'd be happy to talk to you about that. I was clear at the meeting that I needed detailed information to provide to all the other Members. Did you provide the other Members that information as well?

Can you speak to that? Shane?

Every single Member of this Committee has received an economic impact study amendments. For. Weeks since this bill was getting amended. So all of that communication has been Disseminated. All of the information has been disseminated. Consumers to the tune of 30,000 emails and calls have gone into offices as well. So all the bases have been covered.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any. Letters from a consumer group in the, in the packet. Okay, well, we, we are, we're here at the moment and, you know, we can go back and forth on, on as to what was provided and what wasn't provided.

But that being said, there's still a lot of questions in terms of the consumer groups and I do again foresee that this issue is going to continue with not just sweepstakes, but other forms of online gaming, if you will. I know that the policy has to be done differently. I do ask, you know, for the future.

The gut and amends are last minute and it doesn't give us enough of an opportunity to try and make sure that. That Members have months and consumer groups and, you know, the proponents and the opposite opposition have an opportunity to meet with Members and try to educate them. So, you know, again, this is where we are today.

But for future, I think all of us can agree that gut and amends are very difficult on Members because now we're asked to vote on issues that were very last minute. But with that said, I have to support the bill. I know that there are 16 states that have banned the regulation.

The Attorney General has not weighed in on this issue. At least I have not seen that engagement like I have seen with the other bills. And, and so for that reason, I do, I'm going to support the bill. Thank you. Okay, I need a motion and a second Assembly Member Soria. Motion by Assemblymember Soria.

Second by Assemblymember Pacheco. Okay, Secretary, can you please call the roll?

AB831. Valencia. The motion is to concur. [Roll Call]

The measure carries 17 aye votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you. We need to open the roll for absent Members on the previous measures.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. No worries. Just in time to vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. And with that, the meeting is adjourned at 9:55am.