Gavin Newsom’s Opposition to Online Sports Betting: California’s Gambling Debate

California Governor Gavin Newsom has emerged as a significant voice in America’s sports bets debate, particularly regarding online gambling expansion. As leader of the nation’s most populous state and a potential 2028 presidential candidate, Newsom’s stance on betting legislation carries national implications. His opposition to California’s Proposition 27 in 2022, which would have legalized online sports betting, provides crucial insights into how Democratic leaders view gambling regulation, industry expansion, and the balance between economic opportunity and consumer protection.

The California Sports Betting Landscape

California represents the holy grail for the market. With nearly 40 million residents and a robust economy, legal sports betting in California would create one of America’s largest wagering markets. Yet despite more than half of U.S. states having adopted some form of sports betting since the 2018 PASPA decision, California remains without legal sports wagering options.

This absence isn’t due to lack of trying. In 2022, Californians faced two competing ballot measures: Proposition 26, which would have legalized sports betting at tribal casinos and horse racing tracks, and Proposition 27, which would have permitted online gambling through betting apps operated by companies like DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM. The campaigns surrounding these measures broke spending records, with more than $460 million raised between supporters and opponents—more than double the previous record for any ballot initiative in U.S. history.

Newsom’s Opposition to Proposition 27

Governor Newsom publicly opposed Proposition 27, the online sports gambling measure, though he initially remained neutral on Proposition 26. In October 2022, with polls showing Prop 27 heading toward defeat, Newsom released a strong statement against the measure:

“Proposition 27 is bad for California. It would hurt California’s Indian Tribes, increase the risks of underage gambling, and push billions of dollars out of California and into the pockets of out-of-state corporations. Vote No on 27.”

This opposition came despite Prop 27 being marketed as the “California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Act,” promising to funnel tax revenues from sports betting toward addressing California’s homelessness crisis. Newsom saw through this framing, telling reporters at an event in Los Angeles: “I know initiatives and folks will say anything. Perhaps that initiative will provide a few dollars. I’m not supporting or opposing it, I haven’t given it a lot of thought, but it is not a homeless initiative.”

For those intrigued by the intersection of politics and wagering decisions, dedicated pages like UK Political Betting provide in-depth analysis of comparable political betting dynamics from across the Atlantic.

The Tribal Gaming Protection Argument

Central to Newsom’s opposition was protecting California’s tribal gaming interests. California tribes operate more than 80 casinos collectively generating over $9 billion annually in gaming revenue. These casinos represent crucial economic engines for Native American communities throughout the state, providing employment, funding tribal services, and supporting local economies.

Prop 27 threatened this ecosystem by allowing major gambling industry corporations to partner with tribes to offer online betting, potentially siphoning customers away from tribal casinos. Greg Sarris, Chairman of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, which operates Graton Casino in Sonoma County, explained: “California Indians have worked so hard to create a business that helps us sustain ourselves. We don’t want an outside group coming in and not only doing mobile sports gambling, which is dangerous, but setting a precedent for other kinds of gambling in the state of California that would impinge on our business.”

Newsom’s support for tribal interests wasn’t new. He has consistently championed Native American causes, including issuing an apology in 2019 for historical atrocities against indigenous peoples and proposing $100 million in funding for 200 tribes to purchase land for conservation purposes. His opposition to Prop 27 aligned with this broader commitment to tribal sovereignty and economic independence.

Concerns About Underage Gambling and Responsible Gambling

Newsom’s statement highlighted concerns about “underage gambling” risks associated with online platforms. This represents a significant gambling regulation concern that transcends partisan politics. Unlike tribal casinos where age verification occurs at entry, apps and online gambling platforms rely on digital verification systems that critics argue are easier to circumvent.

Research from states with legal sports betting has documented cases of underage individuals accessing markets through older siblings’ accounts, stolen identification, or inadequate verification systems. The convenience of apps—allowing wagering from anywhere via smartphone—creates additional risks of problem gambling and addiction, particularly among younger users who grew up with digital technology.

These responsible gambling concerns carry special weight in California, where progressive politics traditionally emphasize consumer protection and public health. Newsom’s opposition reflected broader Democratic Party skepticism about rapidly expanding gambling industry operations without robust safeguards, betting transparency requirements, and addiction support resources.

The “Out-of-State Corporations” Argument

Newsom’s criticism of Prop 27 pushing “billions of dollars out of California and into the pockets of out-of-state corporations” resonated with California’s progressive political base. The measure was primarily funded by major sportsbook operators DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM—all headquartered outside California. These companies poured $170 million into the Prop 27 campaign, dwarfing tribal spending on opposition efforts.

This framing positioned the debate as California interests versus corporate carpetbaggers seeking to exploit California’s large population for profit. While Prop 27 included provisions requiring partnerships with California tribes, opponents argued these partnerships were window dressing designed to provide legal cover for corporate domination of the gambling market.

The economic argument extends beyond just corporate profits. Revenue generated by tribal casinos stays within California and often flows directly to underserved Native American communities. In contrast, profits from online platforms would primarily benefit shareholders of Delaware, Ireland, and Massachusetts-based corporations, with only tax revenues remaining in California.

The 2022 Ballot Results

California voters overwhelmingly rejected both propositions in November 2022. Proposition 27 failed spectacularly, with only 26% support compared to 67% opposition. Proposition 26 fared slightly better but still lost decisively, with 31% support and 69% opposition.

These results validated Newsom’s political instincts. His opposition to Prop 27 aligned with clear majority sentiment, while his neutral stance on Prop 26 acknowledged legitimate debates about tribal casino sports gambling without endorsing rapid expansion. The decisive defeats sent a strong message that California voters remain skeptical of gambling industry expansion, particularly online models that circumvent traditional casino regulations.

The 2025 Fantasy Sports Controversy

Newsom’s nuanced position on gambling regulation surfaced again in July 2025 when California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued an opinion declaring that paid daily fantasy sports (DFS) contests—offered by companies like Underdog, PrizePicks, and Betr—violate California’s anti-sports betting laws. This opinion threatened a thriving DFS industry that had operated in California for years.

Newsom’s spokesperson quickly distanced the governor from Bonta’s opinion: “The attorney general, in his independent capacity, issued this opinion — not the governor’s office. While the governor does not agree with the outcome, he welcomes a constructive path forward in collaboration with all stakeholders.”

This response reveals Newsom’s pragmatic approach to gambling policy. While he opposes rapid online expansion through ballot measures funded by out-of-state corporations, he doesn’t support crackdowns on existing fantasy sports operations that California residents already use. This middle-ground position reflects his understanding that blanket prohibition often proves counterproductive, pushing activity underground rather than eliminating it.

The Coalition for Fantasy Sports executive director J.T. Foley echoed Newsom’s skepticism: “We agree with Governor Newsom — AG Bonta got it wrong.” This alignment suggests Newsom recognizes differences between heavily marketed sports legalization campaigns and existing fantasy sports platforms that occupy a different market niche.

Newsom’s Broader Gambling Philosophy

Examining Newsom’s record reveals a consistent philosophy toward gambling regulation: support for existing tribal gaming operations, skepticism of rapid online gambling expansion, and concern for consumer protection and responsible gambling. This approach contrasts with some Democratic leaders who have embraced sports betting as a progressive revenue source and with Republicans who might favor deregulation of markets.

Newsom’s positions reflect California’s unique political and economic landscape. Tribal gaming provides critical economic support to Native American communities while generating tax revenue without the social costs of ubiquitous online gambling. Maintaining this status quo aligns with California’s progressive values while avoiding the risks Newsom identified with Prop 27.

His willingness to break with his attorney general on fantasy sports shows political pragmatism. Complete prohibition of all gambling-adjacent activities would be neither popular nor enforceable, and Newsom seems to recognize that gambling policy requires nuance rather than absolutism.

Implications for Presidential Ambitions

Newsom’s handling of sports gambling debates carries implications for his potential 2028 presidential campaign. According to recent polling and betting odds, Newsom leads other Democratic contenders and runs competitively against Vice President JD Vance in hypothetical matchups. His sports betting positions could help or hurt these ambitions depending on how they’re perceived nationally.

His opposition to online betting might appeal to progressives concerned about gambling addiction, predatory betting industry practices, and corporate exploitation. However, it could alienate voters in states where legal sports gambling has become normalized and even celebrated. His support for tribal interests resonates in states with significant Native American populations but might seem parochial in regions without tribal gaming operations.

Newsom’s approach to gambling regulation demonstrates his broader political style: progressive on social issues, pragmatic on economic questions, and willing to stand against powerful corporate interests. Whether this translates to national appeal remains uncertain, but it provides a clear contrast with candidates who either fully embrace or completely reject betting market expansion.

The National Betting Market Context

Newsom’s opposition to online sports bets places him at odds with trends in many other states. Since 2018, legal sports betting has spread rapidly across America, with apps becoming ubiquitous in states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. These states have generated significant tax revenues from sports wagering while creating thousands of jobs in the industry.

Proponents argue that California is missing out on these economic benefits by maintaining its prohibition. The American Gaming Association estimates that legal California sports betting could generate hundreds of millions in annual tax revenue. Supporters also argue that Californians currently bet through illegal offshore sites anyway, so legalization would simply bring this activity into regulated markets with proper gambling transparency and consumer protections.

However, Newsom’s position suggests skepticism that these benefits outweigh the costs. Research from states with legal sports betting has documented increased gambling addiction rates, financial hardship for problem gamblers, and concerns about betting corruption in college and professional sports. Newsom’s calculus appears to be that California can thrive economically without adding online betting to its gambling portfolio.

Conclusion: A Cautious Approach to Sports Wagering

Gavin Newsom’s opposition to online sports gambling reflects a cautious approach to gambling regulation that prioritizes tribal interests, responsible gambling, and consumer protection over potential tax revenues and betting industry expansion. His position demonstrates that not all Democratic leaders view legal sports betting as inevitably positive, and that legitimate concerns exist about rapidly expanding wagering markets without adequate safeguards.

As sports betting continues spreading nationwide and apps become increasingly normalized, California remains a critical holdout. Whether Newsom’s position represents wise caution or missed economic opportunity will likely be debated for years. What’s clear is that his stance has significant implications not just for California’s gambling policy, but for national debates about gambling regulation, betting legislation, and the proper balance between economic freedom and consumer protection.

For those interested in sports betting and how political leaders shape markets, Newsom represents an important counterpoint to the prevailing winds of legalization. His willingness to oppose powerful gambling industry interests while maintaining nuanced positions on different gambling formats shows that gambling policy need not be all-or-nothing. As he potentially pursues higher office, his approach to sports legalization will likely remain a defining issue, offering voters a clear alternative to candidates who embrace unrestricted market expansion.