Gambling.

Senator Archuleta, with Assembly Member Ahrens as a coauthor, advances a package that both broadens the Department of Justice’s gambling-enforcement remit and establishes a detailed regulatory framework for major-league-affiliated charitable raffles. The bill would extend the department’s investigative reach to suspected criminal gambling activity that occurs outside licensed establishments, including cases not involving licensees, while simultaneously creating a comprehensive regime to govern raffles conducted by eligible nonprofit organizations tied to professional sports leagues and certain affiliated groups.

The enforcement framework would give the department expanded tools to oversee gambling operations on and off premises. Key authorities include on-site investigations of gambling premises and related manufacturing or distribution sites, the ability to inspect equipment and records, and the power to seize equipment and documents from licensed premises with conditions for returning copies upon request. The department would also have authority to issue subpoenas, administer oaths, and take depositions without court permission in many circumstances, and to investigate suspected criminal violations of both the gambling chapter and applicable Penal Code provisions, including off-premises activity. Warrantless entries would be limited by constitutional safeguards, with specified exceptions such as owner consent, imminent danger, or other emergency circumstances.

The major-league sporting raffle regime establishes a broad normative and operational structure for charitable raffles conducted by eligible organizations. Eligible organizations are defined as private nonprofit entities affiliated with major leagues or certain professional sport or racing groups that have existed in California for at least one year, hold 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, and meet state tax-exemption criteria. A raffle under this regime must use a manual draw conducted in California, with winners determined from tickets bearing unique identifiers; a random-number generator may not be used for draws or ticket sales. The prize must equal 50 percent of gross receipts, and 50 percent of proceeds must be used solely for charitable purposes in California or for transfer to another eligible nonprofit, subject to specified governance standards. Internet-based sale of raffle tickets is prohibited, though some information related to prizes, rules, winners, and entry forms may be posted online. Additional prohibitions apply to the use of gaming machines, venue restrictions, and disclosure requirements to ticket purchasers.

Implementation and funding provisions accompany the regulatory framework. The bill creates a Major League Sporting Event Raffle Fund in the State Treasury to receive fee revenue and cover enforcement and administration costs, with the department authorized to adjust annual registration and per-raffle fees to offset costs. A minimum annual registration fee and per-raffle fee apply to eligible organizations, and separate annual registrations and fees are required for manufacturers or distributors, as well as for individuals conducting the manual draws. The regime envisions a one-time General Fund loan to the new fund to support initial implementation, with repayment tied to fund sufficiency and interest accruing to a state investment account. Ongoing costs would depend on annual legislative appropriations, and the department would be empowered to regulate through procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act, including emergency regulations.

Taken together, the provisions situate a tightened enforcement posture for off-premises gambling activity alongside a formalized, transparency-preserving framework for charitable raffles associated with major leagues. The bill notes constitutional considerations by indicating that changes to the share of receipts dedicated to charitable purposes would require a two-thirds vote in each house, signaling potential constitutional implications for the raffles program. The combined approach—expanded investigative powers and a structured, fee-funded regulatory regime—creates a unified regulatory footprint that would affect the department, participating organizations, manufacturers, and local enforcement actors, while anchoring serious reporting and disclosure requirements within a state-regulated system.