California, for whatever reason, has a state law in place that requires all bingo games where money exchanges hands to be open to the public.

City ordinances in place in Manteca, Ripon and Lathrop have language that mirrors the State of California Code, “All bingo games shall be open to the public, not just to the members of the nonprofit charitable organization.”

What brings this up are three things:

*Del Webb at Woodbridge’s community association wants to be able to conduct bingo games among its group — those that own homes in the 1,427-home age restricted community — for fun and to raise funds for community groups such as the Manteca Boys & Girls Club.

*The City of Ripon has just made it legal to consume alcohol beverages during bingo games. The change was spurred by a request to allow players to consume adult beverages while playing organized games at the Spring Creek Country Club.

*The State of California Senate Government Operations Committee in March introduced Senate Bill 860 that cleans up sections in the California Code regulating bingo.

First, the California Senate is simply striking archaic language that first went into effect July 1, 2008 to compensate “certain charities” for being forced to go from electronic number calling to remote calling. The state had set up a $5 million  in a compensation fund that was depleted years ago.

In the section immediately before the one they gutted is subsection G. It’s where they kept the requirement licensed bingo games be open to the public.
They clearly have the power to change the rules.

But the question is would the California Legislature deviate from its one rule for all levels regarding bingo?

The state literally has an invested interest in regulating gambling.

 Del Webb is not an Indian casino. Nor are they in the same league with “for-profit” bingo halls operating in places such as Tracy, Stockton, and Modesto that partner with non-profit charities to host fundraising games.

Del Webb is not seeking a cut to keep its proverbial lights on or to convert their clubhouse into a rental hall with support — with a tidy mark beyond covering expenses — to non-profits.

Such halls don’t profit directly from the money wagered. Instead, they make money providing the space, equipment, and such.

Bingo halls emerged in force in California during the 1980s and 1990s as a way for the private sector to basically profit indirectly from non-profit bingo.

That said, what is the danger in allowing social organizations per se having legal bingo games for the purpose of community giving and not opening the doors to all comers?

Is the state worried about gambling addiction? That ship sailed in 1985 when the state made gambling literally convenient by simply stopping by as 7-Eleven et al to participate in the California State Lottery.

Is the state worried about organized crime? It clearly wouldn’t be an issue if bingo players instead threw rocks at police and burned Waymo cars in Los Angeles.

Is the state worried about fostering moral turpitude? If that were the case, then they might want to consider cleaning house in Sacramento.

If the state believes it is a matter of discrimination in terms of having access to gambling, it is safe to say gambling has never been so easy and prevalent given the poor can partake in free smartphones to do so.

Given Manteca doesn’t have the ability to ignore state law, perhaps Del Webb residents can enlist the help of State Senator Jerry McNerney to craft a workable solution.

It could restrict “social organization” bingo games to once a month, restrict them to only members, and affiliates, and require an annual report of their community giving and prizes paid out be submitted to any city that allows social organizations to have self-contained bingo games.

Among the issues Sacramento needs to address such as how they have played a big role in electricity costs jumping 50 percent in California during the past four years, allowing social organizations not to run afoul with state law by having bingo games where participants are part of an established social group that benefit local youth groups may not rank high.

However, it is a clear example of over-regulating.

Malarkey is the only way to describe feigned government interest in the banning of closed bingo games among social organizations legally established under California law.

There are four foundational reasons government is supposedly concerned about gambling — crime, rigged games, income tax avoidance, and gambling addiction.

All four reasons are nonsensical. That applies even to tax avoidance given current rules do not require that the payment of small game payouts to trigger the filing of appropriate forms to the Internal Revenue Service.

There is basically no overriding reason why bingo games— even played for money — limited in frequency and even capped buy in for specific categories of social organizations to avoid a loophole that could somehow be exploited to create a high roller bingo club should not be allowed in California.

This, after all, is not 1955 where gambling wasn’t legal in any form in California except card rooms where participants played against each other rather than the house.

The Ripon bingo issue also reflects changing social mores.

The state law allowing local municipalities the option of allowing legal games included the provision alcohol could be allowed as long as a license was obtained from the state Alcoholic Beverage Control commission.

Up until last month, Ripon was in alignment with Manteca, Lathrop, and the State of California when it came to bingo and booze.

Cities clearly can’t defy state law.

But if cities were given the option of carving out local exemptions to the all-comers bingo rule, they could easily devise municipal ordinances that allow for exemptions that make sense for each community.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com