Nevada

Once upon a time, Primm, Nev., had three bustling casino resorts, shiny gas stations, a roller coaster and Bonnie and Clyde’s “death car.”

It was a bit surreal, said former visitor John Honell of West Covina: “You had this whole complex in the middle of the desert.”

Southern Californians traveling the arid stretches of the I-15 would see Primm pop up. As he drove to Sin City for bowling tournaments, Honell would stop and “drop a few coins” into the slot machines. It was a gambling oasis — a little less flashy and a little more affordable than Vegas and 45 minutes closer.

“I guess it worked for a while,” said Honell, 85.

But it works no longer. The last of the three casino resorts will close on July 4, owner Affinity Gaming confirmed to The Times this week.

Honell, a regular in the 1970s, saw the growth of a desert gamble: the expansion of the Primm property, in the dusty town once known as State Line, from Whiskey Pete’s gas station, bar and slot machines into three busy resorts.

The Nevada gambling hub south of Las Vegas along the 15 Freeway appears finished, though. Southern Californians who appreciated that it was a shorter drive now can find gambling much closer, at tribal casinos.

Las Vegas insider publication Las Vegas Locally posted a termination letter from Affinity Gaming’s affiliate, Primadonna Co. LLC, to employees who worked at Primm Valley.

The casino is closing down July 4, with all employment ending that day too.

Affinity Gaming declined to make an official comment.

The castle-shaped Whiskey Pete’s opened in 1977, followed by Primm Valley in 1990 and Buffalo Bill’s in 1994. Whiskey Pete’s was the first casino to close, in December 2024. Buffalo Bill’s Resort ended 24-7 operations on July 6, only opening when the casino’s concert venue, the Star of the Desert Arena, hosted special events.

David G. Schwartz, a gaming historian and professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said Primm’s casinos were “built for an entirely different world.”

“Southern California is a huge market for Las Vegas and, in particular, it was once very attractive for those in the Inland Empire,” Schwartz said. “It was a way to trim 45 minutes off the drive — it was a 2-hour drive. It’s different math.”

Lights still glow on the Buffalo Bill’s Resort and Casino sign on Sunday, July 6, 2025 in Primm, NV. (Bridget Bennett / For The Times)

(Bridget Bennett/For The Times)

Primm was once one of Nevada’s more popular gambling resorts, a less expensive, slightly more kitschy alternative to Las Vegas that benefited from being closer than Sin City.

Primm Valley, Whiskey Pete’s and Buffalo Bill’s all hosted at one time the famed Bonnie and Clyde V-8 Ford riddled with more than 100 bullets in 1934.

Whiskey Pete’s offered a quick and affordable 24-hour IHOP, in comparison to Vegas’ pricier buffets, and Californians and Nevadans visited Primm Valley’s 100-store outlet mall, supported by shoppers who were brought by bus to the mall for free.

The three resorts enjoyed expansion and growth throughout the 2010s by utilizing low prices, gimmicks and attractions to lure guests.

Buffalo Bill’s was the biggest of the trio, boasting a buffalo-shaped pool and 592 rooms at its opening (the Bellagio has nearly 4,000 rooms) and eventually expanding to 1,242 rooms.

Buffalo Bill’s and its sister resorts closed in March 2020 when the pandemic hit, reopening between December 2022 and 2023. But they struggled to attract customers.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic hurt all Nevada casinos, that was only part of the reason for Primm’s decline. Schwartz said tribal casinos in Southern California saw their prospects soar as Primm’s hotels teeter-tottered.

California voters passed Proposition 1-A in 2000, which allowed tribal casinos to operate slot machines and erased limits on card games.

“Many of those people Primm was drawing from began to stay in Southern California, where the drives are just much shorter and the amenities much closer,” Schwartz said. “You see the same issue playing out at Laughlin along the Arizona border and Reno and Tahoe in Northern California.”

Shortly after Proposition 1-A’s passage, San Manuel was one of several tribal casinos in San Bernardino and Riverside counties that declared an arms race with Nevada.

Fantasy Springs Resort Casino in Indio, run by the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, opened in December 2004. The tribe was the fourth between 2002 and 2004 to open or expand its operations, including Agua Caliente in Palm Springs, Morongo in Cabazon and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians in Temecula.

Most of these casinos have continued to build and expand their operations as revenue has continued to flow.

The Southern California tribal resorts are classified by the National Indian Gaming Commission, a gaming regulatory body, to be in the Sacramento region, which includes all resorts in California and Northern Nevada.

In 2014, the combined casinos contributed $7.9 billion in gross gaming revenue.

Ten years later, 87 tribal operations throughout two states combined for $12.1 billion, marking a modest 1.4% increase from 2023.

Yaamava’ Resort & Casino, run by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, sits in Highland, about 200 miles from Primm but less than half that distance from downtown L.A.

Yaamava’ completed a $760-million expansion in 2021, which added a 17-floor tower, three bars and about 1,700 new slots.

The 7,400 slot machines at Yaamava’ make the casino the West Coast’s largest, with 4,000 more slots than its Vegas peers. By square footage of gaming space, Yaamava is No. 4 in the nation and still the biggest on the West Coast.

“The decline has been part of a larger trend,” Schwartz said of Primm. “People are choosing options that most appeal to them.”

Reporting from Washington — — After delivering a floor speech against the financial overhaul bill last week, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) walked out of the Capitol into the spring sunshine and spoke optimistically of getting back to raising money for his reelection campaign — never mind the looming ethics cloud stemming from his admitted affair with an aide.

Days earlier, the scene couldn’t have been more different when another member of Congress, Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), stood grim-faced behind a lectern and resigned his seat after admitting to an affair with a part-time staff member.

Souder’s final day in Congress was Friday. But Ensign — who like Souder is a conservative Christian who stresses family values — soldiers on, determined to keep his seat in Congress.

The Nevadan has started organizing fundraisers and making calls to donors for help in winning a third term in 2012. Ensign, once a rising star in the Republican leadership, collected a mere $50 during the first quarter of this year, but he’s confident that is about to change.

“We just took some time off,” Ensign said as he walked back to his Senate office. “We’re getting it geared back up.”

The reasons why one member of Congress stays and one goes are as varied as the egos involved, the politics of the moment and the proximity of the next election.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio made it clear in a talk with Souder, who was seeking a ninth term this fall, that the best choice would be to resign. House Democrats similarly eased out one of their own, Rep. Eric Massa of New York, this year after he was accused of sexually harassing his staff.

In the Senate, Republicans may grumble over Ensign’s continued presence, and they do. But the Nevadan carries on, raising the question of just how effective can he be on behalf of his constituents?

One perk for those who give robustly to the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm is that they are routinely invited to chats with senators. Ensign headlined one such coffee talk this month.

Given the chance to hear Ensign speak, one GOP donor declined. “They offer Ensign and you think, ‘Who in the hell is going to want to sit through that?’ ” said the donor, who requested anonymity because of his continuing involvement in Republican politics.

“Senators want to keep their distance from the guy,” the donor said. “I don’t think you’re going to see Sen. Ensign championing any GOP initiatives.”

But others predict Ensign’s fundraising efforts will challenge such criticism. After all, he remains a sitting U.S. senator as well as a reliable 41st vote that his party needs in order to maintain its ability to filibuster the proposals of President Obama and Senate Democrats.

If Ensign can persuade his big-name donors to stay with him — namely, the Nevada gaming interests — others will follow, said a Republican strategist in the state, who also declined to speak on the record because of the sensitive political situation.

Ensign’s problems began almost a year ago, when he abruptly arrived in Las Vegas to disclose an eight-month affair with a staffer, Cynthia Hampton, the wife of one of his former top aides at the time, Doug Hampton.

As details of the affair unfolded, so did the story of Ensign’s wealthy parents making a $96,000 payment to the Hamptons as the couple left the senator’s employment. Efforts by the senator to find the husband a new job also surfaced.

Ethics watchdogs seized on Doug Hampton’s claim last year to the New York Times that he went on to lobby Ensign’s office, with the senator’s support, in violation of the ethics laws that require a one-year cooling-off period.

Ensign has said he has done nothing wrong and will comply with all official investigations.

The Justice Department began making preliminary inquires in January. One Las Vegas tech firm, Selling Source, confirmed being subpoenaed by the Justice Department this year for documents regarding a fundraising pitch Ensign made to its chief executive.

“The Senate Ethics Committee seems to be going full steam ahead and there’s no way that can come out well for Ensign,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, noting then-Sen. Robert Packwood (R-Ore.) resigned in 1995 after a Senate investigation.

Many see Ensign as pursuing a strategy similar to that of Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who kept a low profile after being connected to a prostitute but is now seeking a second term this fall.

The Nevadan benefits from his own healthy ego, as well as a Senate culture that has not expelled a member since the Civil War. He also perseveres thanks to a weak Republican Party in Nevada that is not calling for his head.

“He’s been an AWOL senator for a long time,” said Chuck Muth, a conservative activist in Nevada who is among a handful of political commentators in the state who have called for Ensign to resign.

“Who among his colleagues would want to co-sponsor a bill not knowing when he would implode? His effectiveness has clearly been diminished.”

Yet colleagues have come forward to work with Ensign on several initiatives. Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) partnered with Ensign on an amendment during the healthcare debate and recently engaged in a colloquy on the Senate floor with Ensign and Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) after they returned from a tour of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) teamed up with Ensign last month on legislation to establish a veterinary official in the Department of Homeland Security to protect against animal disease outbreaks or other similar disasters.

“It is unfortunate what has happened,” Akaka said about Ensign, a veterinarian, “but I continue to work with him as a good friend and a colleague.”

In a brief interview last week, Ensign displayed the confidence that has kept him in office. “I think we’ve been doing a lot of good things,” he said.

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

In a treehouse nestled in redwoods north of San Francisco, Gov. Newsom stood cold and hungry as Sergey Brin, the world’s fourth-richest man, and his wellness-influencer girlfriend told him they were leaving the state.

It was late in the evening at a Christmas party hosted by crypto titan Chris Larsen — featuring singer Janelle Monáe and a towering abominable snowman with glowing red eyes — when Brin and his partner, Gerelyn Gilbert-Soto, confronted Newsom about a new proposal to tax billionaires in California, according to people who’ve spoken with the governor. Such a levy could hit Brin’s stake in Alphabet Inc. and his $272.6 billion fortune.

Newsom, who opposes the wealth tax, was still telling people about the lengthy exchange at the party months later, complaining of a lingering cold the pair had given him, according to the people, who asked not to be named discussing private conversations with the governor.

Brin, meanwhile, followed through. He left the state, bought a lakeside mansion in Nevada, and started bankrolling a billionaire political uprising in California.

Newsom, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on the interaction. “The governor has been very clear with everyone, no matter who they are, that this effort will do serious damage to the state, including for public safety workers and schools, at the expense of one special interest group,” Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson, said.

A representative for Brin didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Brin’s political push reflects a broader awakening among California’s ultrawealthy. Over the past six months, the proposed billionaire tax and a heated governor’s race have drawn tech titans and business leaders more directly into the state’s affairs — a space many of them have traditionally kept at arm’s length.

Prior to this year, Brin’s last contribution in a California election cycle was 2010 when Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor and the Google co-founder largely backed climate causes. He’s now spent more than $58 million in the last four months, including an extra $9 million disclosed late Friday, but more importantly has helped mobilize a network of fellow tech titans in a push to sway state issues.

“The wealth tax was a wake up call, it was a fire that just lit up Silicon Valley literally in a matter of weeks,” said Steven Maviglio, a veteran Democratic strategist. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Altogether, ultrawealthy donors have injected more than $270 million into California’s political scene in this election cycle. Outside of the wealth tax, billionaire Tom Steyer is emerging as a top Democratic candidate for governor after the downfall of former Representative Eric Swalwell following allegations of sexual assault. Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, has spent more than $140 million in his election bid, crowding TV airwaves with ads and labeling himself a “class traitor” with a campaign modeled after Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

Ballots for the June 2 primary election start going out next week. Brin and a cohort of the ultrawealthy including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and venture capitalists Vinod Khosla and John Doerr have plowed millions into supporting Matt Mahan, a Silicon Valley mayor, with a back-to-basics agenda and a penchant for taking on the state’s Democratic establishment.

That money has helped Mahan buy airtime and attracted controversy, but his polling numbers remain stuck in the single digits while Steyer’s well-funded progressive campaign is gaining favor with voters. Brin has also backed Republican Steve Hilton, who’s currently leading polls.

“You have two polar opposites going on. You have a billionaire running who has actually fully adopted an agenda that the vast majority of voters agree with: Taxing billionaires, funding healthcare, fighting back against ICE,” said Lorena Gonzalez, head of the state’s largest union group, the California Federation of Labor Unions. “And then you have billionaires pushing a candidate whose talking points are apologetic to the tech industry.”

The billionaire political activism in California mirrors larger shifts in Silicon Valley and the nation. President Donald Trump has given tech billionaires broad access to the White House, inviting Brin and other industry captains over for dinner and to join advisory boards.

Back in September, Trump singled out Gilbert-Soto as Brin’s “really wonderful MAGA girlfriend” at a White House dinner also attended by Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook and Sam Altman. She has publicly supported Republican Steve Hilton for California governor, a candidate Trump endorsed and Brin has also donated to.

In California, Brin’s newfound political action was catalyzed by the wealth tax proposal, which would levy a one-time 5% tax on billionaires to help offset federal healthcare cuts. In a Signal group chat earlier this year with other Silicon Valley elite, Brin floated the idea of raising hundreds of millions of dollars to influence California politics, according to a person who saw the message.

Brin left California for Nevada ahead of a Jan. 1 residency deadline for the proposed wealth tax. He moved to a $42 million mansion on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe, featuring two glass-walled funiculars.

Shortly after leaving California, Brin contributed $20 million to a new group dedicated to fighting the tax while also pushing pro-business and housing affordability policies, Building a Better California, making him the single largest contributor. He added $37 million over the spring, as the group quickly started supporting a trio of anti-wealth tax measures that could nullify a billionaire tax if it gets passed in an election. One of the measures, the so-called Transparency Act, has enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot, its backers claimed on Monday.

Building a Better California “remains fixed on long-term reforms supported by most Californians: housing affordability, stable funding for education, infrastructure investments, and government accountability,” a spokesperson said.

Joining Brin in the effort were other billionaires, including former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Stripe CEO Patrick Collison and venture capitalist Michael Moritz. Peter Thiel, who also left California ahead of the New Year’s Day deadline, gave $3 million to a separate committee opposing the wealth tax.

“They don’t trust California anymore,” said David Lesperance, a tax attorney who specializes in relocations and has helped move five families out of the state because of the wealth tax threat.

Brin and his fellow billionaires helped push up the costs to gather the more than 870,000 signatures required to qualify a ballot measure. This forced the union behind the wealth tax, SEIU-UHW, to spend more on their efforts.

Now, the union says it has succeeded in getting the signatures it needed, which will likely force the business leaders opposing it into further spending.

“A very small group of the most controversial billionaires on the planet tried to stop Californians from being able to save their local emergency rooms and hospitals — but our current signature tally proves frontline healthcare workers will prevail in bringing this commonsense proposal to voters,” said Suzanne Jimenez, SEIU-UHW’s chief of staff. “When our growing coalition files these signatures, David will have won the first round against Goliath.”

Other billionaires have bankrolled their own political initiatives, including Larsen, who set up his own network of influence groups with names like Grow California and Golden State Promise.

Many in Sacramento are skeptical that Brin and his fellow ultra-rich will succeed in swaying California state politics. They point to the failed candidacy of former eBay executive Meg Whitman, who spent around $144 million of her own fortune to become governor, or even venture capitalist Tim Draper’s longshot initiative to split California into six separate states.

“They’re trying to extrapolate from their own industry, which might have been fabulously successful, that they know something about political advertising, when they don’t,” said Garry South, a veteran Democratic strategist. “They think, ‘Hey, I’ve got money I can throw it around,’ and they don’t really do their homework.”

Political consultants describe their frustration with some wealthy tech donors, who often view their political giving through an investment lens, promising big checks and not following through if they don’t see momentum. That’s led to questions about whether the California billionaire activism would continue if Mahan’s governor bid fails and the wealth tax passes.

Even Larsen, who’s worth around $13 billion, has expressed anxiety that not enough business leaders are stepping into politics. “It’s a lot of talk, and they’re happy, but we don’t see the firepower we need to take on the SEIUs,” he said, referring to the state’s largest union.

Newsom, for his part, acknowledges that many of the state’s wealthiest residents are willing to donate significant sums of money, but want to do it on their own terms and not through a tax.

“Some will never give a penny away,” he said at a Bloomberg News event in January, not long after his encounter with Brin in the treehouse. “Some I respect. Some I don’t.”

Kamisher and Carson write for Bloomberg.

April 15 (UPI) — Nevada and the online gaming platform Roblox have reached a unique settlement that will help protect young online gamers and pour money into the state’s youth programs, the state’s attorney general said Wednesday.

“This settlement will create a safer environment for our children online,” Attorney General Aaron Ford told reporters during a press conference. “I hope that it will serve as a bellwether for how online interactive platforms allow our state’s youth to use the products.”

Nevada opened an investigation into children’s safety on the popular online game creation platform in 2024. There have been lawsuits in that state and others alleging that Roblox has failed to protect young gamers from online predators and other issues.

As part of the settlement, Roblox will spend about $10 million on non-digital youth programs in the state, plus contribute toward an online safety awareness program.

In addition, the company will start using stricter age-verification measures, which will restrict what children under certain ages can see and with whom they can communicate. These measures will include facial age-estimation technology, robust parental controls, expanded parental oversight and dedicated law enforcement support.

Roblox has also committed to using government-issued ID for age assurance as well as behavioral monitoring to identify users who may have been assigned the wrong age, Ford said during the press conference.

Roblox will also include tighter controls for parents and a ban on encrypted messaging involving minors. If a parent account isn’t linked to a child account, the latter will be limited to a restricted child mode. Adults must have a “trusted friend” label, which requires parental consent, before they can chat with those under the age of 13. The changes will also include limits on notifications during nighttime hours.

Roblox told UPI in a statement that while it disputes the claims in the complaint it is “pleased” to have reached a settlement with Ford, stating it reflects the company’s “continued commitment to fostering online health and safety for kids.”

“Roblox is proud to have worked alongside Attorney General Ford to reach this landmark agreement, which builds on our work to establish a new standard for digital safety,” Roblox Chief Safety Officer Matt Kaufman said.

“This resolution creates a blueprint for how industry and regulators can work together to protect the next generation of digital citizens.”

Roblox told UPI that the agreement helped shape several safety measures, including two new age-based accounts announced Monday: Roblox Kids for users between the ages of 5 and 8 and Roblox Select for users ages 9 to 15.

Beginning in June, the accounts will “more closely align content access, communication settings and parental controls with a user’s age,” Roblox said Monday in a statement.