Comment
Rate
Ads for Missouri casino measure criticized by some as deceptive
| Advertisement |
By MARGARET STAFFORD
Associated Press Writer
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) - The latest ads supporting an initiative that would rewrite Missouri's casino regulations make no mention of gambling or the state's unique loss limits, instead focusing on the millions of dollars the proposal would funnel to the state's schools and economy.
Opponents contend the advertising strategy is a shell game to hide what they say is the true intent of Proposition A: increasing the casinos' profits by encouraging gamblers to lose more money.
The proposition on next Tuesday's ballot, called the “Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Funding Initiative,” would repeal a rule that a gambler can lose a maximum of $500 per two-hour “excursion” at a casino. Missouri is the only state in the country with loss limits.
The proposal also would cap the licensing of new casinos and raise taxes on existing ones.
Mailers received in the last two weeks by voters say Yes on A “For our schools. For our economy,” They also detail the amount of money supporters say the proposal would raise for the voter's county. The words “loss limit” or “gambling” do not appear, although casinos are mentioned several times.
The Yes on A Coalition's first television ad specifically mentions the loss limits and other casino regulations, but subsequent ads use teachers and education advocates to promote the proposition's benefits to schools.
Supporters say removing the loss limits would increase casino traffic and entice high rollers who want to gamble more money to play in Missouri, rather than going to Illinois or future Kansas casinos that don't have limits.
That, they say, would increase tax revenue the state receives from casinos, which would be funneled to schools and local services. And they say it would protect casino-related jobs, all without raising anyone's taxes.
Repealing the limits would bring an additional $105.1 million to $130 million annually for schools, according to the Missouri auditor's office. Host governments would get an additional $18 million to $19 million annually from the increased gambling tax and excursion fees, the auditor's office said.
It's not surprising that supporters are touting the education and economic angle of the proposition, said David Kimball, a political science professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Gambling is controversial in Missouri, he said, while everyone supports education.
“It's generally the strategy to emphasize the aspects of the plan that are more appealing,” Kimball said. “Talking a lot about loss limits would not be successful in convincing any undecided voters or opponents.”
Scott Charton, a spokesman for the Yes on A Coalition, said suggestions that proponents are trying to mislead voters are “spurious.”
“We've been very open from the start about that,” Charton said, saying the suggestion proves opponents are “desperate.”
But Evelio Silvera, executive director of Casino Watch, an anti-gambling organization based in St. Louis, said it's the supporters of Prop A who are desperately trying to find a way to persuade Missourians to vote for a measure that is all about increasing gambling.
“These are the adjustment a campaign makes when it's spent millions of dollars and still can't garner support,” Silvera said. “They are trying to string something together to pull this out.”
Charton argued that it's valid to emphasize the educational aspects of the proposal because it includes language that requires that increased tax revenue go to school districts and not be used to replenish the state's general revenue funds.
“Schools are an integral part of the equation of Proposition A,” Charton said. “And the schools will get the money paid by people who choose to use their entertainment dollars this way, without raising anyone else's taxes.”
Opponents say the schools won't get nearly as much money as supporters contend, and they note none of the teachers' unions in the state have endorsed Prop A. They also say education is a smoke screen in a state where loss limits and other restrictions on casinos are popular, except with gamblers and casino owners.
“It's politics 101 to stay away from the controversial issues and emphasize the quote-unquote benefits,” Silvera said. “They know Missourians overwhelmingly want to keep the loss limits.”
Silvera suggests that the educational benefits argument has already failed with Missourians, and Proposition A supporters have begun to focus on the economy and no-new-taxes aspects.
“It's the last argument they have: that they won't raise taxes and will generate money,” Silvera said. “Folks aren't going to buy that either when they know it comes from Las Vegas casino owners who are bankrolling (proponents') whole campaign.”
Charton disagrees, saying that rewriting the casino laws will protect thousands of jobs, bring in more out-of-state visitors and keep Missouri from losing 30 percent of the potential gambling market to neighboring states.
“The Yes on A Coalition believes that Missouri voters will support keeping jobs and tourism dollars in Missouri and making the state competitive for the huge tourism dollars that are now going to Illinois,” he said.
Charton took another jab at Silvera's group Wednesday, noting it had failed to file its latest campaign finance report by Monday's deadline. Silvera, who said he expected the report to be filed Thursday, blamed a paperwork glitch.
Kimball, the political science professor, said the outcome of next Tuesday's vote will depend on whether voters got their information only from advertisements or if they carefully read newspaper stories and the ballot language.
“One of the key questions is whether those voters all realize that this is a casino-related initiative,” Kimball said. “If they do, it will be a close outcome. If they don't, it should pass pretty handily.”
Opponents contend the advertising strategy is a shell game to hide what they say is the true intent of Proposition A: increasing the casinos' profits by encouraging gamblers to lose more money.
The proposition on next Tuesday's ballot, called the “Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Funding Initiative,” would repeal a rule that a gambler can lose a maximum of $500 per two-hour “excursion” at a casino. Missouri is the only state in the country with loss limits.
The proposal also would cap the licensing of new casinos and raise taxes on existing ones.
Mailers received in the last two weeks by voters say Yes on A “For our schools. For our economy,” They also detail the amount of money supporters say the proposal would raise for the voter's county. The words “loss limit” or “gambling” do not appear, although casinos are mentioned several times.
The Yes on A Coalition's first television ad specifically mentions the loss limits and other casino regulations, but subsequent ads use teachers and education advocates to promote the proposition's benefits to schools.
Supporters say removing the loss limits would increase casino traffic and entice high rollers who want to gamble more money to play in Missouri, rather than going to Illinois or future Kansas casinos that don't have limits.
That, they say, would increase tax revenue the state receives from casinos, which would be funneled to schools and local services. And they say it would protect casino-related jobs, all without raising anyone's taxes.
Repealing the limits would bring an additional $105.1 million to $130 million annually for schools, according to the Missouri auditor's office. Host governments would get an additional $18 million to $19 million annually from the increased gambling tax and excursion fees, the auditor's office said.
It's not surprising that supporters are touting the education and economic angle of the proposition, said David Kimball, a political science professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Gambling is controversial in Missouri, he said, while everyone supports education.
“It's generally the strategy to emphasize the aspects of the plan that are more appealing,” Kimball said. “Talking a lot about loss limits would not be successful in convincing any undecided voters or opponents.”
Scott Charton, a spokesman for the Yes on A Coalition, said suggestions that proponents are trying to mislead voters are “spurious.”
“We've been very open from the start about that,” Charton said, saying the suggestion proves opponents are “desperate.”
But Evelio Silvera, executive director of Casino Watch, an anti-gambling organization based in St. Louis, said it's the supporters of Prop A who are desperately trying to find a way to persuade Missourians to vote for a measure that is all about increasing gambling.
“These are the adjustment a campaign makes when it's spent millions of dollars and still can't garner support,” Silvera said. “They are trying to string something together to pull this out.”
Charton argued that it's valid to emphasize the educational aspects of the proposal because it includes language that requires that increased tax revenue go to school districts and not be used to replenish the state's general revenue funds.
“Schools are an integral part of the equation of Proposition A,” Charton said. “And the schools will get the money paid by people who choose to use their entertainment dollars this way, without raising anyone else's taxes.”
Opponents say the schools won't get nearly as much money as supporters contend, and they note none of the teachers' unions in the state have endorsed Prop A. They also say education is a smoke screen in a state where loss limits and other restrictions on casinos are popular, except with gamblers and casino owners.
“It's politics 101 to stay away from the controversial issues and emphasize the quote-unquote benefits,” Silvera said. “They know Missourians overwhelmingly want to keep the loss limits.”
Silvera suggests that the educational benefits argument has already failed with Missourians, and Proposition A supporters have begun to focus on the economy and no-new-taxes aspects.
“It's the last argument they have: that they won't raise taxes and will generate money,” Silvera said. “Folks aren't going to buy that either when they know it comes from Las Vegas casino owners who are bankrolling (proponents') whole campaign.”
Charton disagrees, saying that rewriting the casino laws will protect thousands of jobs, bring in more out-of-state visitors and keep Missouri from losing 30 percent of the potential gambling market to neighboring states.
“The Yes on A Coalition believes that Missouri voters will support keeping jobs and tourism dollars in Missouri and making the state competitive for the huge tourism dollars that are now going to Illinois,” he said.
Charton took another jab at Silvera's group Wednesday, noting it had failed to file its latest campaign finance report by Monday's deadline. Silvera, who said he expected the report to be filed Thursday, blamed a paperwork glitch.
Kimball, the political science professor, said the outcome of next Tuesday's vote will depend on whether voters got their information only from advertisements or if they carefully read newspaper stories and the ballot language.
“One of the key questions is whether those voters all realize that this is a casino-related initiative,” Kimball said. “If they do, it will be a close outcome. If they don't, it should pass pretty handily.”
 |
 |
|
| Some Missouri rolls exceed population | Poll: McCain, Obama stay even in Missouri |
Article Rating |
|
Before commenting read the News Tribune Forum's policies and procedures.
Thanks.
To add your comments you must be registered and logged in |
RSS
