Casinos push for vote to lift loss limit
- Oct 10, 2008 - comment
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Missouri’s casinos are offering to put an additional $100 million into the state’s education program. All they ask in return is the elimination of all future competitors and unlimited access to Missourians’ pocketbooks. Voters may be asked to decide the issue.
Proposition A is a proposal to change current state law. Sponsored by a casino-backed committee, the Yes for School Coalition was able to secure enough signatures to submit the proposal to Secretary of State Robin Carnahan back in January. The cover letter was signed by the chief government affairs officer of Ameristar Casinos and was on Ameristar letterhead.
Carnahan certified the petition in February. State Auditor Susan Montee prepared a fiscal note stating the amount of expected revenues to the state if the proposal should become law.
The proposal was titled as “The Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Initiative.”
Proposition A is not a constitutional amendment but an amendment to revise various chapters of Missouri law relating to casinos and gambling. The changes deal with four issues – the present loss limit of $500 per two-hour period, identification of compulsive gamblers, the number of casinos allowed to operate in the state, and the tax rate casinos would pay.
When voters approved riverboat gambling in 1992, they included a limit on the amount anyone could lose “per excursion.” That is currently understood to be a two-hour period, as none of the “riverboats” ever went out into deep water.
According to Evelio Silvera, executive director of Casino Watch, a volunteer organization devoted to opposing the expansion of gambling, the loss limit is the last remnant of the original law approved by voters.
Also going by the wayside would be the safeguards put into place to assist those who become addicted to gambling. Under current law, compulsive gamblers can register themselves on the Disassociated Persons List (DAP), rendering them ineligible to receive the plastic cards that casinos issue to patrons. Those on the list cannot get the cards and, therefore, are not admitted to the casinos. Since the cards are used to keep track of loss limits there would be no need to issue them.
At present, more than 12,000 compulsive gamblers have taken advantage of the program to protect themselves from their own gambling impulses. Under the new law, casinos would have to check identities for age only.
Missouri currently has 12 licenses for 11 casinos. No other casinos would be allowed in the state, as long as that provision of the law is not amended.
In exchange for all of the above, Proposition A would have casinos pay 21 percent in state taxes rather than the 20 percent they now pay. The additional 1 percent would be designated for primary and secondary schools.
As of Sept. 15, the Missouri Gaming Commission web site indicated that the state’s casinos had accumulated adjusted gross receipts of $1.2 billion for 2008. Adjusted gross receipts are determined by accumulations from licensed games and devices less winnings paid out. Gaming tax on that amount is $217 million.
The casino industry claims that the additional 1 percent tax generated under the new law would mean another $100 million for the state.
Silvera pointed out that Missourians would have to lose an extra $500 million for the state to receive the $100 million. “There is absolutely no guarantee that a dime will go to any school that needs it in Missouri,” he added.
Silvera says that the proposition is not receiving widespread support from school boards or teacher groups. The funding, instead, is coming from casino companies, family members of casino employees, current gamblers, and others who directly benefit from the casinos.
Proposition A was scheduled to appear on the November ballot; but in March, two St. Louis County men sued Carnahan and Montee to stop the proposed legislation from coming before the voters.
Edwin P. McKaskel and Harold H. Hendrick argued that the ballot title and Carnahan’s descriptive summary were deceptive. They also questioned the assumptions of the fiscal note. Finally, they challenged that Proposition A is unconstitutional because it contains more than one subject.
As of press time, Proposition A was still in litigation in Cole County Circuit Court.
This article is reprinted from the October 7, 2008, issue of The Pathway, the newspaper of the Missouri Baptist Convention.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Addictions, Gambling, Citizenship, Legislation