Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > October > 30 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: Pro-gambling forces have way too good a hand
2009 ELECTIONS
Elections about legalizing casinos ought to be best four out of seven. It’s good enough for baseball.
Doesn’t something seem profoundly unfair about the fact that, having lost four times in the last two decades in efforts to bring casinos to Ohio, the advocates might now get casinos by winning just once?
Worse yet, each of the last four times, they lost big (62 percent to 38 percent just last year). Now they can win with just 50 percent of the vote plus one.
You have to like those odds. It’s as if the game was designed for the casinos (just like the games at the casinos).
The people who invented the country’s political system put all manner of hurdles in front of people who want to pass laws. You have to get a proposal through one house of a legislature, then another (then reconcile the two versions), then get the president or governor to sign off, or else go back and get two-thirds of both houses.
Then, given the way the system evolved, you have to basically get approval from the courts on the constitutionality of the measure.
But these days, with a ballot measure — boom. One vote. That’s it. Sometimes you don’t even have to worry about the constitution, because the vote is about changing the constitution.
Theoretically, if casinos are ever approved, it would be possible to undo the approval, again through the constitution. But one vote is all that’s necessary to get casinos started. And the reality is that once they’re in, they’re in.
After all, the people who make a living in the industry join forces with the people who incorporate gambling into their lifestyles — plus the interests that get the gambling tax money — to become a political coalition nobody wants to mess with.
Anyway, regaining a state’s virginity isn’t nearly as galvanizing a political goal as maintaining its virginity. That’s the thing about virginity.
Now it’s true that each gambling proposal that’s been put on the ballot is different from the previous one and is funded by somewhat different interests. These differences may matter to some voters.
But you have to guess that roughly the same voters form the base of each side each time: the pro-gambling people versus the anti-gambling people.
If the 2009 measure passes, that will suggest that what really changes the minds of the voters who are being fought over is the state of the economy. Things are now worse than in any of the previous tries.
And yet, if the measure passes, it will sustain casinos in good times — when the majority of voters don’t want them — and bad. (Truth is, judging from recent reports about how casinos are doing across the country, they actually make more money — attract more gamblers, if not more voters — in good times than bad.)
What’s to be done about the fact that the deck is stacked in favor of the gambling interests?
Insist that they must win more than one statewide vote, say two out of three, if not four out of seven? No. Obviously, the public would not be enthusiastic about “Groundhog Day” (the movie) elections.
And if you feel, as I do, that we already put way too many matters on the ballot, then putting them there repeatedly doesn’t look like progress.
It’d be nice if some sort of commission could be set up to decide whether a particular ballot measure should be labeled a pro-gambling measure, and if a limit could be imposed on the number of such efforts allowed per decade. Certainly a ban on attempts in consecutive years would be in order.
In reality, though, constructing and operating such a system would be awfully dicey. (Good grief, gambling metaphors are relentless.) It’s not going to happen.
For all kinds of reasons, pro-gambling forces have been convinced for decades that casinos will come to Ohio eventually. When particular entrepreneurs and corporations put together a specific ballot proposal, the idea is largely to beat competitors to the punch.
Also widely believed for years has been the notion that what you really need to get a casino measure passed is a lousy economy. That’s one reason the promoters keep coming back: Ohio’s modern economy is almost always lousy. The question has been just how lousy must it get.
If the economy just keep getting worse and worse, and if there’s no legal limit on the number of attempts you can make, and if you only have to win once, and if the money to fund your attempts is limitless (because the payoff is an unknown multiple of limitless), you’re too lucky to be allowed in the house.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Elections, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio politics, Sports and Recreation
Comments
By MLK
November 3, 2009 2:27 AM | Link to this
Here’s an idea: Legalize gambling entirely! That would allow people to do what they want locally, and return civil liberties to the people. Would the DDN support such a measure? Not likely! As it is now, it’s illegal to even have a small gambling party at your house, whether it’s blackjack or just some poker. You will go to JAIL if the authorities want you to. DDN: Want to get rid of big time casinos? Legalize gambling entirely!
By Liska
November 3, 2009 9:04 AM | Link to this
I thoroughly agree with Martin Gottlileb. We have been nagged into approving this issue, against our better judgment. That lure of 34,000 jobs (I’m guessing it will be much less) is hard to ignore in these times. This is a decision we will be stuck with if approved. I might be more willing to consider approval if it did not involve giving gambling rights to specific companies or individuals named in a constitutional amendment