2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
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 > July > 23 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: Gambling wars not about philosophical issues
Undisputed fact: lots and lots of Ohioans like to gamble, and will travel substantial distances to do it. That’s why the gambling interests keep placing very large, unsuccessful bets on casino ballot issues.
They know what the jackpot is, even if they don’t know what the odds against them are.
This question of the odds is worth exploring.
The impression is wide and broad that Ohioans are basically against the spread of gambling.
It’s an understandable impression, being based on the fact that the state electorate has turned down one gambling proposal after another in the last two decades — and the votes have not been close.
But the impression is wrong.
This summer, a Quinnipiac poll showed 65 percent statewide favoring slots at racetracks and 61 percent favoring a casino proposal pending for the November ballot.
At least one politician has referred to 2008 polls as evidence that the public’s hostility to expanded gambling may be softening. But that’s not the right reading.
In past years, early polls before the elections have found people fine with the idea of casinos. In August and September of 2008, for example, three different polling operations found sizable leads for a proposed casino in Wilmington (with few undecideds).
But the measure ultimately went down overwhelmingly.
The explanation for the gap between the early polls and the outcomes of elections is apparently this:
A certain number of voters ultimately decide to confront the specific facts at hand, rather than a general philosophical question about gambling.
At that point, they seem to decide that the deal being offered is designed primarily to benefit one corporation, or a few. They think that’s not the way for the state to move big into gambling. And they are right.
Gov. Ted Strickland’s attitude toward gambling seems to fit roughly in the Ohio mainstream: it depends on the specifics.
Clearly, he has never wanted to use his power to help some company get permission to open a casino or otherwise cash in on gambling fever. That just isn’t what he went into politics (or, as he would probably say, “public service”) to do.
But, on the other hand, he obviously believes there are worse things than gambling. It is often noted that his decision to allow slot machines at racetracks is a change in positions. Fair enough. But he’s never been a fire-breathing, George Voinovich-type crusader against gambling.
If philosophical predispositions about gambling are not driving the voters who decide the outcomes of ballot measures, that’s a good thing, a recognition of reality.
One newspaper commentator recently said, hey, personally I wouldn’t be caught dead dropping my own money into some electronic bandit; but if other people want to throw their money away, who am I to say no? It’s their business.
Sure, he said, certain social ills would result (from compulsive gambling), but social ills are a part of life. Are we a free country or not? Social ills are part of the cost.
One might gather from that argument that the issue at hand is whether gambling should be legal. But, of course, that’s not the issue. Gambling is legal in so many ways:
The state lottery; lotteries in neighboring states; racetracks; casinos in neighboring states; innumerable Internet games; private games; church games.
Gambling is like alcohol and tobacco in that the decision has long since been made that it will be legal. It is unlike alcohol and tobacco in that the regulations haven’t been fully worked out.
Public opinion on how to do that is up for grabs.
In bidding for it, Strickland has on his side the fact that, in making the slots decision, he really did not seem to be acting on behalf of any special interest, but in the interests of the state, as he saw them.
Nevertheless, the particulars are pretty ugly this time, too. He made a rushed decision — always dangerous — with dubious assumptions as to the numbers. What people want is something that works out in the public interest. That’s the crunch.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government, Ohio politics
Comments
By Leon Harrison
July 24, 2009 10:51 AM | Link to this
http://www.voy.com/5306/4449.html