Voters will be faced with a plethora of amendments and propositions this November 4th. I am hopeful that the following information will ease some confusion and encourage further citizen engagement and investigation. While many citizens are concerned about national outcomes, each voter needs to appropriate time in their schedule to consider ballot initiatives that will impact them in their own backyards and potentially in their daily lives.
STATE PROPOSITIONS
* Proposition A: "The Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Funding Initiative"
* The provisions of Prop A include:
* Repealing the existing loss limit and preventing the Missouri Gaming Commission from imposing any future loss limit. (This wouldn't prevent the General Assembly from passing a future law re-imposing the limit, but the expectation is that if the limit is repealed it is unlikely to ever be reinstated.)
* Prohibiting requiring casino patrons to use tracking cards in order to gamble.
* Capping the number of casino licenses in Missouri at 13, thus prohibiting any future casinos from being built unless an existing facility closes. (The General Assembly, of course, could still pass a law to raise or eliminate the cap but doing so would likely encounter strong political resistance from social conservatives.)
* Increasing the gross receipts tax on casinos to 21 percent from the current 20. (Hiking the gross receipts tax had been a standard part of past loss-limit-repeal bills before the legislature, but at a higher rate of 22 or 23 percent.)
* Establishing a special fund earmarking the additional gaming tax revenue raised by the proposal for education. (Even without this provision, the money would still be earmarked for education pursuant to Article III, Section 39d of the Missouri Constitution.)
* Changing the state's education funding formula in an attempt to ensure that the additional tax revenue earmarked for education isn't offset by a reduction in general revenue funds currently spent on education.
* The fiscal note on Prop A estimates it would generate between $110 million and $137 million a year in additional revenue for the state and up to $19 million a year in new revenue for local governments that have a casino in their jurisdictions.
Supporters say the loss limit costs casinos money - and state revenue - by driving Missourians to casinos in neighboring states, none of which have limits, and making Missouri casinos unattractive to high-stakes gamblers. The additional revenue could help improve Missouri's public schools. It is also argued that the loss limit is ineffective at stopping problem gamblers from losing more money than they can afford to lose, and the tracking cards used to enforce the loss limit is an invasion of privacy that turns off many potential casino patrons. Additional, capping the number of casinos will keep Missouri's gambling industry strong by ensuring that the market doesn't become oversaturated.
Opponents say the loss limit provides at least some checks against gamblers getting in over their heads and shouldn't be repealed. It is argued that the fiscal note is based on unrealistic assumptions and is drastically overinflated; therefore Prop A won't provide anywhere near the amount of new revenue that supporters claim. There is no guarantee public schools will see a dime of additional money from Prop A since lawmakers will find a way to offset whatever new revenue comes in with reductions elsewhere. Capping the number of casinos unfairly eliminates competition, gives the existing casinos a monopoly over the Missouri market and prevents cities that currently don't have casinos from getting them. Prop A is written by the gambling industry for the gambling industry, and will be the sole beneficiaries. Opponents further state that despite the misleading campaigning, Prop A is not a pro-schools initiative and the gambling industry is playing on Missourians' strong support for public schools to enhance their own profits. |
