Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

BLAKE: Casinos covering their bet

Peter Blake

Published October 16, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

How much does it cost to pass an initiative whose opponents have spent zilch, zip, zero - nothing beyond a few hours of their time? How about, for starters, $7 million?

That's what the group called Colorado Casinos for Colorado Casinos has spent on Amendment 50 so far this . . . No, wait, I've got the name wrong. It's called Coloradans for Community Colleges! Can't imagine how I got so confused. The TV spots don't include shots of smoky casino interiors filled with platoons of grim blue-haired ladies working two one-armed bandits at a time. Instead they feature leafy campuses, earnest students huddled at computers and browsing library shelves, plus a few Victorian exteriors from the mountain towns of Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek.

But they could have included casino interiors, which have changed - slightly. The health gauleiters at the legislature have banished smoking, and buttons have replaced levers on the slots.

Amendment 50 would allow residents in the three gambling towns to enact "minor modifications," as an ad puts it, in current law. They could stay open 24 hours a day instead of a mere 18, add roulette and craps to the current games of slots, blackjack and poker, and increase the maximum single bet from $5 to $100.

The sales pitch in the ad: 78 percent of the new money would go to community colleges, the balance to the local governments. It's a smart pitch: Community colleges are all over the state. No new taxes would be asked and there's no effort to expand gambling to other locales. Previous efforts to expand have all failed.

Virtually all of the $7 million has come from casino operators and their trade association.

The ragtag opposition includes former state Rep. Jerry Kopel, who's now a columnist for The Colorado Statesman. He's not against social gambling - "I lost my share of money in poker games at the legislature" - but he's long opposed commercial gambling. In a couple of recent pieces he's argued that, one, a few hundred voters in three company towns would be empowered to supersede the state Gaming Commission, and, two, the language in 50, though it says the new money will "supplement" existing state funding for the colleges, doesn't prevent the legislature from using it to supplant some of the existing money, which they'd redirect to other pet projects.

Kopel recently found an improbable ally: Focus on the Family. It came out against the initiative, but hasn't "designated funds" to the cause, said a spokeswoman. Kopel shrugged. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," he said.

But the most active opponents of 50 may be Denver lawyer Jon Anderson and entrepreneur-blogger-activist Scott Yates. They've "slapped together" a Web site called keepvegasout.com which features this slogan, "What happens in Vegas stays out of Colorado." They track anti-50 editorials and list various arguments against it.

The amendment might produce $29 million for the community colleges the first year, they note, but the casinos will gain four times as much. Any downturn in the gambling business will hurt the community colleges.

One more little-noticed provision: The amendment would put the casinos under TABOR, meaning a public vote would be needed for tax hikes. Under existing law the appointed gaming commission sets the tax rate, which is now 20 percent of adjusted gross proceeds. "We're not going to let [the appointed gaming commission] have the power we don't even let elected officials have," said Amendment 50 spokeswoman Katy Atkinson.

Why does it take so much money to get it passed? "A certain percentage of people hate the idea of gaming and will never vote for changes in the law," says Atkinson. "They hope to shrink the industry down to the size where they can drown it in the bathtub."

Whether Amendment 50 wins or loses, it will provide economics professors with a fine object lesson on the theory of marginal utility. How much must you spend to defeat an enemy who spends nothing?

Peter Blake is a former Rocky Mountain News political columnist. He can be reached at pblake0705@comcast.net.

Comments

  • October 16, 2008

    5:03 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    scodtt writes:

    Great column!

    Just so it's handy, the link to read more about what Peter is talking about is here: http://KeepVegasOut.com/

  • October 16, 2008

    6:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Gonzopozo writes:

    So the suggestion is that the casinos should have just sat back and "let the cards fall where they may" on an issue that could very well mean success or failure to their business - and the many jobs they provide?

    Would ANY other business group take that approach? I think not.

  • October 16, 2008

    8:25 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Elwood writes:

    So the smoking ban is having an effect on the casinos, they need to raise the stakes to maintain their profits.

  • October 16, 2008

    12:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    PokerMunkee writes:

    I really believe this Amendment will pass, and it's about time! Colorado has the lowest limits in the country, and frankly it's a joke. The increased limits will allow the poker rooms to offer something other than the pointless $2/5 limit game. Colorado is a tourist destination, and having real casinos will surely help (can't hurt!).

    This article points out the obvious: No one (well, a lawyer and some blogger) is willing to put money against 50 because it's a bad bet! To be against the casinos making money and spreading that money to new employees, construction works, etc., etc. is absurd. There really must be a hidden agenda. Maybe these guys own online gaming companies or host illegal casinos in their basements. LOL. Seriously, why are these two people against the casinos making money? It just doesn’t add up.

    The pros outweigh the cons. Community Colleges win. The casinos win. The new employees the casinos hire (new shifts, etc) win. The tax payers win (no new taxes!). The industries that support the casinos will win. The people that lose are people addicted to gambling. And they are going to be addicted whether the bet be $5 or $100! They can get help if they want it. We don't need government telling us how much we should be able to gamble. I'm an adult and can keep my gambling fun.

  • October 16, 2008

    1:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    scodtt writes:

    Boy, PokerMunkee really sees the world through the lens of gambling. People aren't putting money on one side or another as a "bet."

    Nevada corporations don't bet, they make money on people who make bets. These corporations spend to get something. In this case, they are spending $7 million to get the votes of Coloradans.

    Well, they aren't getting my vote.

    http://KeepVegasOut.com/

  • October 16, 2008

    2:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    PokerMunkee writes:

    Scott,

    Your boy, Obama, has spent over $335 MILLION to get elected. So you aren't going to vote him either, right? I didn't think so.

    Why are you against me betting $25 on a Blackjack table? Why are you against me playing a $25/50 Poker game? Why are you against me playing roulette?

    It's MY money. If I want to gamble, let me gamble!

    I still don't understand why a business man like you would spend hours a day for no money to fight an Amendment. I believe you created the "Keep Vegas Out" campaign for two reasons:

    1. Attention and fame. You get your face on the news. You get your name printed in every newspaper in Colorado.
    2. If you are successful in defeating A50 you gain more attention and will be able to sell yourself as a successful "entrepreneur-blogger-activist" to a large lobbying firm.

  • October 16, 2008

    4:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    scodtt writes:

    PokerMunkee,

    At least I don't hide behind a secret identity. My name is Scott Yates and my ID is shorthand for my site http://sco.tt/

    Who are you?

    By the way, Obama is not "my boy" and here's a little PR tip: It's generally frowned on to refer to African American men as "boy."

    For the record, I have no problem with you gambling $25 or $25,000. What I don't want is to use the Colorado Constitution to help casinos make more money. What you do with your money is your business, and it's easy to get to Vegas, or get on the Internet and do what you will.

    So, you speculate a lot about me. Why is that? Is it because you stand to profit from the passage of this thing and it drives you crazy that two guys with no money and a blog just might win? (If we do win, it won't be because of our blog, it will be because Colorado voters are smart enough to see through the haze with all the different amendments out there.)

    If you want the limits raised, I know of a great way to do it that Colorado voters would actually get behind. Go to http://KeepVegasOut.com/ and fill out the contact form with your real name and address and if this thing goes down I'll help you figure out a way to get something passed that Colorado voters will be OK with.

  • October 16, 2008

    6:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    colorado21 writes:

    Keep Vegas in, Vegas is awesome! I for one would love for this to pass, Give me a break keepvegasout....,?? Bring Vegas to the 3 towns, I want to play some craps.

  • October 22, 2008

    3:06 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    RickyB215 writes:

    Yes, sure, the casinos are going to base their campaign on a message that will resonate the best with voters - more funds for education. I don't feel they are being deceptive - approx three-quarters of new tax revenue goes to community colleges.

    The $5 limits set in 1990 is equivilent to approx $3 today. Poker and blackjack cannot be played effectively at these levels. (If you're not a player, you're just going to have to trust me on this.) As a result, the 45-60 min trek up the hills is hardly worth it. Today, you're seeing fewer players & less casino revenue.

    Amendment 50 a win-win-win-win scenario... yes, more money for the casinos, but also more jobs, more tourist destinations & more money into the local economy. Community colleges win with more funding. Also more gaming options & levels of play for those who wish to play.

    Granted there are those who struggle with gambling addictions. I would hope and expect that some of the additional revenues from the casinos and/or the towns go towards treatment programs. But lets not create a nannyist society where we are trying to protect the minority to the detrement of the majority.