Voters to decide future of gambling in Missouri

Missouri voters will decide the future of gambling in the state in November, and organizations are speaking out on both sides of the issue that has school funding caught in the center of the fray.

If passed, Proposition A would repeal Missouri’s loss limit that prevents gamblers from buying more than $500 of chips or tokens every two hours. It proposes to raise taxes on casinos by 1 percent and limit the number of casino licenses that can be granted in Missouri to those that are already operating or under construction.

Most of the additional revenues collected from the higher casino tax would be funneled toward education.

Dr. Harriet Wolfe, superintendent of Sedalia School District 200, said schools would not receive the additional funding until the State Adequacy Target formula is revamped to account for the added casino revenues.

She said that while schools are always interested in ways to get more money, she does not think the proposition was designed specifically to add funding to education.

Dr. William Nicely, superintendent of Leeton R-X School District and member of the Missouri Association of School Administrators, said that supporters of Proposition A are “painting it as an educational issue” to appeal to voters.

“I think this is not an educational issue,” Nicely said. “It’s a gambling issue.”

He said additional revenues would not be spread evenly among school districts, and some, like Leeton, are not expected to receive any additional funding.

Missouri’s Elementary and Secondary Education Department projected the higher casino taxes would increase funding for Sedalia School District 200 by more than $375,000 and the Northwest School District by nearly $35,000, while Dresden would receive no additional funds if Proposition A passes.

Nicely said that projections may also be inflated as casino revenues have diminished with people having less disposable income in the struggling economy.

Scott Charton, spokesman for the YES on A Coalition, said that even conservative estimates project that increasing the tax on casino revenues on top of repealing the loss limit will mean more than $100 million in additional funding for Missouri schools every year.

“A no vote on Proposition A carries a big cost for schools,” Charton said.

He said that passing Proposition A would benefit Missouri’s economy by repealing the state’s “outdated casino regulations.” Missouri casinos cannot compete with those in neighboring states under current regulations, but passing Proposition A would level the playing field and lead to more money going toward education, Charton said.

“We will recapture the guests that are going to other states,” Charton said.

Joseph Day, director of research for the Casino Watch Committee, said that in order for funding to increase by $100 million, Missouri residents will have to lose $500 million at state casinos next year.

“We shouldn’t be funding our education through Missouri losses,” Day said.

He said it is a bad time economically to repeal the loss limit that protects Missouri residents. The Casino Watch Committee also opposes Proposition A because it would weaken law enforcement efforts in casinos, Day said. He added that promoting it as a way to fund education is “exploiting school children” to attract votes.

Michael Winter, a lobbyist with the Missouri Gaming Association, said casinos will still have an obligation to monitor casino patrons if Proposition A passes. He said the patrons he has spoken with do not favor loss limits, and many travel out-of-state to gamble without the restrictions.

He said that if the competitive disadvantages for Missouri casinos are reduced, there will be “a very significant impact on education funding.”

State Rep. Stanley Cox, a Republican representing the 118th District,, said that while all voters must make their own decision, he does not intend to vote in favor of the proposition.

“I’m just not sure it is good public policy in hard times to eliminate the loss limit,” Cox said.

Cox said the gaming industry failed to push similar statutory amendments through the state Legislature in the past. He said that the such amendments are typically tied to educational funding, but additional gaming revenues may displace some money that would otherwise go toward schools. General funding for education would not decrease, but some legislators might not feel the need to put more money toward schools on top of the additional gaming industry funds, Cox said.

“They always promise more funding for education, but that’s a misconception,” Cox said.