No on Question 3

Do you want to allow video lottery machines at certain horse racing tracks if 40 percent of the profits are used for property tax relief?

On two counts, Question 3 already has earned itself a special place in Maine electoral history. It is easily the most deceptive measure ever put before Maine voters and it is a textbook example of abuse of the citizen-initiated referendum process.

The most brazen deception which promoters of this scheme already pulled on those who signed the petitions that got this on ballot and which they hope to pull again next Tuesday is the suggestion that the option of installing these machines will be available to harness-racing tracks, in the plural. Buried within the 16-page law underlying the petitions and the ballot is language that makes the option available to one track and one track only – Scarborough Downs.

The other deceptions and abuses add up fast. A building packed with up to 1,500 high-tech slot machines is a casino. Just because the bill says it can’t be called a casino doesn’t revise the dictionary. The bill says the machines will pay gamblers back at a rate of 75 percent, a good 15 percent below the industry standard. Promoters promise the casino – oops – video lottery terminal facility will pay back at the higher rate but offer no explanation of why the bill doesn’t put it in writing. Promoters also say Scarborough Downs has no intention of spreading its casino operations to off-track betting parlors throughout the state; again, they cannot explain why the bill is worded to permit Scarborough Downs to do exactly that.

Instead of addressing the fundamental and deliberate flaws in the bill, the promoters try to distract voters with promises of property tax relief larded over with warm and fuzzy concern for Maine’s struggling harness-racing industry.

The tax relief is a mirage. The promoters estimate the state’s 40 percent cut at something in excess of $40 million a year, yet they can offer nothing to back up that estimate. They have consistently avoided explaining why – according to a report by the Maine State Police – the casinos they propose would be unregulated to an extent no other casino state would find even remotely acceptable. As to why, if the numbers are correct and the accounting on the level, Mainers should spend $100 million to get $40 million back, there is simply no explaining the inexplicable.

If the driving force behind this measure truly is to save the state’s fading harness racing heritage by boosting purses at agricultural fairs, perhaps the legislation should dedicate something more than a few percent of the take for that purpose. Since the legislation allows the owners and operators of the machines and Scarborough Downs to keep nearly half, there certainly is money enough to save an industry, should that be the real motivation.

All these objections, problems and loopholes, if unintentional, would have been avoided had a proposal to bring casino gambling to Maine gone through the slow and deliberative process of working its way through the Legislature. By taking the petition-drive route, the promoters avoided the scrutiny of legislative committees and public hearings, but, even at that, had to deceive well-intentioned petition signers. Of course, they had no choice. Who, after all, would have signed a petition that flat out said Scarborough Downs would have a total and largely unregulated monopoly on casino gambling in the state?

The promoters are right about one thing – with Megabucks and other lottery games, the state already has legalized gambling and it is hypocritical to reject other forms out of hand. Maine should have an open and honest discussion on gambling. Rejecting Question 3 would be a good place to start.