This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon: October 22, 2008 - Missouri's ballot has only one Proposition A on Nov. 4, but given the heavy campaigning, voters could be forgiven if they think there are two.
One features a bright red apple, beaming children and earnest educators, all asking Missourians to approve new funding for schools.
The other asks that the $500 casino loss limit be repealed, a freeze be placed on construction of new casinos, the state tax on casinos be increased and changes be made in how gamblers are identified before they can step onto the casino floor.
Both propositions are the same, of course. But depending on which side of the heated issue you are on, Proposition A is either the best boost that has happened to Missouri schools in a long time or the latest development that undermines moral values and increases reliance on a dubious source of revenue.
"Proposition A will generate more than $100 million for public schools without increasing any taxes for Missouri residents and preserve 12,000 jobs in uncertain economic times," says Scott Charton, a spokesman for the Yes on A Coalition.
Joseph Day, his counterpart for the other side, the Casino Watch Committee, says opponents can't match the spending of the casinos and their backers, but "we are a grass roots campaign" that has recruited volunteers statewide.
WHAT PROPOSITION A SAYS
The proposition, which needs a simple majority to pass, would:
* Remove the limit of $500 that any gambler can lose in any two-hour period at the same casino. No other state has such a provision.
* Raise the state tax that casinos pay from the current 20 percent to 21 percent. The increase is expected to provide more than $100 million a year for public education; the money would go into a fund created specifically for the new gambling tax revenue.
* Restrict the number of casinos allowed in Missouri to the 12 now operating plus one being built in south St. Louis County.
* Remove the current tracking card for casino customers and allow that identification be required only to establish that gamblers are 21 years old.
The provision that has prompted the most debate is the money for schools. Proponents say that because a new fund is being created solely for the additional gambling revenue, Proposition A guarantees that schools will benefit.
But opponents say there are no safeguards that would prevent the state from taking away from schools the same amount of money that comes from the new gambling funds, effectively leaving the schools with the same state revenue they had before.
Additionally, because of the state's complicated school funding formula, not all students would benefit from the Proposition A money.
In the St. Louis area, for example, estimates from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education show that while school districts like Hazelwood and Rockwood would gain nearly $1.7 million apiece each year, districts like the St. Louis Public Schools, plus suburban districts including Pattonville, Kirkwood, Parkway, Brentwood, Clayton, Jennings, Ladue, Maplewood-Richmond Heights, Normandy, University City, Wellston and the Special School District, would receive nothing from the new fund.
WHAT PROPONENTS SAY
With less than two weeks to go until Election Day, proponents of Proposition A are confident. Spokesman Charton quickly ticks off reasons Missouri voters should easily find reasons to vote yes.
To start, he relates an anecdote from an official at Lumiere casino on Laclede's Landing, about how some high rollers from Texas who were prepared for a big-stakes card game balked at the loss limit - and headed across the river to the Casino Queen.
"Some of those guys like to bet that much on a hand of blackjack," Charton said of the $500 limit.
"Opponents want Missourians not to spend their money in Missouri, and they want wealthy out-of-state gamblers not to spend their money in Missouri."
Charton notes that the loss limit is a holdover from when Missouri first authorized riverboat gambling and modeled its law after Iowa's, which had the limit. But, he says, Iowa ditched the limit in 1994 because it couldn't compete with Illinois, and the only other place he has found with something similar is Norway.
Prop A would also do away with the so-called tracking cards, which have helped enforce the loss limit and also given other information that law enforcement has found useful. Charton said many of those crimes could have been solved without the information the cards provide.
"I am very leery of identity theft," he said, "and I don't want any additional places where my personal information is stored. I think it's a kind of government snooping, and I don't think that's appropriate."
Asked whether funding for schools should be dependent on gambling money, Charton says the time for asking that question is long past.
"That is a settled policy issue," he said. "Proposition A doesn't do a thing to address that question. All Proposition A does is increase the money that goes to schools without a tax increase."
He has heard criticism that earlier votes in favor of gambling have not provided the promised windfall for education, and he says this time will be different because of the way Proposition A is structured.
"We are still wearing the chains of the lottery's lack of credibility," Charton said, criticizing what he termed the "shell game" played by politicians in Jefferson City.
WHAT OPPONENTS SAY
Those chains of doubt are helping those who want to defeat the proposition, according to Day, the spokesman for the opponents.
"Once people really hear the message, they have a bit of skepticism," he said. "They've been told the money is going to schools in the past, and that didn't materialize. It's more of the same here."
He also cites officials who say that despite the proponents' insistence, there is no way to make sure that new money going to the schools from the casinos won't be taken away from another state source, leaving education with no net gain.
Further, he notes that while proponents have featured individual teachers in their advertising, none of the state's teachers unions has supported Proposition A, despite the promise of additional classroom support.
On other issues, Day said:
* The loss limit isn't much of a contributing factor for why people do or do not gamble in Missouri. He points to a study that says the quality of the facilities, the number of slot machines and the casino's proxity are the main reasons that people choose the site they do -- "84 percent said loss limits have nothing to do with their decision."
* The move to do away with tracking cards will hurt law enforcement -- and also work against the efforts of nearly 13,000 people who have put themselves on the banned list because they have a gambling problem.
* Far from being in trouble and needing to limit competition from other states, including the coming of casino gambling in Kansas, Missouri casinos continue to be strong, so there is no reason for the freeze on licenses that Proposition A requires.
"Missouri casinos haven't seen a loss in revenue yet," Day said.
"This whole proposition started because of the fear of one casino in Kansas. The Kansas City market will see a dip because people who live in Kansas will go to a casino that is close to them. Literally one casino in Kansas is the only thing that has changed."
WHAT OTHERS SAY
As executive director of the Missouri Gaming Commission, Gene McNary doesn't take one side or the other on Proposition A. But he does note some arguments on both sides.
On the loss limit, he acknowledges that the state is at a disadvantage because it stands alone. But he questions how effective it is anyway.
"There is some sentiment on the commission that it really doesn't do what it was designed to do," McNary says. People will tell you if someone wants to, they can lose $500 in two hours, then go to another casino to lose another $500. It may take you longer to lose the money, but if you want to do it, you can do it."
The tracking card that would be removed along with the loss limit has been valuable in many cases, McNary says. "It serves as a very valuable enforcement tool," he says, "because it tells us who is on the boat. We can identify some unsavory characters."
But he doesn't think it will necessarily hurt the self-banning program, because people who want to gamble despite banning themselves can get around that now by using someone else's card for admission.
The only time they are caught, he adds, is when they win a jackpot or try to cash a check or are spotted by someone who knows their face. Even then, little happens as a result.
"If we catch them," McNary says, "we charge them with trespass and turn the case over to the local prosecutor, and every case in his office is more important than that one."
As far as educators' view of Proposition A, Brent Ghan, spokesman for the Missouri School Boards Association, says his group is officially neutral, but many members are wary of its campaign and its potential effects.
"It's being portrayed as an education issue," Ghan says, "and really it isn't. It's a gaming issue. I don't think people ought to vote one way or the other on it based on their notion that it's an education issue."
Has gambling money helped Missouri schools? Will they get additional dollars if Proposition A passes, or will it be a zero-sum game for education?
Ghan says the jury is still out - and many local superintendents will say that voters who approve gambling dollars for schools tend to wonder where the money went when local districts try to win approval for tax increases and bond issues.
"Supporters of Proposition A say they have written this very carefully to guarantee that won't happen," he explains. "But we have been down this road before."