SPEAK OUT: Are Gambling Ads Bluffing on Education?

Question 7 has drawn the most expensive media campaign Maryland has ever seen as casino interests spar over gambling’s impact on schools funding.

The ads seem clear about next month’s referendum on expanding Maryland’s casino industry:

“Question 7 will produce $199 Million in new funding for Maryland schools every year,” says VoteForSeven.com.


“There is nothing in Question 7 or state law that requires the state to use gaming revenues to spend more on education than it would otherwise,” according to VoteNoOn7.com.

The truth, according to news reports, appears to be: Both. 

With only two weeks before voters decide whether to add a sixth casino and to allow Vegas-style table games like poker and roulette, opponents and supporters have spent more than $50 million on the ad war to persuade voters ahead of the Nov. 6 election—spending unprecedented in Maryland, according to the Washington Post. More than $20 million has come from MGM Resorts International.  That company, along with Peterson Companies, presumably has the inside track on the would-be sixth casino in Prince George’s County. That has been surpassed by nearly $30 million spent by Penn National Gaming, owner of the Hollywood casino in Charles Town, WV, where one-third of the customers are Marylanders.

Most of their barbs back and forth have revolved around how much, if at all, gambling revenues impact education funding.

“If you look at the history of what we’ve done, it’s been one of the biggest increases in education funding in our state’s history,” and claims to the contrary are “total crap. Hogwash. It’s a bunch of West Virginia casino hooey," Gov. Martin O’Malley said earlier this month, according to The Gazette.

The Education Trust Fund—created when voters approved gambling in Maryland in 2008—is comprised of casinos’ licensing fees and nearly half of their revenue. By law, that money must be spent on schools. But as Neil Bergsman, director of the nonpartisan Maryland Budget & Tax Policy Institute, told The Gazette, state lawmakers have used the Education Trust Fund to offset spending that would have otherwise come from the state’s general fund, thus enabling non-school expenditures without raising the amount spent on education.

Question 7 supporters say that the funds have shielded Maryland public schools from the kinds of deep budget cuts seen in other states. But critics of the state's dependence on casino revenues doubt Question 7 will raise the amount of money actually spent on education.

"This does not mean schools will see a penny more than they already get," Christopher B. Summers, founder and president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, wrote in an op-ed with The Examiner. "If Question 7 passes, Maryland lawmakers will likely divert existing school funds to other pet projects once casino revenues start rolling in."

So far, the anti-7 ads appear to be having an effect on voters, according to a recent Washington Post poll. While 10 percent of respondents said they are “very confident” the measure would boost money to education, more than three times as many said they were “not confident at all.”

Overall, voters remain sharply divided on Question 7, according to the poll: 46 percent in support and 48 percent opposed.

The Washington Post’s most recent editorial on the issue concedes that “lawmakers would be free to redirect other funds away from schools to competing priorities.” But the debate over schools funding is a distraction, the op-ed says.

“The real question for Marylanders is this: Having already approved five casinos in a 2008 referendum, why not agree to a modest expansion that would generate tens of millions more in annual tax revenue for the state; keep gambling proceeds from leaching into neighboring states such as West Virginia; and create several thousand new jobs in the bargain? At this point, common sense argues in favor of a ‘yes’ vote."

Bob October 25, 2012 at 08:43 PM
Vote against it.
Joe Thomas October 25, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Vote for it. The anti-Question money is being poured into ads funded by Penn National whose motive is to keep Maryland gamblers going to Pa and WVA.
Linda Matuskey October 25, 2012 at 10:33 PM
It's pretty clear to me that the 'vote no' is trying to take the high road, when it is just financed by the West Virginia casino, looking out for their own interests. That is just disingenuous, in my opinion. I'm voting yes. Let's spend Maryland money here.
Scott October 26, 2012 at 01:26 AM
I'll vote for it as soon as Gov. O'Malley shares the details on how he will keep Food Stamp recipients out of the casinos.
hongfeng January 09, 2013 at 03:21 AM
http://www.coachoutletonlinebfd.com/ Coach Outlet Online http://www.guccibeltstb.com/ Gucci Belt http://www.coachoutletonlineste.com/ Coach Outlet Store Online http://www.cocoachoutletonline.org/ Coach Outlet Online http://www.coachoutletonlinetsy.net/ Coach Online Outlet


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »