 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Email the author
Riverside’s cash puts Just Say No Casino on defense
We knew that existing casinos within a poker chip’s throw of Cedar Rapids would spend a chunk of money trying to defeat a March 5 gambling referendum in Linn County, which could lead to a new Cedar Rapids casino.
Now we know how much one of those casinos is willing to spend. Quite a bit, it turns out.
According to a document filed with the Racing and Gaming Commission, Riverside Casino and Golf Resort plans to pump up to $1.5 million into Just Say No Casino, the group opposing the referendum. The document is a “request for transaction,” or basically a purchase approval form, because state-licensed casinos must clear all purchases of $100,000 or more with the commission.
Usually, it’s routine stuff. Electricity, booze, food, slot machines, etc. But on the list of purchases Riverside filed with the commission ahead of its March 7 meeting, we find the category “referendum.” The “vendor,” in this case, is Just Say No Casino, and the cost listed is $1.5 million.
Rick Smith has the story and a copy of the document here.
Within the circles I move, that’s a big cash pile. Enough to buy TV ads, mail pieces and other electioneering bric-a-brac.
Just Say No Casino says don’t get too excited.
“The number from the IRGC doesn’t mean a lot because it’s only an authorization to spend that amount, it doesn’t mean that is what has or will be spent on this campaign. In fact, we’ve spent a total of about $600,000 at this point – Vote Yes has spent around $650,000 on television alone,” said Sam Roecker, spokesman for Just Say No Casino, in an email.
“The Linn County casino investors are spending a great deal more than us, but we’ve kept this competitive and have a tied race. That’s because people are skeptical of this plan and know that it’s not a good deal for Linn County,” Roecker said.
But Riverside’s money presents a serious message problem for Just Say No, whose local advocates have been telling anyone who will listen about the evils of gambling, its impact on the poor, its potential to exact social costs on the community, its fueling of addictive behaviors. They also argue that a new casino would prey mostly on locals who don’t gamble now.
And yet, Just Say No’s campaign is being fueled by the proceeds of demon gambling elsewhere, from an existing casino interest that seems pretty convinced that a casino here will attract a lot of local gamblers who currently dump bucks into its establishment. And I’m betting Riverside won’t be the only casino joining the fight.
It helps Vote Yes Linn County re-frame the referendum as they see it – Linn County residents already gamble, so putting a casino here means keeping that money in the county. Existing casinos don’t like that, and are behind the campaign to stop it.
For weeks, Just Say No has made plenty of hay portraying Vote Yes and its investors as shady and secretive. Now, opponents will be forced to play defense.
Does it change the game? My magic 8 ball says “cannot predict now.” But it is a significant development.
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Why is this not a surprise.This is how big business operates…I’m curious how much the casinos on the Mississippi are putting in to the pot along with Waterloo and Tama? And then the big question is if the Linn county voters approve this measure is how much do they have to pay to get the Iowa Gaming Commission to approve the measure? (tic)
Why is this “significant”? Politics has always created strange bedfellows, and with the string of recent elections drumming home the reality that “you must be heard in the media to win” it is hardly surprising that either side will seek or accept financial help from whatever quarter it is offered. To do otherwise may seem more honorable somehow, but it is also tatamount to conceding defeat.
Anyway, it has been known from Day One of the proposal that the big financial losers to a CR-sited casino would be the existing casinos in nearby towns; so why would anyone be surprised that they would want to resist tooth and nail with whatever legal means at their disposal?
The “Just Vote No” initiative is an amalgam of interests and that also has hardly been a secret: it is made up of those who oppose gambling on moralistic/human suffering grounds and those who oppose it on economic grounds. The competing casinos fit into the latter group.
Incidentally, the “Just Say No” slogan was clearly chosen to leverage the nationwide anti-drug-use media-saturation campaign of the same name that appeared a decade or so ago: by conflating the idea of illegal drug use (generally considered to be a Bad Thing in the public mind) with that of approving a casino, the anti-casino crowd gets a subtle “message boost” which implies that voting for a casino is synonymous with sanctioning illegal drug use. Hardly the first time that word games have been played, but its interesting to see the tactic used here.
You’re spot on about ‘word games’ and ‘sloganeering’, Jack. But I turn the coin over and find the saturation use of the current jobs-jobs-jobs mantra to be just as cynical. The number of potential jobs here is not of real significance and none of them (less the initial and temporary construction employment) will make for a better community. Let’s face it, for every wage dollar a casino generates countless thousands are removed from the economy and the vast majority of that will go into the pockets of well heeled and well connected investors.
It’s likely there will never be a license issued anyway as there is evidence that gambling is currently saturated in Iowa. It would be fitting for both sides if the Gaming Commission declined on this. Both sides would then have deservedly wasted millions chasing their tails.
I say a pox on both their houses.
Yep, this is purely a contest of greed versus greed. There’s going to be a loser for certain; but I absolutely do not care which party it is.
Looking at all sides, it’s difficult to see why the “No” camp deserves to win this vote. After all, they aren’t constraining residents’ access to casino gambling- those in Linn County (except possibly for the very old or destitute) have easy access via bus or private vehicle to at least three casinos in nearby counties. Therefore, voting “no” simply means a continuation of gambling money flowing out of the county, not a limitation in gambling access for county residents per se.
The only straight arrow in the “Just Say No” contingent’s quiver is the squishy idea that allowing a gambling casino into a community somehow undermines that community’s moral/familial wellbeing and future prosperity. They do not have hard facts to back that up which are applicable to the current situation (in which casinos are freely accessible anyway), but as a message it is more ambiguously appealing than the true one: “Vote No because it will impair the revenue intake of the surrounding casinos that are underwriting this message.”
I guess the behavior of the Riverside casino bothers me more than others. It is the ultimate hypocrisy for a casino to fund an ad campaign that, effectively, says casinos are bad.
I was undecided on this issue. Not now! I am not voting “yes” because I want a casino in CR. I don’t gamble. I’m voting yes for the explicit objective of taking business away from Riverside.
I will also say that I have lost respect for the “just say no” campaign because they accepted money from a casino. Doing so tarnished their image and undermines their integrity.
Rich, so you think the just say no people should of just took money from the little old ladies from the churches that are also against the gambling. it was only common sense that the casinos would give and the campaign would take, any thing less would of been stupid on both of their parts. campaigns makes strange bedfellows and it takes strange bedfellows for a campagin to be successful, look how harry reid and Wayne LaPierre have been on the same side in past assualt weapon bans.
The citizens of Linn County defeated the riverboat back in the 1990′s before there were land-based casinos. We defeated the 2003 casino initiative and most of the same and new volunteers – local Linn County residents – not paid by anyone – are working hard to defeat a private casino a third time. We are making calls, canvassing and talking to our friends, neighbors and co-workers to defeat this latest private casino initiative. We’ve opposed gambling in Linn County for 15+ years – BEFORE there were 8 casinos within 90 minutes. It would be naive to not believe other casinos would be opposed to a Linn County casino. We can’t control who favors or opposes the Linn County casino or how they spend their money. The real question – “Is a casino right for Linn County?” – is what we should be focusing on. I’m sure the private casino investors are offended that existing casino owners are spending money against them. But using that information to try and discredit hundreds of local volunteers who’ve been at this for years is just ‘noise’ and part of the PR spin. By the way, I believe the answer to the question is ‘No’.
The Vote Yes website provided me with the reasoning I need to determine how I will vote. The market survey done in May of 2012 stated that Linn County governments as a whole would expect to earn $1.5 million dollars per year. That won’t go far in recouping the cost of wear and tear on aging infrastructure, let alone make infrastructure improvements. The market survey also states that it will be a different kind of “gaming facility” that will bring NEW revenue and not cause any loss of revenue to existing casinos. I don’t know what the means precisely, but if they are going to claim to be different, then one would hopefully get to see rough plans. The hype is centered around things that exist at other casinos in Iowa. http://www.voteyeslinncounty.com/about