Authorities investigating possible connection between abduction cases
Iowa Legislature 2013 adjournment in sight, leaders say
Oklahoma tornado death toll currently 24, not 51, medical examiner says
Iowa City debates whether police officers belong in schools
Linn County casino campaign cost $3.43 million, final figures reveal
Is it appropriate for neighboring casinos to fund opposition to Cedar Rapids effort?
Related Stories
The Isle of Capri Casino Hotel Waterloo has joined the Riverside Casino and Golf Resort in contributing to Just Say No Casino in an effort to defeat the March 5 referendum in Linn County on casino gaming.
On Monday, the Iowa Racing & Gaming Commission made public a document that shows that the Waterloo casino has informed the commission that it has signed a contract with Just Say No Casino to provide up to $150,000 to the anti-casino group’s campaign in Linn County.
This report follows one released by the state commission on Friday that showed that the Riverside casino has reported that it had signed a contract with Just Say No Casino and intended to spend up to $1.5 million to defeat the Linn County casino ballot measure.
What do you think? Is it appropriate for nearby casinos to fund a campaign opposing the Linn County gambling referendum?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
The most disturbing aspect of this is the lack of disclosure. I don’t like other casinos getting involved in a Cedar Rapids issue, but I accept that they are within their rights to do so. I just wish there would be full disclosure regarding who is paying for the ads.
Saying that an ad is paid for by the “Just Say No” organization is not sufficient. Just Say No needs to fully disclose where there money is coming from. So far, they have been very secretive about the source of their money.
It’s no surprise other casinos are funding the vote no effort. They stand to lose the most and judging by the money they are pouring into their efforts, it must be a lot. We should not let them sway our decision to do what is best for our area. Which ever way the vote goes.
As far as I am concerned, this is just another form of lobbying. It seems to be acceptable in all other facets of our society. Sometimes it’s not even as disclosed or at least as publicized as this. Some may view the anti-gambling message as hypocritical at this point, but regarding the anti-casino message the other casinos certainly have some skin in the game. Neither side consists of saints, so let the cards fall where they may.
Of course it’s appropriate. A business has a right to protect its interests by whatever legal means are at its disposal- and contributing to a political campaign that supports that end is a manifestly American way of getting that end accomplished. Sometimes it works out and sometimes it fails, but it seems absurd to think that the neighboring casinos wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) push back in a bid to retain the lucrative Linn County gambler patronage. Best case, they are going to see reduced profits should a CR casino go into operation. Worst case, they are fighting for survival in an already-saturated market (casinos are private businesses and, while they are heavily regulated by government, they will not be propped up by it if they start to falter financially.)
Which brings us to the neighboring casinos’ Plan B: should the Linn County referendum OK a casino, they will turn their attention toward energetically lobbying the IGA to reject a license for a new CR gambling hall. Provided that there is no outright graft involved, there is nothing wrong with that, either,
Plan C should the IGA approve the CR casino? Probably economic warfare to undermine the profitabiity of the new facility: higher rates of payouts or other tangible incentives offered by the existing casinos to retain their “market share”. To what extent the IGA would interfere in this competition, post-approval, is unclear.
I’d like to wager a bet on Plan C. Who doesn’t like a lose slot?
The casinos opposing the Linn County yes vote may be legal but currently their $2 million dollar contributions has stopped me from doing my weekly trips to Riverside! Let us pass this with yes votes. It is obvious that millions going to other casinos needs to stay in CR/Linn county.I say build it and there will be an increase in local employment. As in all business that chooses to locate here, revenue will be generated for the city and county. Cedar Rapids and Iowa needs private enterprise to survive. I was at Riverside during a one day holiday last year, a buffet manager told me they served 4000 + people before they closed for the day. A CR casino will benefit Cedar Rapids. Neither the IGA or the government should be choosing the winners or losers in our economy.
The people of Cedar Rapids are more than capable of running opposition campaigns on shoestring budgets. I wish they would have stayed out of it.
I guess my question would be, why is it not appropriate? it’s no different/worse than Chicago based poll workers coming over here for our caucuses.
” Poll workers . . . for our caucuses.” There are poll workers at elections, but caucuses ? I’ve only attended one caucus and don’t recall any “poll workers” (but that was some years ago). What is your source of information regarding caucus poll workers and if they exist the influx from Chicago ?
Not sure what city (IC/WL), but the Gazette has articles about folks from IL coming to CR to volunteer to work a DEM caucus.
It’s all about disclosure. We have to sign our names to these comments. The same should be expected for casino ads. We should know (in a timely fashion and in detail) who is paying for a pro or con message.
It is not only correct, it is the American way to defend your turf and that is what they are doing as, they built after Cedar Rapids had said no to gambling. Since Cedar Rapids would steal their clientele from them, I am surprised they havent put in a lot more money. they are really fighting for their life you might say.
If someone tried to intrude on my livelyhood, I would fight to protect it. Why should it be different with casino’s?
It is no differant than a car dealorship in CR battling a like dealorship in a small town close to CR. Mcdonalds vs Burger King etc. Happens all the time in business, which a casino is.
It’s the hypocrisy factor that makes this different from McDonalds vs Burger King. Imagine Burger King sponsoring a campaign that said fast food is bad for you in an effort to discredit McDonalds. It would not happen. Yet, that is exactly what the outside casinos are doing.
I have yet to see one “Vote No” advertisement, so I will take your word that the thesis of these ads is that “CR should reject a local casino because gambling is bad for the community”.
But- so what? I assume that the Riverside (and now Waterloo) casinos are merely kicking into the “Vote No” movement’s coffers, not dictating or having approval authority for the message that goes out. I think that I would only take this as dirty politics if it could be shown that the “Vote No” operation is a puppet set up and run by the neighboring casinos- something that I doubt is the case.
Where are all of these ads, Rich? I have yet to see a “Gambling is Horrible” ad.
I just love all the people in here saying that it is fully appropriate.
Of course it isn’t appropriate. Legal, yes, appropriate, no. It goes against the idea of competition and free markets. Not to mention it’s extremely hypocritical and geographically discriminatory.
Trying to use dishonest and hypocritical arguments to keep a competitor out of the market… I fail to see where this is appropriate.
There are people (as Ajai has pointed out) with legitimate grievances against a CR casino. Other casino’s are not among those with legitimate grievances being aired (have you seen or heard the vote No groups use the casino’s real arguments as to why a CR Casino is bad for their bottom line?)….
Legal =\= appropriate.
I submit that “appropriate”, in this case at least, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder. However I tend to agree with your 3rd paragraph. I’ve paid little attention to the arguments of the “say no campaign” ( for one thing I don’t live in CR or even Linn Co. ) but if they are using distorted/misleading information it doesn’t speak well of their integrity or those financing them. (But with the examples set by politicians and political campaigns it’s becoming the American way.) I’d rather see them use the money to improve the draw of their establishments.
“Trying to use dishonest and hypocritical arguments to keep a competitor out of the market…” Mark, did you sleep through the entire GOP presidential primary saga?
Unfortunately no. politics is built around distortions and spin.
this is symptom of our economy and democracy. It is an ammoral system. Just because something is legal does not mean it is right. People seem to forget that, especially fundamentalists of all types.
The casinos don’t have the public interests at heart. they’re involvement seriously harms the legitimacy of the vote no side of the issue.
So you think they should lay down and not do anything, even if they have the most dogs in the fight..
Your last paragraph is exactly the reason. the casino shouldn’t be placed here. Even though the investor list is fairly local, there interest is monetary driven same as the other casino’s.
Yes Harold it is driven by money just like every business that is currently operating in Cedar Rapids! We are and need to continue to be a Free Enterprise system, it is what made this country great and if allowed to continue we will recover from this mess the government has us in now.
That’s the problem I have with the true “Vote No” side. Where is the right spot for a casino?
According to those truly against the casino for valid reasons (not competitors with monopolistic intents) there is no good spot for a Casino. It is a business built upon exploitation (a lot of businesses are).
But we already have them elsewhere, why should we deny the people in and around CR the convenience of having one close by so that at least some of the benefits are seen in the local economy rather than far away? So that other casino’s can have more control over their market and better fleece their customers? I don’t mind competition of an exploitive business model… Let them compete. They’ll pay more out to better compete against one another.
And in response to Ken’s comment above, I don’t think they necessarily have to lay down and do nothing, but I think they should be honest about their intents, and not try to use scare tactics and hypocritical arguments. They’ve also tried to conceal their influence and make the “Vote No” side seem more “Grassroots” than it really is. They’ve done what casino’s do, exploit the system.
I doubt if the supporters of this casino all have the best interests of the public at heart, either. They have their own pocketbooks at heart, same as the casinos opposing it.
The casinos could care less about the best interests of the public or their employees. As long as there is a warm body with money in their pockets the casinos and the investors are happy. Allowing smoking proves they don’t even care about their own employees that have to breathe it all shift. The casinos have one purpose–to make money. All the talk about giving to charities and contributing to the community is camouflage for the real purpose of a casino, $$$$$..
Both parties aren’t not being truthful with their ads….The just say yes group’s ads say 600 new jobs….Yes there will be 600+ jobs available, but 75% of those jobs will go to people from other casino’s with experience and they will come from miles away to work there. 2. A new casino will help local business’s….Casino’s are built to keep you there, they dont want you to leave. They have everything you need on site . 3. Well paying jobs….Very few are WELL paying jobs……The one good thing would come from a casino in CR would be that when you win a taxable amount of money from a state operated casino. They run your SSN and any money you owe the state of Iowa ( Fines, Child support, student loans, Ect ) would be taken from that amount…. Good luck CR
RELEASE THE KRACKEN!!!!!
Oh Boo HOO HOO Gazette!
I’m tired of this “why can’t those other guys play fair” mentality that seems to pervade the mentality of this newspaper when discussing the casino issue (and other issues). What ploy will this newspaper use next to brew up controversy where no controversy exists?
Quite shoddy journalism seems to be the norm.