Both Sides of Md. Slot Debate Cite Economy

Although many voters may not tune in until later, "things are boiling beneath the surface," said Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert), a slots supporter.

Fundraising has been an early priority on both sides, but Miller and others suggest that early estimates of how much slots supporters would spend -- upward of $15 million -- appear overblown. How successful each side is at raising money could greatly influence the campaign, which is being waged partly in the high-cost Washington TV advertising market.

The owners of two racetracks that could be eligible for slots licenses -- Laurel Park in Anne Arundel and Ocean Downs in Worcester -- have not said publicly whether they plan to offer financial support.

Another moneyed interest, Pennsylvania-based casino operator Penn National Gaming, announced recently that it had secured an option to buy a potential site in Cecil and has expressed an openness to helping financially with the campaign.

For strategic purposes, neither committee is discussing how much it is raising. Under Maryland law, neither is required to do so anytime soon. The first reports disclosing donors is not due to the State Board of Elections until Oct. 10.

"We certainly expect to be out-raised, and we know we'll be outspent," Arceneaux said. "But we're going to raise what we need to get our message out."

A new Maryland law requires individuals and companies that spend more than $10,000 in support or opposition of a ballot proposal to disclose contributions within a week -- but not if they give to the major ballot-issue committees. As of last week, no such contributions had been reported to the elections board.

Both sides acknowledge that the length of Maryland's slots debate -- which dominated the tenure of former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) -- could make it challenging to engage voters.

Puddester said he thinks most voters have made up their minds, citing a recent poll conducted for his group that showed 63 percent of likely voters supporting the proposal, 34 percent against it and 3 percent undecided.

Arceneaux said he expects voter opinion to tighten, a pattern that has played out in several other states with gambling initiatives on the ballot during the past decade. He did not take issue with the results of the poll, conducted by Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group in May.

For voters weary of the debate, slots opponents argue that defeating the proposal will put the issue to rest. "We're emphasizing that this is going to put a period at the end of the sentence on slots," Arceneaux said.

As the campaign intensifies, it remains unclear how visible some of the state's leading politicians will be.

O'Malley is supportive of the ballot measure and is briefed regularly by Puddester and pro-slots consultants, aides said. But the governor and his aides are still wrestling over how closely identified with the cause O'Malley should become. During a radio interview last week, he said he hoped listeners would support the measure, which he called "a reasonable proposition."

The most visible slots opponent of recent months -- Comptroller Peter Franchot (D) -- plans to remain out front, aides said.

The role of Republicans, many of whom supported slots during the Ehrlich years, also remains a wild card. Some would like to deny O'Malley a victory, and some oppose gambling on moral grounds; others don't like the plan on the ballot.

"Even the pro-slots people are standing back from it," said Senate Minority Leader David R. Brinkley (R-Frederick). "What's in front of the voters is imperfect at best."