Both Sides of Md. Slot Debate Cite Economy
Recent Slowdown Causes Uncertainty

By John Wagner and Lisa Rein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 14, 2008

The campaign for slot machine gambling in Maryland is increasingly pinning its rhetoric on the faltering economy. So is the campaign against slots.

Strategists at For Maryland For Our Future, a committee begun with the blessing of Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), are drafting a message that emphasizes the consequences if voters reject slots in a November referendum: state budget shortfalls that could mean higher taxes or cuts to education and other critical services.

The weak economy reinforces that dynamic, said Fred Puddester, a former state budget secretary tapped to lead the pro-slots campaign. "With people struggling to pay $4-a-gallon gas and other commodities, it helps us, particularly if higher taxes is the alternative," Puddester said.

Strategists for Marylanders United to Stop Slots counter that the weak economy cuts their way.

With families experiencing a loss in discretionary income, casinos in Las Vegas and elsewhere have been hurt. That is among several reasons to question estimates from state fiscal analysts that slots could eventually yield more than $600 million a year for the state budget, said Scott Arceneaux, senior adviser to the anti-slots committee.

"We think this is going to be a big factor," Arceneaux said. "In an economic downturn, people have less discretionary income to spend."

The economy is one of several uncertainties that could shape the remaining four months of Maryland's slots campaign. Among the others: Who will step up to fund the two sides, and how much are they willing to invest? Will fatigue over the long-running slots debate make it more difficult to engage voters? And what role will O'Malley and Republican leaders play in lobbying the public?

So far, skirmishing over November's referendum -- which will let voters resolve a vexing issue that has confounded the General Assembly for years -- has taken place largely out of public view, among die-hard activists and hired consultants.

But opponents of expanded gambling worked to spread their message at this month's holiday parades, and they vow to become a regular presence in the five communities -- Allegany, Anne Arundel, Cecil and Worcester counties and Baltimore -- where they say crime, traffic and other woes would accompany the 15,000 slot machines that voters will be asked to authorize.

A national anti-gambling group is also angling to get involved, with a September rally planned at National Harbor, a high-profile development in Prince George's County that has rejected overtures to become a potential slots venue.

"We're going to go there on the basis of saying, 'You can have a great development and say no to casinos,' " said Tom Grey, field director for the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, which has been involved in similar fights across the country in recent years.

In the weeks before Labor Day, slots proponents say teachers, labor unions and other groups will start knocking on doors, telling of the hundreds of millions in revenue that slots could generate for the state budget.

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."