Casinos making big wager on push to end gambling limits
Be sure to check out our brother Business News blog on STLtoday.com, which has spending reports from “Yes for Schools First” — the euphemistically-named campaign seeking to repeal the $500 spending limits at state casinos. (It would also raise taxes on casino revenue from 20 to 21 percent, money designated for education.)
As business writer Tim Logan reports, Ameristar Casinos and Pinnacle Entertainment — which operate, respectively, casinos in St. Charles and downtown St. Louis — each contributed $250,000 to the effort.
It’s interesting to note as well that the campaign is proving a boon to the local political consulting industry. Among those on the group’s payroll include veteran campaign aide Bradley Ketcher, the well-connected Stinson Morrison Hecker law firm, and former St. Louis schools spokesman Johnny Little, in addition to firms from Boston, Los Angeles and Washington.
The group has also spent, according to its Ethics Commission filing, $3,000 with the post office, which means that if you haven’t received their campaign literature yet, it’s a good bet it’s on its way.
That would fine if the money actually went to the schools only instead of the shell game being played now. Maybe it should go the subsidize the corn growers for more energy “efficient” ethinol. ugh….
Jake, why does the Post keep omitting the real “payday” for the boats in the initiative petition–the limit on the number of casinos to those presently in operation? Removing loss limits may enhance their profits, but the additional taxes they’re volunteering to pay reduces that profit fairly significantly. However, the VALUE of their casino takes a huge, untaxed leap when their license and location becomes “the only game in town”.
Missouri voters approved quaint riverboat cruises with on-board gaming and strict loss limits. And we’re going to end up with huge stationary casinos, no loss limits, and government protected markets. What a deal!
All in all, I would have had little problem with this if they had added one more thing to the proposal: Revenue sharing with municipalities which do not have a casino. Maryland Heights city government spends more per capita than Ladue, while surrounding communities can’t afford to repave their streets. This money should be evenly spread around the state. The local municipalities are already receiving sales and property tax revenue from the casinos, that should be enough to compensate them for the cost of providing public services. Casinos should benefit the entire state, they should not be a jackpot for a few lucky municipalities.
^ Hey Nick, how about some tax sharing revenue for city and county schools, so kids in the inner city have a chance at life. Personally I don’t see why any NIMBYers who will probably vote against this, should get any benefits. Its funny how people in far west county think they deserve a piece of the pie, but wpuld be in uproar if we did something practical…like merge the city and county…the only real solution for most of this city’s problems.
Mr. Mind Your Own Business - You’ve made a few errors here:
1. It’s not a matter of being NIMBYs - since the vast majority of municipalities do not adjoin eligible waterways, they never had a chance to have a casino under current Missouri law.
2. Even those that were eligible may not have been able to get one, since there is no guarantee that the gaming commission will issue a license in any case.
3. I live in the Ferguson-Florissant school district, where 2006 per student expenditure was $9,233. Same year expenditure per student for the St. Louis city public schools was $11,953. Parkway, $9,262. Rockwood, $7,676. Kirkwood, $10,134. Webster, $9,759. Yes, Ladue spent more, $11,984. So if we were doing some tax sharing to even out what the schools spend, the city would get LESS.
4. Merging the city and county would have little effect but to place several more Democrats on the county council. Or are you thinking that the city would get rid of all its patronage offices and buildings full of employees, and ditch the earnings tax? Very unlikely.
Nick Kasoff, you may have a chance to see revenue sharing, but it won’t be among the municipalities, it will be with the casinos. The casinos next target is the $2 per person per “cruise” boarding fee ($1 of which goes to the “port city”). Since casinos no longer cruise, the ID card patrons must use monitor both their losses and their presence on the boat. The casinos have always hated the ID cards because many gamblers, particularly the big players, don’t want to have to use an ID card, but the casinos are stuck with them as long as they have to document attendance every two hours for the boarding fee. In the past, they’ve proposed a one-time fee for each patron who enters, no matter how long they stay, and they’ll bring that issue back to the legislature if this initiative passes on the premise that they can’t generate the BIG revenue for schools because they can’t attract the big players who want to remain annonymous.
What the “port cities” haven’t considered is that with no new casinos to be had, cities who were considering casinos, like Sugar Creek and Cape Girardeau, are not going to help St. Louis, Maryland Heights and St. Charles hog all the revenue, and other cities and counties are going to want a share, too. In the end, the casinos will get their one-time fee and the monies will probably be distributed much differently.