For Maryland For Our Future sure sounds like the name of an organization I would want to donate to. But don’t be fooled – they weren’t collecting money for puppies or children. It was the campaign committee that led to slots becoming legal in the state on Election Day.
And after looking over the donor list, it’s just a little hard to believe any of these organizations or people actually care about people living in this state.
Last month, Maryland citizens voted to merge gargantuan business interests with the state government by approving a constitutional amendment to allow 15,000 slot machines at five locations around the state. The slots referendum passed with 59 percent voting in favor. But like gambling empires in general, there was little honesty and no ethics in the campaign they ran.
As I’ve argued in a previous column, I support slots in theory, but bidding for licenses should be competitive. Real competition would mean bars, gas stations and restaurants getting a crack at this cash cow, too.
For Maryland For Our Future claimed the slots referendum has been called “one of the most taxpayer-friendly proposals in the nation.” You know what other legislation is taxpayer friendly? Cutting taxes!
Opening five casinos and gagging new companies from competing in the future is certainly not about encouraging economic development in the state. And that’s just what the referendum does. No new casinos will be allowed without yet another constitutional amendment; the first one took more than 10 years to pass.
For Maryland For Our Future worked its hardest to convince the state that without this exact slots bill, the entire population would be screwed. But in reality, only the government would have been screwed, not the people. The government would simply have had to cut some programs.
But with more than $5.5 million of the $7 million that For Maryland For Our Future raised from companies and investors looking to make a buck off the backs of slots users, it’s not surprising that they used unethical tactics to get their referendum bill passed. The average donation to the organization was more than $112,000.
Penn National Gaming donated $2 million to the campaign committee. The Nevada-based Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers donated $100,000. Are they really concerned with the future of Maryland’s school system that the money from slots will supposedly go to?
It sounds to me like these special interests have the government by the balls.
I feel almost inclined to applaud slots opponents. While Marylanders United to Stop Slots only raised about $950,000, its donor list is more than seven times as long as For Maryland For Our Future’s. Their campaign was virtuous, even if misguided.
The anti-slots money probably came from churches, parents and small businesses trying to protect their communities from the social ills that gambling may bring. A Baltimore-based production company donated $300,000. The pro-slots money came from gaming companies, the horse-racing industry and energy companies.
Who do you think really cared about our future?
Nathan Cohen is a junior economics and journalism major. He can be reached at cohendbk@gmail.com.
