All posts by principledpolicy

Public Policy Radar, Private Property, Commentary, The Vote

YES on State Issue 3

This entry is part 3 of 5 in the series 2008 Election Issues

Voting MachineState Issue 3 on the November 4 ballot in Ohio has been given little attention during this tumultuous election season. No one seems to be focusing on what is possibly one of the most important issues the voters will decide next month.

This proposed amendment to the Ohio constitution would secure private property rights of Ohio citizens in relation to the use of ground water or the use of the waters of lakes or watercourses that flow through or are adjacent to their land.

This seems like a pretty inocuous, potentially superfluous, amendment. Historically, property owner rights to water were held in common law. However, given the bend to judicial activism in all levels of the judicial branch, “common” law isn’t common nor is it an adequate protection of fundamental, nigh unalienable, rights.

Therefore, the voters of Ohio have before them an opportunity to protect one of these rights through the adoption of state Issue 3. This language explicitly spells out the water rights of Ohio citizens, and prevents such rights from being impaired or limited by any other provision of the state constitution. This is an important proviso, as it trumps the “home rule” authority which Ohio’s local governments can exercise.

Language in this amendment would subordinate such property rights in the ground water to “the public welfare”, which indicates that such rights can be abrogated, but not without similar eminent domain action and compensatory payment for the loss of such property rights by the owner as currently exists for the land over which the ground water is located (already secured by Article 1, section 19 of the Ohio Constitution).

The protection of these fundamental rights to the productive use and valuation of a basic resource such as ground water is a proactive step to ensure that as Ohio’s government enters into future compacts or agreements with other Great Lakes states or as part of intergovernmental treaties with neighboring countries over water rights, Ohio property owner rights will be protected in our Constitution.

The Institute for Principled Policy encourages Ohio voters to support their water rights, and vote “YES” on State Issue 3.

Taxation, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, The Vote

NO on State Issue 2

This entry is part 2 of 5 in the series 2008 Election Issues

Voting MachineOhio State Issue 2, which voters will be deciding on November 4, is a proposal to allow the state of Ohio to issue and spend an additional $400,000,000 in bonds for conservation and environmental revitalization purposes. $200,000,000 would be issued for conservation puposes and $200,000,000 for revitalization. The Institute for Principled Policy urges Ohio voters to cast a “NO” vote and reject this expansion of the state’s bonded indebtedness.

In an economic environment that would best be described as “toxic”, especially as it relates to Ohio’s economy, the proposal to push for more debt so the state can use it to buy up farmlands and other private property under the guise of “conservation”, is foolhardy. The state would in effect be taking those properties out of the tax bases of communities and creating a double tax burden. Other landowners will have to assume the burden of the lost tax revenue base as the state gobbles up more land, and the bonds, once matured in 25 years, will have to be repaid with interest.

This represents hoisting an additional tax burden on the next generation, as the bonds for conservation are backed as “general obligations of the state, and the full faith and credit, revenue and taxing power of the state.” This means that these obligations will be paid first out of the public treasury, including interest and debt service, as they mature. Given the economic catastrophe that is Ohio, this is nothing more than a future tax increase on our children.

The “revitalization” package, although not general obligations of the state and thus not a guaranteed tax increase for future years, has it’s own significant drawbacks.

These bonds may be used, as authorized in this constitutional amendment, for the support of privately owned lands, in a number of ways classified as “revitalization.” This aspect of “public-private partnership” is nothing more than central planning and favoritism toward private parties utilizing public taxpayer funds (which will have to be used to pay off the $200,000,000 in bonds that may be issued under this proposal).

There are many promises made by the committee who drafted the argument in favor of Issue 2, the most repeated of which (and in actuality in the language, bolded, italicized, underlined and written in all capital letters) is the claim that passage of this “DOES NOT RAISE TAXES.” Yeah. Right. Sure. What the committee, Rep. Barbara Sears, Senator Mark Wagoner and Senator Sue Morano, neglected to add was the phrase “RIGHT NOW.” The whole truth is that yes, indeed, this is an all-but-guaranteed tax increase on future generations, just not on those who are “living for the moment.”

A long-term vision includes providing economic opportunity and security for our children’s children. State Issue 2 militates against that vision. For this reason, we ask Ohio voters to vote “NO” on State Issue 2.

General, Commentary

Book review–“The Rise of America”

“You say you want a revolution? Well, we all want to change the world” is the famous line from the Beatles’ hit “Revolution”. It also seems to be the underlying theme of the book by author John D. Diamond entitled “The Rise of America: Fighting the Next American Revolution and the Constitutional Crisis” (Dryden, New York, Authors and Artists Publishers, 2006).

The book, the first in a proposed three volume series, is another in a long line of tomes to say that the responsibility for America’s moral decline sits squarely on the shoulders of 9 people in black robes, and that if we just go back to the social mores of the 1940’s, we will engender God’s favor again. However, “Rise” posits something unique: America is in both a Constitutional and a moral crisis, and “the former has created the latter”(pg.xii)! Really? America’s moral crisis is because Americans don’t know the Constitution? Hardly.

I will be the first to agree that a large majority of Americans have virtually no idea of what the Constitution actually says versus what they have been trained to believe it says, and less idea of why knowing this “organic law” of the land is vitally important. America’s moral crisis has less to do with ignorance of the 1789 document than it does with ignorance of the Bible.

I have met the author of this work, and believe that he is truly, sincerely, concerned about the future of our Constitutional republic, our families and the free exercise of our faith. Those concerns are commendable. Sadly, to come to the conclusion that “if we just get OUR guys in the black robes on the bench everything will be hunky dorey” is too simplistic a solution to be legitimate. I may be being somewhat trenchant in this summary, so I will save further comments until I see whether future volumes dig any deeper than this current work.

All one has to do is to look at the multiple times that folks who consider themselves to be Christians, conservatives, etc. have been led down the primrose path by savvy political handlers and corrupt candidates with the lure of appointing the “right” judges to the bench to see that more of the same won’t produce a better outcome. Think O’Connor, Souter, and yes, Roberts and Alito (and yes, I am being predictive with these last two). It has become such a neat formula that political parties, when presenting voters with a presidential choice that is, to be charitable, unpalatable, often try to sell the candidate as “the only one who will guarantee the “right” kind of justices on the bench.

That would be great, only if that president didn’t have to go through the Senate Judiciary Committee in order to get such a nominee seated. It would be great that, even if the “right” justices were picked, they didn’t immediately fall to the tradition of “stare decisis” or believe that something is “settled law”, especially if that law violates the US Constitution. It would be great, if truly all that was need to turn America’s moral compass back to true north was the overturning of a few pernicious rulings.

The truth is, the work to bring this nation to a position of acknowledging and submitting to God’s rule will be messier than nominating fights in the US Senate, and those engaging in the work will have to dig to the root of the problem: antinomianism and apostacy in the Church. Culture, as one insightful historian was noted as saying, is religion externalized. Worshipping at the altar of the nine black robes won’t bring a moral revival in America; it will bring wholesale judgment on us that much more rapidly.

Commentary, Public Policy Radar

First Salvo

This entry is part 2 of 3 in the series Can A Christian Be Deceptive In The Political Arena?

RadarIn analyzing an article, while on air filling in for a local talk radio host, relating to the Ohio primary election and whether or not criminal investigations of over 20,000 voters who changed party affiliations would take place, I posited a position that has generated some intense, yet respectful, opposition from members of our own board.

My basic position is this: a believer in Jesus Christ as Sovereign Lord and Savior (ie: a Christian, in other words) should not engage in tactics which violate the revealed Word of God and/or his own conscience. In other words, to put it more bluntly, situational ethics is sinful.

A little background, to start. Ohio has primary elections for the purposes of determining the nominees for each major party (Republican and Democrat) for the November General Election ballot. When an elector either requests an absentee ballot, or shows up in person at a county board of elections office or at the designated polling place on Primary day, they must, by law, declare their party affiliation prior to receiving a ballot. A good explanation of Ohio’s primary affiliation laws can be found in this article in the Dayton Daily News.

A tangental position, not necessarily affecting my basic premise of the argument in any way, given Ohio’s current election law on this topic, is that the party affiliation requirement amounts to, I believe anyway, what is an unconstitutional “test oath”, such oaths being rejected by the US Supreme Court in 1867. Be that as it may, that’s a discussion for another thread and a later time. The fact is, that is what is legally binding in Ohio law at this time.

In essence, the discussion revolved around the position that Christian voters who crossed over to vote for the opposing party’s candidate, who did so with the intent specifically to intrude upon that party’s selection process to benefit their own party nominee’s chances in the general election, and did so having signed the affiliation oath (or even if they didn’t sign it), were acting in an unbiblical manner.

The responses on the radio program were mixed. Some agreed, some disagreed. One voice of disapprobation came from a very dear friend and fellow Institute board member, whom I shall now afford the benefit of positing his position on the matter before continuing my thesis and counterargument to his thesis….

Public Policy Radar, Commentary

First Amendment Wounded In Drive-by Shooting

RadarThere are just some things that are guaranteed in life. Death and taxes are two that come to mind frequently. Another one, just as guaranteed, is that some anti-Christian group will raise a fuss about someone displaying a crèche or praying in public using the “J-word”. Sure enough, one of our favorite “religious liberties” groups has been kind enough not to disappoint this year.

The Board of Commissioners in Delaware County has been notified by the good folks and true at “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” that they are being terribly un-American in how they conduct their business. This group, headed by the Reverend Barry Lynn, has been sending letters to many governmental bodies in an attempt to muzzle elected officials from offering invocations before legislative sessions. The letter sent to Commissioners Glenn Evans, Kris Jordan and James Ward warn that Americans United expects a reply within 30 days of the letter, dated December 10.

Reading into this “threat letter” is not very difficult. While couching their iron fist in a velvet glove, feigning their undying devotion to upholding the Constitutional rights of all, the joyless Grinches at AU in essence telegraph their message that uttering a prayer in public by an elected official should be verboten.

They first claim that there is a constitutional requirement to keep prayers nonsectarian, which is not true, misquoting a key US Supreme Court decision Marsh v. Chambers which rejected a challenge brought against the practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer from a chaplain paid for by taxpayer dollars. Playing the old game of only telling a partial truth, AU leaves out two pertinent parts of the decision, one that shows that the majority opinion was favorable to the idea of prayer as a part of a legislative session, and another that specifically spoke to the fact that the concern was to the context, not the content of the prayer.

Indeed, in Marsh, one finds this from the opinion: “The opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country. From colonial times through the founding of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.”

Then AU’s crack team of religious liberty defenders say that what they really want is the elimination of all future prayers by the commissioners, and say as much in their letter. I must assume that in their burning desire to read into the First Amendment something that is not there, they also selectively ignore the unambiguous clause in that particular text that directly prohibits the abridgement of the freedom of speech.

Obviously, Americans United needs a refresher course in American history, not to mention in reading the Constitution of the United States. Legislative sessions at the national, state and local levels have been opened by invocations and asking of favor from God since our first assemblies in the Colonies. Even our Continental Congress in 1774 began with a three hour prayer session led by the Reverend Jacob Duche. Indeed, the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights left local governments free to address the issue of faith in government, as the First Amendment restricts the ability of the federal Congress to make a law respecting an “establishment of religion”, and the Tenth Amendment reserves rights not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states or to the people.

Maybe someday (and no, I’m not holding my breath) the valiant defenders of liberty at Americans United for Separation of Church and State will realize that in order to preserve religious liberties, one cannot target Christianity for elimination. Until then, we will just have to be prepared for the annual drive-by.

Uncategorized, General, Commentary

Too close to the fire

I recently had the pleasure of viewing again a classic movie that I had not seen in years, and I still marvel at just how current the message of the movie really is, even after 65 years.

“Keeper of the Flame” is a 1942 MGM feature starring two of Hollywood’s biggest names of the era, Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn, whose cinematic chemistry is on full display and adds texture to the suspenseful tale of the mysterious death of politician Robert Forrest.

In this tale, based upon an unpublished novel that I really wish would have been, Tracy stars as renouned international reporter Stephen O’Malley and Hepburn as the widow Christine Forrest. After learning of the untimely death of Forrest, whose car crashes into a ravine after a bridge collapse, O’Malley determines to write a (hagiographic) biography of the wildly popular candidate.

As O’Malley works his way into the Forrest family compound, a mystery begins to build about the events surrounding the recent tragedy. He is faced with confusing comments from the servants he meets, and is initially rebuffed by the grieving widow as he attempts to find out more about the man behind the image. This starts his internal struggle of trying to align his feelings of admiration of the deceased with what he is learning from those closest to him, while at the same time coming to grips with his growing suspicions that the “accidental” death was anything but accidental.

Ultimately, O’Malley begins to unravel a bigger mystery, and begins to see something that he at first doesn’t want to believe: Robert Forrest, patriotic American everyman, has more affinity for tyranny than for liberty. This revelation, and his deepening relationship with Christine Forrest who begins to trust this “honest man” and reveal more about the real Robert Forrest, carries some interesting commentary about the American character, the faith of the American people, and the seductive desire for power that comes with the rejection of God’s authority.

One of my favorite scenes occurs when O’Malley is conversing with Forrest’s executive assistant (called a secretary in this early 40’s dialogue) about the assistant’s future now that his employer would no longer be requiring his services. The assistant asks if O’Malley could help him locate a new position. O’Malley refers to a firm in New York, and the assistant asks what the firm does. The answer: They manufacture “rousing affirmatives” in the form of positive public relations via manipulation of the media for their clients; these “rousing affirmatives” are the responses of the general masses of the American public to the managed message, and ultimately to the carefully crafted image of the person. The assistant reacts as if he might have been just bitten by a snake, which deepens the mystery.

Without revealing the final plot device, I will leave this review to say that the character Robert Forrest will look familiar to many, especially those who pay attention to national politics. The dialogues, one about how people need those to look up to, and another about the dangers of hero-worship replacing our due worship to God, are remarkably poignant in this postmodern era. Given that in 1942 the world was beginning to come to grips with real tyranny in the forms of many national leaders makes this movie all the more a stunning indictment of the idea of “pure democracy.”

This movie was re-released on VHS (sorry, can’t seem to find any DVD edition forthcoming) in 2000. It is available at some online outlets, but it’s slightly expensive. If you can find a copy at your local library (or don’t mind shelling out up to $30 for a VHS copy), then take the opportunity to see a rare example of Hollywood (perhaps) unintentionally speaking deep truth.

Commentary, Life Issues, Public Policy Radar

Ohio lawmaker moves toward post-Roe landscape

Policy RadarEarlier this week, state Representative Tom Brinkman (R-Cincinnati) introduced legislation, House Bill 284 of the 127th Ohio General Assembly which would effectively end the practice of abortion in the state of Ohio.

The bill, similar to a measure Brinkman sponsored in the previous session which was only allowed one hearing, would change Ohio law to provide criminal penalties for doctors performing abortions. The bill is clear on this point, stating that “no person shall perform or induce an abortion.” A violation of the bill’s provisions would be a second-degree felony, which carries a jail sentence of two to eight years and a maximum fine of $15,000. A subsequent violation by the same offender would move this to a first-degree felony, which has a three to 10 year prison term and a $20,000 fine.

The bill, which would also ban the controversial drug RU-486, has already raised the opposition of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. Their director, Kellie Copeland, claims that the bill is “out of touch with Ohio mainstream values” in comments given to the Columbus Dispatch. Which stream is Ms. Copeland thinking of, the polluted Cuyahoga River? Murder of innocent human beings is never, we hope, a “mainstream value” to any Ohioan.

The state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee is already waving a white flag on the issue. Their position, that pro-abortion Governor Ted Strickland would veto any legislation restricting abortion (a key campaign promise the then-candidate made to the Planned Parenthood affiliates of Ohio) and therefore pushing such legislation is futile, neglects that one salient outcome of recording the votes of legislators on this issue will clearly draw a bright line on who does and does not believe in the protection of innocent life. That information gathering alone makes supporting House Bill 284 worthwhile.

The Institute for Principled Policy salutes Rep. Brinkman on his effort to protect the most vulnerable citizens of our state. Speaker Jon Husted has stated that he must “poll his caucus” to see if there is “interest” in this bill when the House returns for session later this fall. Let’s help the Speaker conduct his poll. Contact your state representative and ask them to take an “interest” in HB284 by representing the will of their constituents and supporting this important legislation.

Marriage and Family, Crime and Punishment, Public Policy Radar, Sexually Oriented Business

Detailed Report On The Community Defense Act- SB 16

Policy RadarBACKGROUND
Prior to the passage of H.B. 23 in 2006, the 1,308 townships in Ohio had very little authority to address the problems associated with sexually oriented businesses within their jurisdiction. H.B. 23 simply extended to every political subdivision in the state the necessary home rule authority to do so according to the specific needs of each community.

The House-passed version of H.B. 23 on a vote of 92-5 not only included the home rule authority for townships but also statewide standards for all sexually oriented businesses regarding their hours of operation and the distance required between employees and patrons. The Senate-passed version of H.B. 23 removed the statewide standards, and then was concurred and accepted by the House.

PURPOSE
Numerous studies identifying the adverse secondary effects of this industry point to a compelling state interest for these two statewide standards. Therefore, in response to a voter-initiated petition bearing the signatures of over 220,000 Ohio citizens, the Secretary of State on January 2, 2007 transmitted to the General Assembly a bill entitled the “Community Defense Act” (CDA) in accordance with constitutional guidelines for such.

Passage of CDA will set minimum standards for adult businesses in Ohio to ensure that the industry will be regulated in order to eliminate or mitigate their negative effects of-

  • increased crime (sexual crimes, prostitution, illegal drugs, etc.),

  • decreased property values of the surrounding residential and business property,

  • and the devastation brought to so many marriages and families.

Townships certainly will want to do everything within their power to take advantage of the authority given them by H.B. 23 to address those problems within their jurisdiction. But the affect of such regulations could be greatly diminished by adjacent communities that do not have at least these two regulations in place.

NARROWLY TAILORED
The focus of CDA is to place two regulations on all sexually oriented businesses, establishing a uniform minimum industry standard in Ohio law to address the problems associated with sexually oriented businesses.

Numerous government studies (available upon request from Citizens For Community Values) have documented adverse secondary effects associated with sexually oriented businesses. These include the following:

  1. Increased crime, especially, but not limited to, crimes of a sexual nature;

  2. Decreased property values, both residential and commercial; and

  3. Urban blight, the general downgrading of the surrounding areas.

Less well documented but undeniable and equally deleterious to Ohio’s communities are the adverse effects that sexually oriented businesses too often have on the marriages and families of those who frequent them. Considerable direct and indirect costs are attached to the breakdown of marriages, the dismantling of families, and the accompanying loss of individual productivity.

Although the passage of CDA would provide a statewide minimum standard for sexually oriented businesses, the bill continues to allow local communities to extend regulations farther than state law to address issues specific to each locality.

COURT APPROVED STANDARDS
Regularly, local communities in Ohio are forced to deal with the problems of adult businesses. Many spend years and countless thousands of taxpayer dollars to defend common sense regulatory protections challenged by this industry. CDA will help alleviate this burden on local governments and local budgets. The United States Supreme Court, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and other federal courts have consistently upheld the rights of governments to implement the two regulations of this proposed legislation:

  1. Employees who regularly appear nude or semi-nude would be required to maintain a six-foot (6’) distance from patrons while on the premises. Violation of this provision is a first-degree misdemeanor. Cases that support this distance requirement include:

    • DLS, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 107 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 1997)

    • Kentucky Restaurant Concepts, Inc. v. City of Louisville and Jefferson County, 209 Fed. Supp. 2d 672 (W. D. Ky 2002)

    • Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395 f.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2005)

  2. Sexually oriented businesses would be required to remain closed between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 am, with the exception of those holding a liquor permit, which may remain open until the hour specified in their permit, but which may not offer adult entertainment between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 am. Violation of this provision is a first-degree misdemeanor. Cases that support hours of operation regulation include:

    • Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Nichols, 278 F3d 570 (6th Cir. 2002);

    • Ctr. For Fair Public Policy v. Maricopa County, 336 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003).

OTHER APPLICABLE CASE LAW
See FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW, §3768.03 Rationale and findings; construction for expanded list of cases and studies. Noteworthy cases include:

  • City of Erie v. Pap’s AM 529 US 277 (2000)

  • City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. 475 US 41 (1986)

  • Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. 501 US 560 (1991)

  • Déjà Vu of Cincinnati, LLC v. Union Township Board of Trustees, 411 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2005, en banc)

  • Bamon Corp. v. City of Dayton 923 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1991)

OTHER STATE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS
Several states already have statewide regulations in place to regulate sexually oriented businesses including Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Rules similar to CDA exist in the following states:

  • Delaware: Hours of operation limited to 10:00am–10:00pm, Mon-Sat, no Sundays or state holidays

  • Arizona: Hours of operation limited to 8:00am–1:00am, Mon-Sat, 12:00noon-1:00am Sundays

  • Tennessee: No full nudity allowed on premises, 6ft distance required between performers and patrons, employees must be licensed, no direct tipping or touching allowed

TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
Bills that come before the General Assembly by voter-initiative have a limited time for consideration. The Legislature has a four-month period in which to pass, amend, vote down or ignore the bill, in this case from January 2 – May 1, 2007.

If the action taken by the Legislature is not acceptable to the committee representing the petitioners, the committee may collect additional signatures on a supplemental petition equal in number to those required on the first submission – 120,688 registered voters. Supplemental signers cannot have signed the first petition and the petitions must be submitted within 90 days starting May 2. If a sufficient number of signatures are validated, the bill will be submitted to the voters on the next general election ballot for approval or rejection.

WHAT’S THE BILL’S STATUS AND WHAT CAN YOU DO?
The current status of this bill is that it has been passed by a very wide margin in the Ohio Senate. It is currently in the House Ohio House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Louis Blessing (R)-Cincinnati. The bill passed by the Senate is currently in jeopardy in the Judiciary Committee and Chairman Blessing is wavering on his commitment to move the bill substantially intact to the House floor. House leadership, which assured pro-family leaders only two weeks ago that the bill would pass the House unchanged, are now buckling under intense pressure from strip club lobbying firms. They threaten to amend the bill to the point where it is made a toothless shadow of its intended design. Please contact Chairman Blessing, and the Ohio House of Representatives leadership, House Speaker Jon Husted, Speaker Pro Tem Kevin Dewine, Majority Floor Leader Larry Flowers, Assistant Majority Floor Leader Jim Carmichael, House Majority Whip Bill Seitz, and House Assistant Majority Whip Michelle Schneider.

Please contact your representative and House leadership no later than the afternoon of Monday May 14! Ask them, firmly but politely, to pass the Senate version of the bill. As always a letter or phone call is best! Faxes and emails are often ignored or shredded by representatives and staffers.

If the House defangs this legislation, and it appears likely that they will, be prepared to volunteer to pass petitions at your churches, civic groups, etc.

Marriage and Family, Public Policy Radar, Gambling

“Racinos” Bad Public Policy

Policy RadarIgnoring the resounding 57-43% defeat of casino gambling by the Ohio electorate last fall, Rep. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) and Sen. Steve Stivers (R-Columbus) have introduced companion bills, House Bill 118 and Senate Bill 125, to bring electronic gaming devices to Ohio horse racing tracks.

Stivers and Seitz are touting the allegedly economic advantages of allowing casino-style electronic gambling. They are, however, ignoring numerous economic impact studies which indicate that the long-term economic costs exceed the short-term tax-revenue gains by several times. These studies measured the costs to society in terms of increased bankruptcy filings, divorce, business failures, crime rates and resultant incarceration costs, suicide rates, etc.

These bills are mirrors of legislation offered during the previous General Assembly session (HB158) by Rep. Seitz to expand this form of gambling in Ohio. Testimony was given during that process by one of our own board members, and, as the new proposals are virtually the same as the previous proposal, the following are the rationales for the opposition to this effort by these two elected officials. House Bill 158 was passed in committee, but failed to receive sufficient support to bring the measure to the floor of the Ohio House for a vote.

Testimony opposing “Instant Gaming” expansion at Ohio horse racing tracks:

I come before you today to express opposition to the passage of House Bill 158, sponsored by Representative Bill Seitz. Our organization strongly believes that there is a direct correlation between the expansion of gambling options in the state with increased economic and social welfare costs to society.

The proposal before the committee would allow the introduction of “instant racing” systems into the racing tracks in Ohio. Proponents have testified that this proposal would both be “just a slight modification” to the ability to wager at the tracks, to “reinventing the racetrack experience.” It is evident that the latter sentiment is closer to the truth: the experience would be reinvented to more closely mirror a casino then a horse track.

The committee was presented with photos of the proposed machines, distributed by RaceTech. From its appearance, it resembles a slot machine found in casinos. However, it is not just by appearance that that similarity is found. An Internet search revealed documentation relating to the European patent application by RaceTech for this machine. The documentation supplied for the patent application is revealing:

“Although the above described and other types of wagers commonly available
at racetracks are extremely enjoyable and entertaining, over the years,
the racing industry has seen a great increase in competition from
lotteries and casinos.

At least some patrons prefer a more immediate reward and higher frequency
wagering than customarily offered at race tracks. For example, a typical
racetrack offers one race every half hour. A casino having slot machines,
however, offers a patron the opportunity to place a wager that can be won
or lost every few seconds.

In order to remain competitive, the racing industry is in need of a gaming
system that satisfies the preferences of many different types of patrons.

Although simulcasting does enhance patron loyalty, the number of wagers a patron can place is still limited, particularly in comparison to a slot machine.

In discussing the technical aspects of this system, the patent information supplies the following:

“The gaming system also includes a video server interface for providing
high speed delivery of selected video clips from a historical database,
and a tote system interface which is coupled to a standard racetrack
totalisator system to allow the multi-function wagering terminal to
operate as a standard self-service racetrack wagering terminal. Other
interfaces to other types of wagering systems, such as a lottery, could
also be provided.

The above described gaming system can be utilized in connection with many
different types of races such as horse and dog races. In addition, the
system could be utilized in connection with other types of events. “

This would certainly seem to indicate that these particular types of machines could easily be converted to become both Video Lottery Terminals and slot-type machines. Nothing in the provisions of House Bill 158 would serve to restrict the conversion of these machines to VLT or slot-type wagering systems. This would be tantamount to allowing for the expansion to full Class III gambling in Ohio (and provide an easy inroad for the expansion of full casino gaming in this state). I would strongly urge the members of this committee to not rush to adopt this measure before a full study of the potential impacts upon our state in relation to the expansion of gambling via this proposal is conducted.

Other impacts that need to be considered are the personal and social costs associated with video gambling. Researcher Dr. Bob Breen, in the Journal of Gambling Studies, has commented that “Video gambling is the most addictive form of gambling in history. We found out that the men and women who ‘got hooked’ on video gambling became compulsive gamblers in about one year. Those who got hooked on other kinds of gambling (such as horses, sports betting, etc…) became compulsive gamblers after about 3 ½ years.”

This addiction brings increased social costs to society. Researchers William Thompson, Ricardo Gazel and Dan Rickman, in the Gaming Law Review1 (1997) noted that each compulsive gambler costs society an average of $9,469 per year in economic losses, including employment losses, debts, and welfare. Professor of Commerce and Legal Policy at the University of Illinois, John Kindt, in an article in the Drake Law Review 43 (1994), estimated the social costs (which includes the purely economic factors) to the public of a compulsive gambler to be at least $45,000 per year.

Nationally recognized expert on compulsive gambling, Valerie Lorenz, in a statement to the National Coalition against Legalized Gambling, sets the range of costs to state or federal jurisdictions for the incarceration of problem gamblers who are convicted of crimes related to their gambling habits at $20,000 to $50,000 annually.

Director of the Division on addictions at Harvard Medical School, Howard J. Shaffer, also a leading researcher on gambling, has expressed that a state’s involvement in the promotion or expansion of gambling options to the public is a conflict of interest, based upon the state’s function to protect and serve the citizenry.

The National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 issued recommendations on the issue of gambling. That commission called for a moratorium on the expansion of gambling in the US, particularly that of video gambling machines, which was identified as the “crack cocaine” of creating new pathological (addicted) gamblers. The Commission also noted as a recommendation that states “should refuse to allow the introduction of casino-style gambling (slots, VLT’s, etc.) into pari-mutuel facilities to financially “save” the facility, which the market has determined no longer serves the community or for the purpose of competing with other forms of gambling.

One Ohio Senator, who participated in an ad-hoc group studying a prior proposal to enact a ballot initiative to authorize VLT’s at Ohio’s horse-racing tracks, sums it up well: “The advocates for the racetracks are single-minded in their devotion to their cause….It is now clear that the focus of this group has always been to package slot machines at the race tracks under the guise of an altruistic program to provide funds (for schools, etc.). In reality it is more about private profiteering from gambling.”

We believe that, given the above referenced information regarding these machines, their easy convertibility to other forms of electronic gambling devices, and the social and economic costs that are directly associated with the “crack cocaine” of the gambling industry, House Bill 158 is much more than it is purported to be.

We would urge the members of the Ohio Legislature to not support this legislation, which may well be a “Trojan Horse” for Ohioans.

General, Education

New tools in “The Toolbox”!

If we are going to set about the mission of reconstructing the culture to glorify God, then we need to make sure we have a toolbox of the right tools for the job.

“The Toolbox” is a regular feature page of the Institute for Principled Policy where members and guests will interact in discussing some of the resource materials found on our site. Read More