Ad title: "Vegas"

Length: 30 Seconds

Produced by: Stevens, Reid, Curcio and Potholm, based in Alexandria, VA.

MPBN's Barbara Cariddi researched the claims made in this political advertisement by CasinosNo!, the group fighting ballot Question 2, which would allow a Las Vegas company to build a casino resort in Oxford County.

The legislation behind Question 2—LD 2261-- would lower the legal gambling age in Maine from 21 to 19.  It would also allow 19 year olds to be present in gaming areas, which state law currently restricts to persons 21 and older.  At Maine's only currently-operating gaming facility, Hollywood Slots in Bangor, spokeswoman Amy Kenney says people younger than 21 are allowed to work at the resort, but not in the gaming areas.  There are, however, a few exceptions, but Kenny says those who are excepted must be specially licensed by the state. Under current law, those exceptions can only be granted to people at least 20 years old.  LD 2261 would lower that age to 18.  Below is the provision of LD 2261 that would make those changes:

Sec. 52. 8 MRSA §1031,  as enacted by PL 2003, c. 687, Pt. A, §5 and affected by Pt. B, §11, is amended to read:

§ 1031. Age limit on gaming device and slot machine use; access by minors; credit prohibited

1. Minimum age.  A gaming operator or slot machine operator may not permit a person under 21 19 years of age to play a slot machine or gaming device.

2. Placement of gaming devices and slot machines.  A slot machine operator or gaming operator, slot machine distributor or gaming device distributor or gambling services vendor shall prohibit persons under 21 19 years of age from any area in which a slot machine or gaming device is located, except that a person at least 18 to 20 years of age may be present if that person is a licensed employee under section 1015.

 

LD 2261 would ban the licensing of other gaming facilities in Maine for 10 years.  The ban would go into effect “from the first day that gaming occurs” at the proposed casino.  Below is the provision of the bill that would impose the ban. 

§ 1073.  Protection against proliferation

1.  Protection against proliferation.   A gaming facility license may not be issued under section 1011-A to any other gaming facility for 10 years from the first day that gaming occurs at the gaming facility.

2.  Exclusive gaming facility in the State.   Other than properly approved and licensed commercial tracks, Evergreen Mountain Enterprises, LLC must be the only gaming facility in the State. No other gaming facilities in any form are permitted in the State for 10 years from the first day that gaming occurs at the gaming facility.

3.  Exclusive operator of gaming operations.   As applicable, the rights and privileges granted under this subchapter are reserved to Evergreen Mountain Enterprises, LLC and, as applicable, the gaming operator. No other person, including without limitation any commercial track or creditor of the gaming operator, may conduct any gaming operation on the gaming site. This subsection may not be interpreted to restrict any nongaming activities on the gaming site. Licensed commercial tracks may not expand their gaming operations to include gaming devices other than slot machines.

Under this provision, the new facility, currently proposed for the town of Oxford, would become the only casino in Maine for 10 years.  But it could experience some competition from Hollywood Slots in Bangor.  Hollywood Slots, however, is a race track with slot machines--a so-called racino--not a casino.  And the two facilities would be separated by a two-hour drive.  So it's questionable whether that competition would be significant.

Backers of the proposed casino say that the 10-year ban and other controversial provisions in LD 2261 are not cast in stone.  They say if voters approve Question 2, lawmakers are likely to rework the bill to address aspects such as lowering the state’s gambling age. 

A similar process occurred with the bill that eventually allowed Hollywood Slots to open.  After Maine voters approved the ballot measure, Governor John Baldacci submitted legislation to revise the bill.  Lawmakers then held a series of public hearings and several legislative work sessions on the administration’s proposal, which resulted in extensive revisions to the original legislation.  The same process could be applied to LD 2261.   

Amy Fried

University of Maine

• Associate Professor of Political Science
• Associate Dean for Research in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

This No on 2 ad is hard-hitting and intense. Images are clear and strong and the underlying sounds are designed to create tension and anxiety.  There are three main messages in the ad. The core message of ad is focused around provisions of the law, such as the ten-year monopoly for this casino and the ability of nineteen year olds to work and gamble in the casino.  Assuming those are accurate, voters can decide whether or not they approve of those provisions and can decide whether to support Question 2.

The other two messages are the claims that Question 2 involves a “deceptive casino scheme” and that the casino would drain money from Maine to Nevada and would be a “bad deal” for Maine people.  Since the ad doesn’t present claims made by proponents, it is not clear why it is labeled as deceptive. Simply focusing on the ad itself as the context for the claim, it seems like the purported deception lies in a lack of disclosure of certain provisions of the law.  In any case, starting with this idea serves to reduce the legitimacy of the Yes on 2 camp. The final message emphasizes the shift of funds from Maine to Nevada, with an image of an arrow crossing the country to demonstrate the movement of resources.  This appears to be an effective ad, undermining the casino plan in various ways, and engaging in the economic case for the casino in an indirect manner.

Ron Schmidt

University of Southern Maine

• Associate Professor of Political Science
• Specialties: Political Theory, Racial and Ethnic Politics and Urban Politics.

The recent ad "Vegas" by Casinos No! sends two well-polished yet contradictory messages.  The narration is reinforced by bold headlines that emphasize the potential dangers of a new casino in Oxford county: out-of-state ownership that will draw profits away from Maine, the entanglement of local teens in the casinos, and a monopoly of casinos by the organization that backs the initiative.  The Casinos No! website engages in some of the vague shadowy figures from "away"' narrative that looms  large in Maine politics, but the language in the ad itself is straight-forward. The ad cites evidence for its claims with relevant passages of LD 2261.

The visuals are another matter altogether.  Perhaps this reflects a shallow image of Las Vegas in the public imagination; perhaps I am biased by an excessive fondness for the Rat Pack.  But sweeping shots of the Vegas strip at night, images of hands counting up stacks of money, more hands tossing chips onto the roulette table, and a dollar-shaded highway between Maine and Nevada seem to tell an entirely different story from the ad's text.  If anything, the ad's images seem to beckon Mainers to the bright lights of the nation's gambling capital, or, if that isn't possible, to its nearest New England outpost.  The ad's text does, indeed, say "Casinos No!," but the visuals virtually scream "Vegas!"