RALEIGH – House Speaker Jim Black says that his support for a government lottery in North Carolina is predicated on a policy to restrict or outlaw “high-powered advertising because that does prey on the poor.” Understanding why Black’s provision won’t fly – and more generally, why his logic in favor of state-run gambling is faulty – means thinking about the nature of the gambling market.
Some might deny that there is a gambling market in North Carolina, but that’s mistaken. People in our state already have a variety of gambling options. Some are legal, such as church-run bingo or the casino on the Cherokee reservation. Some are quasi-legal, such as sticking coins into video-poker machines, betting on Internet-based casinos, or buying lottery tickets in other states. And some are illegal but widely practiced, such as betting in the NCAA office pool or playing high-stakes poker at your friend Junior’s house.
To recognize this reality is not necessarily to be happy about it. I don’t happen to believe that gambling should be illegal, though I also generally don’t approve of it if big bills are involved. But even if I wanted the government to ban all forms of gambling, I’d be realistic enough to know that such a policy would be costly to enforce and never entirely successful. And I could still argue, with consistency, that a state-run lottery would make the situation far worse, given the ease with which people could play – and squander their money on a fool’s bet that, unlike poker or sports wagering, has absolutely no skill involved whatsoever.
But as I said, this is not my position. I oppose a government lottery precisely because it is a government lottery. That is, whether I like it or not, I as a citizen of North Carolina would be implicated in a gambling enterprise that would set a poor example for my children and levy a new tax disproportionately on the poor and elderly. Government shouldn’t run any business, in my view, but it is particularly egregious for the government to run a business fraught with moral question marks (which is why I oppose state-run liquor stores, too).
Now, to return to the present situation, the fact is that those North Carolinians who are so inclined and willing to take some risks have gambling options. A state-run lottery won’t just scoop up their dollars automatically. It will have to advertise to compete. It will have to entice players with promotions, testimonials, new games, and odds claims (not subject to truth-in-advertising laws, by the way).
Perhaps a North Carolina lottery might start out with advertising restrictions or bans, as Black says he wants, but they wouldn’t stick. Revenues would go flat or decline, the spending lobbies would raise a ruckus, and lawmakers, already having promised the money for “education,” would cave. I’m not saying that North Carolina would adopt the most aggressive kind of lottery out there – though when proponents constantly point to Georgia as their pacesetter, that’s what they’re suggesting – but it is unimaginable that our airwaves would stay clear of radio and TV ads for the lottery.
So if that gives you the creeps – and it should, given the public-sector nature of the enterprise – then you now have another reason to oppose the whole idea.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.