BuckeyeBlog

The Akron Beacon Journal has a good editorial today on some of the issues surrounding Issue 6, which would authorize a casino near Wilmington. As they point out, one of the biggest problems is that it would grant a monopoly for one casino to operate in the state. Personally, I have nothing against gambling but I do have something against monopolies. If the state wants to legalize gambling to spur economic growth and create a new stream of revenue for the state and county governments, fine, but doing it by granting a monopoly to one company is a pretty poor way of doing it. As Jeff Hooke, Tom Firey and David Hansen wrote back in 2006:

If, and when, Ohio expands slots, it should pursue a course of responsible financial management. The state should auction slot licenses through a request-for-proposal process, which would stipulate appropriate conditions such as bidders having operational strength, adequate financing and crime-free histories. In this way, most of the economic gain of slots would go to Ohio taxpayers and not to a handful of gambling interests.

That same logic holds today.

It looks like the battle over Issue 6 — whether or not to authorize a casino near Wilmington — is heating up. This ballot issue is quite similar to Issue 3 which Ohio voters rejected in 2006. At that time the Buckeye Institute published an op-ed entitled, “Issue 3: The Price Isn’t Right.” Its analysis, that the state was essentially giving big business a huge gift and that taxpayers were being shafted, is applicable to Issue 6. As that op-ed concluded:

If, and when, Ohio expands slots, it should pursue a course of responsible financial management. The state should auction slot licenses through a request-for-proposal process, which would stipulate appropriate conditions such as bidders having operational strength, adequate financing and crime-free histories. In this way, most of the economic gain of slots would go to Ohio taxpayers and not to a handful of gambling interests.