Recent editorials in Illinois decried the expansion of video gambling as a solution to financial challenges in Chicago and the state. The Chicago Sun-Times editorial noted a report about video gambling by Pro Publica Illinois and WBEZ stated instead of “helping pull the state out of its financial tailspin, the legalization of video gambling accelerated it and saddled Illinois with new, unfunded regulatory and social costs.”
The editorial noted candidates in upcoming elections “are tossing out solutions to fix the city’s budget problems. And we just can’t go down that rabbit hole again”—especially since things didn’t turn out the way politicians promised when they approved video gambling in 2009. However, in the first eight years, revenue came up short by $1.3 billion, even though 30,000 video gambling machines operate in the state. Worst of all, video gambling caused casino tax revenue to fall from $462 million in 2013 to $393 million in 2017. “The promised golden goose now looks more like an ugly duckling,” the editorial states.
It also notes Chicago needs about $1 billion dollars in new revenue in the next few years to continue to provide services and fund public pensions. Several mayoral candidates support bringing video gambling to Chicago, where it isn’t legal. But, the editorial said, “The ProPublica-WBEZ story illustrates how untested assumptions, lack of financial transparency and decisions at key stages on legalizing video gambling worked in favor of the industry but left taxpayers of Illinois holding the bag.”
In an op-ed in the Champaign/Urbana News-Gazette, author Jim Dey also cited the ProPublica WBEZ report’s findings. Dey wrote the report “outlined a series of legislative missteps that resulted in wildly exaggerated revenue estimates. He noted the report described how video-gambling legislation that was rushed through the General Assembly was written by industry lobbyists for their own benefit–leading to the question, “Social issues aside, the question now is why would more gambling become the panacea of the future when similar predictions failed to come true in the past?”
But, Dey said “a dramatic expansion of gambling is on the table again in Illinois. Among the proposals, according to news reports, are six new casinos, legalized sports gambling and increases in the wagering limits on the video-gambling machines that can be found throughout the state.”
It’s ironic, he noted, that “When video-gambling lobbyists wrote the Illinois law, they set video-gambling taxes at a lower level”—30 percent—“than those imposed on casinos”—50 percent. “So as video gambling has come to take more and more business from casinos, taxes paid by casinos to the state have declined,” Dey said.
He also wrote, “The Windy City has long sought a casino. But its efforts have been hindered by the desire of city officials to own and operate it for the city’s own benefit.”
An editorial in the Chicago Tribune picks up on that subject, noting, “Mayor Rahm Emanuel again is trying to put a casino in Chicago, part of his plan to salvage city pensions. But we hope he doesn’t again ask Illinois lawmakers to trust that City Hall could keep Chicago corruption from poisoning the clean reputation of other casinos statewide.”
The editorial said, “The question for many lawmakers will be whether City Hall should be involved in regulating a casino owned by City Hall,” which, the writers called “preposterous.” It continued, “We’ve long supported licensing a Chicago casino. But a casino here should be run by a stellar casino company and regulated exactly like the state’s other 10 casinos: by the Illinois Gaming Board exclusively. Here’s why: Many Illinois politicians hear ‘casino’ and think ‘easy revenue’ rather than ‘potential for organized crime.’” It noted, “The board’s superb enforcement record has kept Illinois casinos free of organized crime and other scandals that would frighten away customers and dry up the river of revenue that flows to state government.”
The editorial continued, “Just imagine the sketchy operators who’d make campaign donations and otherwise insinuate themselves into a City Hall casino authority. Imagine, too, the political pressure for patronage hiring, for bribes, for kickbacks, for whatever else corrupt officials could extort.”
