David Spates "Therefore I Am" Published Nov. 5, 2002

Lottery vote may mean
big changes for generations

Round and round the ballot goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.

Today's lottery day in Tennessee. By the way, we're also electing a new governor and a few other barely distinguishable politicians, but the big vote on today's ballot is the lottery. Sure, the candidates have told us that, if elected (or reelected), they'll be able to make a positive impact in our day-to-day lives, but in reality it's the lottery that we'd be confronted with more often. If passed by us and then approved by the General Assembly, we'll see the effects of the lottery more than we'll see the effects of Van Hilleary or Phil Bredesen. (And no, I'm not going to tell you who got my vote.) The lottery will be everywhere.

I've written about the lottery twice before. The first time was to utterly and completely denounce it. The government shouldn't be in the gambling business anymore than Caesars Palace should be in the road construction business. Granted, the folks at Caesars could probably teach our schoolchildren a thing or two about math and probabilities, but that's another column for another Election Day.

Also, for the most part, lotteries attract only a small portion of the citizenry. People with big bucks don't tend to play the lottery. It's usually the people who can least afford to flush their money down the toilet who play it. State governments know this, but they offer lotteries anyway.

When I wrote about the lottery the second time, I was rethinking my position somewhat. The state wants more money. The state IS going to get the money it wants. Make no mistake about it, the state will get its cash fix. Therefore, perhaps I should support an income-generating venture that will keep the state politicians' grimy little fingers out of my checkbook. I won't be playing the lottery. I know enough math to understand that a contest in which the odds of winning are 8 million to 1 is not a savvy investment. In fact, why don't lottery players just give me their money, I'll tell them they lost, and we can part ways? It's the same difference.

So maybe the lottery is a good idea -- from a Dave-centered perspective. The state gets its money, and I don't have to pay. Sounds pretty good to me.

In addition to the state-sponsored lottery that would come to pass if today's balloting goes that way, there are local lottery issues at hand. In fact, these ancillary lottery issues may swing the vote one way or another.

For instance, there used to be a rubber duck race in Knoxville that helped support the local Boys and Girls Clubs. This is how it worked: You'd pay, oh I don't know, $5 or so for a rubber duck. All of the ducks sold were tossed into the river. The current carried the ducks downstream, and if your duck was first to cross the finish line you won a big fat prize. Even after expenses -- paying for the prizes, the ducks, the "duck truck," the paperwork, etc. -- the Boys and Girls Clubs came away with a tidy sum for their budgets. Plus, they enjoyed wonderful media exposure you can't put a price tag on.

That all came to a quacking halt when the state attorney general's office ruled that the rubber duck race violated the state constitution because it was essentially a lottery. The attorney general was correct of course. Regardless of the cutesy-wootsy and altruistic slant, the rubber duck race was a lottery. You paid money for a shot at winning a prize.

If today's lottery question is approved, that all changes. The duck is back.

A lottery also would be felt in Cumberland County. When I was a full-time stiff in the Chronicle newsroom, I can't count the number of times we had to tell a representative from a service club that we couldn't print anything about the charitable raffle the club was sponsoring. "Raffle" is just another word for lottery, and lotteries have been illegal. The service clubs went ahead with their raffles of course, but the Chronicle wasn't about to promote illegal activity. We were just covering our hindquarters, but I never heard of any service club being busted for running a charitable raffle. The police have better things to do than chasing down do-gooders who are just trying to raise a couple of bucks for people in need, but it shows you how the lottery vote has far-reaching effects.

The same would be true for charitable golf tournaments, I suppose. I would think that, according to the letter of the law, any event in which money must be paid (via an entry fee or whatever) to win a prize is illegal, even if a slice of the pie is going to some charitable endeavor. There's a gambling quality to it. Golf tournaments involve some skill rather than total luck, as in the duck race, but I suspect the legal status is the same. I don't see how a charitable poker tournament would be any different than a charitable golf tournament. Both games involve skill and luck, but I don't see any poker tournament scheduled in Cumberland County anytime soon.

The lottery is a multilayered issue, and it will carry ramifications for generations, long after Hilleary or Bredesen leave office. It's an issue worthy of careful, considered thought. It's not just a roll of the dice.

· · ·
David Spates is a Knoxville resident and Crossville Chronicle contributor whose column is published each Tuesday. He can be reached at davespates@chartertn.net.