Arkansas Issue 4 In 2018
Arkansas Issue 4 is the only measure on the ballot this year specifically to authorize new casinos in locations where none currently exist. That definitely makes this a very exciting potential measure for the State of Arkansas as well as a few surrounding states:
Arkansas Issue 4, the Casinos Authorized in Crittenden, Garland, Pope, and Jefferson Counties Initiative, is on the ballot in Arkansas as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[1]
- A yes vote s the initiative to authorize one casino each in Crittenden, Garland, Pope, and Jefferson Counties.
- A no vote opposes the initiative to authorize casinos in Crittenden, Garland, Pope, and Jefferson Counties.
In addition to a comprehensive breakdown of what the ballot measures do, Ballotpedia also researches the amount of spending associated with each measure and who the spending was done by. In this case, here is the funding related to this particular ballot measure:
| Issue: | Arkansas Issue 4, Casinos Authorized in Crittenden, Garland, Pope, and Jefferson Counties Initiative (2018) |
|---|---|
| Spending For | $4,708,018.50 |
| Spending Against | $0 |
It appears that, as of the time of this writing, no actual spending against this issue has taken place. I find that rather surprising usually because there are often Christian Conservative interests willing to put some money against measures related to new or additional casinos within a state. I know that was the case in Ohio. You couldn’t watch TV for ten minutes without seeing an ad about how these casinos were bad for children (most casino tax revenues go to education funding) and how crime rates increase dramatically in casino towns. (Not strictly true)
Anyway, I think you can all guess who is doing the spending in favor: The companies who will own the casinos, of course. There may have been some other incidental spending, but for the most part, any spending on ballots having to do with regulatory issues is typically done by parties with a direct interest in the outcome.
The only time I can ever recall a measure to add casinos, in this case, to add more casinos to a state that already had some, was in New Jersey in 2016:
| Issue: | Spending For | Spending Against |
| New Jersey Allowance for Casinos in Two Additional Counties, Public Question 1 (2016) | $9,498,544.92 | $14,597,000.00 |
The way that this one went down was pretty simple. The interested parties in favor of this measure, namely the casinos that would be going up there which were not already located in Atlantic City, poured money in . Additionally, there were likely some funds from the areas in New Jersey that would immediately benefit economically if the measure were to .
The biggest contributors against this measure, it should come as no surprise:
- Genting New York LLC $9,107,000.00
- Empire Resorts, Inc. $1,955,000.00
- Yonkers Racing Corporation $1,500,000.00
All three of these entities already owned gambling interests in the State of New York. The result of the age of the New Jersey measure is that it would have put more competition even closer to them, so this wasn’t exactly out of concern for the moral correctness of New Jersey’s citizens. They just didn’t want the new casinos competing directly with their business interests.
Apparently, there are no, “Moral,” interests concerned enough about this measure to want to pump money against it, at least not so far. As far as other economic interests (i.e. casinos) it appears that no casino interests nearby consider these new casinos enough of a threat to worry about pumping money to try to shut this measure down.
It appears that the polls are pretty split on this one, with one showing the measure handily winning and another showing it losing by a significant margin:
In both cases, there were enough undecided voters to swing it the opposite way if they can all be compelled to vote one way or another. It was the latter poll had it winning, probably as a result of the fact that money is being spent on it whereas there is no money being spent against it. If that continues, it would be somewhat surprising to see this fall in November.
The Ballotpedia page also had this to say:
The measure would grant Southland and Oaklawn automatic licenses to conduct casino gaming. The remaining two licenses would require applications and require applicants to pay fees to apply, demonstrate experience in conducting casino gaming, or a furnish a letter of from the county judge.
Under the measure, for each fiscal year, casinos would be subject to a tax rate of 13 percent on the first $150,000,000 of net casino gaming receipts and a rate of 20 percent on net casino gaming receipts exceeding $150,000,001. Net casino gaming receipts are defined in the measure as “casino gaming receipts less amounts paid out or reserved as winnings to casino patrons.” Under the measure, no other taxes could be imposed on casinos.
What’s beautiful here is that compared to some other states, (we’re looking at you Ohio, Pennsylvania and others) these taxes are very low. Granted, they are greater than those paid by casinos in Nevada, but that’s comparing these to the lowest state in the country. Taxes on casino win in of slots in Pennsylvania, for one example, are over 50% all told.
We can only hope that this savings the casinos are enjoying will be returned to the players in form of good returns on the games, but I wouldn’t hold my breath on that.
This will create a more, “Vegas,” environment, also, as the casinos will be allowed to comp liquor. In states such as Ohio, the casinos are not allowed to comp liquor. In states such as West Virginia, they can, but they often choose not to except for their highest tier players club …and even that only on occasion or in a limited way. Pennsylvania is another one that can and does comp liquor, but it depends on the market. The Philadelphia casinos do to compete with Atlantic City. Most of the casinos in Western Pennsylvania do not, with exception to the Meadows which does beer and sometimes well liquor.
