International Social Science Review: Policy point-counterpoint: state lotteries

In framing this policy debate, one must recognize that lotteries have been a part of American history since the founding of the republic. In their earliest form, lotteries were used to raise money for the Continental Army, local public works projects, and higher education. Over the last two decades, state lotteries have become an attractive revenue source to help states overcome severe budget problems. As a consequence, elected state officials have found lotteries difficult to resist. State lotteries are viewed frequently as a voluntary tax not required of all citizens, thus making them preferable to increases in state taxes. Accordingly, in North Carolina and Oklahoma, and, more recently in Tennessee, lottery legislation has been proposed to deal with revenue shortages. Are political leaders simply taking the easy way out and misleading voters by supporting lotteries that will not benefit citizens? Do lotteries take advantage of the poor? Are broad policies emerging on legal gambling without adequate consideration of long-term consequences? (1)

Policies on gambling have varied in many states; some prohibit gambling on the grounds that it is immoral while others accept gambling as inevitable and seek to regulate it. In the latter instance, state lotteries and gambling have become an accepted method for raising revenue for worthy goals such as education or promoting tourism. (2) Such aims, however, have not eliminated questions as to whether state lotteries actually enhance revenue in areas they intend to help or represent a hoax that misleads the public. For example, some critics have offered empirical evidence that overall education spending does not increase even though lotteries specifically target funds for education. Instead, these critics complain, lotteries have been used to fund state tax cuts. (3)

Debating the issue of who benefits from state lotteries is important on several fronts. Questions concerning legislative accountability need to be addressed. Do state legislators authorize lotteries to benefit socially desirable aims or do they simply wish to avoid raising taxes to secure re-election? Questions regarding the economic benefits derived from state lotteries also need to be discussed. Are the economic benefits of lottery-related jobs and programs offset by the rise in bankruptcies and increased crime rates that contribute to the loss of major businesses in states that sanction these games of chance? (4) Moral questions concerning the impact of state lotteries on quality of life issues also merit attention. Supporters of state lotteries, dating back to Thomas Jefferson, argue that state-sanctioned games of chance should be supported since all aspects of life constitute a risk. (5) Critics maintain that states which support more pervasive gambling encourage organized criminal activities, including money laundering. (6) Additionally, supporters of state lotteries argue that gambling should be viewed simply as a form of entertainment that provides states with a major source of revenue to pursue worthy goals. Critics see state-sponsored lotteries as a major social disease that does not serve the public interest because compulsive gamblers are more likely to engage in illegal activities such as writing bad checks, reckless driving, or embezzlement. (7) This policy point-counterpoint addresses these competing views on state lotteries in greater detail.

ENDNOTES

(1) Michael Heberling, "State Lotteries: Advocating a Social Ill for the Social Good," The Independent Review VI:4 (Spring 2002):598.

(2) Peter Collins, Gambling and the Public Interest (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2003), 7.

(3) P. Edward French and Rodney E. Stanley, "Can Students Truly Benefit from State Lotteries?: A Look at Lottery Expenditures Toward Education in the American States," 2-12 (Paper presented at the Western Social Science Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 18-22, 2001); Donald E. Miller and Patrick A. Pierce, "Lotteries for Education: Windfall or Hoax?" State and Local Government Review 29:1 (Winter 1997):34-38.

(4) French and Stanley, "Can Students Truly Benefit from State Lotteries? A Look at Lottery Expenditures Toward Education in the American States," 2-12; Miller and Pierce, "Lotteries for Education: Windfall or Hoax?" 34-38.

(5) Thomas Jefferson, "Lotteries are a Morally Acceptable and Useful Way to Raise Money," in Legalized Gambling, eds., Rod L. Evans and Mark Hance (Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 1998), 113-24.

(6) R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr., "The Government Should Not Promote Vice," in Legalizing Gambling, eds., Evans and Hance, 13-15.

(7) Henry R. Lesieur, "State Governments Should Provide Treatment for Compulsive Gamblers," in Gambling, eds. Charles P. Crozic and Paul A. Winters (San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1995), 72-79.

GORDON E. MERCER is a Professor of Political Science and Public Affairs, Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, and Director of the Public Policy Institute at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina; MICHAEL DUVALL teaches Political Science and Public Affairs and serves as Associate Director of the Public Policy Institute at Western Carolina University.