A Crucial Decision for Missouri: The Future of Sports Gambling and Education Funding

Missouri voters will face a pivotal decision in the upcoming general election—whether to legalize sports gambling through Amendment 2. Proposed as a referendum that has gained significant traction, the amendment is presented as a means to fund education in the state. However, the implications of this proposed legislation raise important questions, with advocates and critics offering starkly contrasting views.

The Push for Legalization

The coalition behind Amendment 2, known as Winning for Missouri Education, includes a mix of sports teams and gambling operators who believe legalizing sports betting will capture a significant financial resource currently flowing out of state. Jack Cardetti, spokesperson for the coalition, stated, “Every day, tens of thousands of Missourians are betting on sports, either on illegal offshore websites or they’re going to one of our seven neighboring states. As it currently stands, Missouri is getting no benefit out of that.”

The appeal of the amendment is echoed in statistics showing that 38 states, including several bordering Missouri, have already legalized some form of sports gambling. This current state of affairs symbolizes a potential revenue loss for Missouri, prompting advocates to seek legislative change.

Economic Forecast: Possibilities and Projections

To evaluate the financial prospects of Amendment 2, the coalition commissioned a study from Eilers & Krejcik, which estimated that Missouri could see nearly $560 million wagered in the first five years following legalization. The proposed ballot measure would institute a 10% sales tax on gambling revenue, potentially generating an additional $100 million in taxes for the state. Supporters assert that these funds would cover regulatory costs, fund problem gambling treatment programs, and contribute significantly to the education budget.

Concerns About Funding Dynamics

However, the proposal’s language has stirred skepticism among various stakeholders. The group Missourians Against Deceptive Gambling argues the amendment’s wording is misleading and lacks non-supplant language. Non-supplant language is critical as it ensures that new funding sources genuinely supplement existing budgets rather than merely replacing them. Brooke Foster, a spokesperson for the opposition coalition, pointed out, "We just found it very suspect that they did not include non-supplant language," suggesting this could strip existing education funding rather than enhance it.

The complexity of Missouri’s education funding formula, which includes gaming revenue from various sources, complicates the picture further. Kari Monsees, deputy commissioner for financial and administrative services at the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), explained that gaming revenue is already embedded within the overall foundation formula, which determines funding levels based on student attendance.

A deeper dive into the implications reveals that uncritical acceptance of Amendment 2 could result in reduced overall funding for education, essentially transforming new revenue streams into other expenditures without any real benefit for schools.

Voices from Education Leaders

Concerns extend beyond financial implications into the realm of educational impact. Bob Dorries, a veteran educator and former president of the American Federation of Teachers in Missouri, expressed skepticism about potential funding benefits from legalized sports gambling. He stated, “You’re just playing a shell game,” highlighting fears that funds might not reach teachers or students. Similarly, Jason Roberts, president of Kansas City’s American Federation of Teachers, shared his frustrations, emphasizing that the allocation of funds is at the discretion of districts and does not guarantee salary increases for teachers.

The Role of State Auditors and Future Predictions

The Missouri state auditor’s office has calculated that the state could see revenues from the measure ranging from $0 to $28.9 million annually, with significant skepticism regarding any guaranteed outcomes. The Missouri Gaming Commission has pointed out that before any funds are allocated to education, they first need to cover regulatory expenses and a compulsive gambling prevention fund. Furthermore, operators can take deductions on various expenses, which raises questions about the likelihood of any substantial revenue streams hoped for by proponents.

The Muddle of Misleading Projections

The projections from Eilers & Krejcik appear to have missed critical factors, creating a false sense of hope about financial benefits. If deductions for promotions and federal taxes substantially reduce taxable revenue for operators, the whole premise of funding for education through sports gambling becomes precarious at best.

The Road Ahead

As Missourians prepare to vote on Amendment 2 in the upcoming election on November 5, a broad spectrum of opinions reflects the complexity of the issues involved. It is clear that both advocates and opponents have valid concerns regarding the impacts of legalized sports gambling on education funding. Supporters envision new streams of revenue that build a stronger educational framework, while opponents emphasize the risks of funding depletion and lack of accountability.

Ultimately, this referendum underscores a tension between modernization and caution, with the potential to reshape how Missouri approaches funding education through new initiatives. The decision made on November 5 could have lasting ramifications for schools, students, and the broader community, making informed voter participation essential in this critical moment for Missouri’s future.