C-U Gambling

There's been all sorts of gambling news popping up in the last month locally and at the State level. An article last month about gambling regulations in Danville had information about gambling revenues in Champaign and Urbana:

Not all in Danville want to gamble on proposed $100 terminal fee
...
Among multiple other options, the Danville City Council is considering imposing a $100 annual fee on all video-gambling terminals in the city. Acting Mayor Rickey Williams and staff anticipate it would generate less than $15,000; according to 2018 Illinois Gaming Board revenue reports, there are 141 terminals in the city.

If the fee is enacted, Danville would join a host of other area communities that have one. A year ago, Champaign enacted new video-gambling regulations that included a $250 annual charge for each terminal. Urbana charges between $1,010 and $1,080 per terminal; Rantoul, $50 per terminal; and Savoy, $25 per machine...

And while the amount of revenue that the new fee would generate is small compared with nearby cities — Champaign collects $70,000 a year from its fee, while Urbana gets roughly $117,000 — it could help balance a proposed budget that includes more than $791,000 in new expenses, including new police and fire chiefs and three new police officers...

About a third of the 61 establishments in Champaign that offer video gambling are cafes or lounges, which make 50 percent or more of their revenue from gambling — far more than what nonprofits like VFW Post 5520, American Legion posts 24 and 559 and others make. Champaign's regulations, adopted about a year ago, also placed a cap on the number of cafes and lounges at 23.

More, mainly on the Danville proposals, at the full article here. More details on the latest gambling regulations in Champaign after a new law was passed last year: Champaign council approves new video-gambling regulations. Urbana's gambling regulation may be best understood as an evolution that began with video gaming, added gaming halls, and recent machine terminal fee hikes (described here prior to passage). Gambling was a topic of the Champaign mayoral candidates at a recent candidate forum (coverage here, more links and video here).

Gambling and tax revenues from it are also getting a lot of additional attention due to the new governor's tax proposal relying on plans to legalize and tax sports betting. From NPR Illinois:

Unpacking Pritzker's Tax Proposals: Gambling 
...
Less than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed sports gambling outside of Nevada, eight states have jumped in on the opportunity to regulate and tax it. According to the American Gaming Association, at least 22 other states, including Illinois, have filed or will file legislation to do the same.

Pritzker has included sports gambling licensing fees to go toward what the administration calls "essential services". He is counting on $200 million from 20 licenses at $10 million each, with an annual renewal fee of $5,000. Wagers would also be taxed. But lawmakers have yet to settle on a bill they and other stakeholders, like the casino and video gaming industries, can get behind.

And he’s not stopping there. His budget proposal also counts on $89 million dollars generated from a higher tax on video gaming. For years, the industry hasn’t supported higher taxes. 

To get the money, Pritzker’s administration will need a sports betting program up and running by the start of FY20 and video gaming stakeholders would have to approve a higher tax.

Full article with more details and perspectives here. Beyond news articles on the political and budget issues this raises are the more traditional concerns that are raised with gambling: addiction, crime, and financial ruin. Just this past Tuesday, the News-Gazette had a blurb about the State's latest offering to help gambling addicts:

Illinois website offers help for gambling addictions
Illinois is launching a new state website aimed at helping people affected by gambling addictions.

The Illinois Department of Human Services on Monday announced the website WeKnowtheFeeling.org.

The new website comes as gambling is expanding across the nation . In Illinois, Gov. J.B. Pritzker is looking to expanded sports betting to help close a multibillion-dollar state budget hole. The Legislature would first have to legalize expanded wagering.

Illinois already operates a hotline for people with gambling problems. Deputy Governor Sol Flores says Illinois' 24-hour hotline, 1-800-GAMBLER, receives thousands of calls each month. Flores says "we hope to see a large number of people utilize our website the same way."

And a recent letter to the editor from an addiction counseling organization to the News-Gazette warned of financial calamities and easily fed impulses:

Legalizing internet and sports gambling will expand gambling in homes and on mobile devices. Access to sporting events worldwide 24 hours a day, seven days a week makes gambling a touch away and fuels addiction...

People check phones frequently, and gambling apps entice them to gamble with free spins, free sports bets for trying casino games and multiple "nudges" to bet. Tell legislators to reject another bad bet.

The editorial board itself was skeptical of the revenue potential, but ended as a bit of a harbinger of moral doom:

If Illinois follows, it will be a game-changer in terms of social mores, one not necessarily for the better. People will just have to wait and see what follows.

But don't buy the hype that another expansion of gambling will represent some kind of financial panacea for our financially challenged state.

Legal gambling generates revenue, but it also generates costs, including a fraying of the social fabric of society. After all, everyone can't be a winner.

The full editorial here. Whether over morality, economics, mental health, criminality, acceptability, desperation or vulnerability, the arguments have been raging back and forth for years. Government entities in need of revenue can rationalize almost anything, so I'd watch out for any promises that sound too good to be true. Never hurts to see if the counter-arguments have inconvenient merit.