The Casino Campaign

Rhode Island Public Radio and the Providence Journal  have reported on the big money Twin River is already plunking down on a campaign to convince voters to back its conversion from slot parlor to full-scale casino - almost $600,000 already, with a pledge to spend millions if required.

The totals point to the biggest difference between this year's ballot initiative fight and a failed 2006 effort to authorize full-scale casinos in Rhode island: the state's slot parlors - and the money and political sophistication they bring to the fight - are in the pro-casino camp.

Six years ago, it was the Narragansett Indians and Harrah's who were pushing for a casino, with Twin River and Newport Grand fighting the effort for fear that they'd be put out of business. That meant significant resources on the anti-casino side and, just as important, the wherewithal to hire some real political talent. Consultants Dennis and Doug Bailey - known as the "casino killers" for their work in Maine and Massachusetts - understood that gambling is popular and that moral suasion wouldn't work. They also knew the promise of jobs, legit or not, resonated with voters; get in a fight about jobs and the economy and you lose.

The genius of the "no" campaign: focusing, instead, on the terms of the deal. This was a "no-bid" deal, the opposition argued, that called for "rewriting" the state constitution for the benefit of a Las Vegas company.

That kind of approach is, theoretically, open to any organized opposition that might form this time around. But if that opposition is rooted in moral objections to gambling, it might have a hard time laying off the moral arguments. And without a significant campaign war chest, it'll be difficult to drive the message home.

For a fuller look at the politics and economics of casino gambling in Rhode Island, check out my Phoenix cover story "Worth the Gamble?"  from December 2009.