The Gamble on Education: Missouri’s Amendment 2 and the Future of Sports Betting

As voters gear up for the upcoming general election, a significant question looms over Missouri: Should the state legalize sports gambling? This pivotal decision will hinge on Amendment 2, a referendum that promises to reshape the landscape of not only how Missourians engage with sports but also how they fund education. Brought forth by a coalition known as Winning for Missouri Education, the amendment has sparked a fierce debate among proponents and skeptics alike.

The Push for Legalization

Supporters of Amendment 2 argue that legalizing sports gambling will generate much-needed revenue for education. Jack Cardetti, a spokesperson for Winning for Missouri Education, points out that "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." Such a reality underlines a fundamental flaw in Missouri’s current gambling laws, as the state reaps no benefits from these expenditures.

To demonstrate the potential financial impact, Winning for Missouri Education commissioned a study from Eilers & Krejcik, estimating that Missouri could see $560 million in wagers over the first five years if the amendment is passed. The proposition includes a 10% sales tax on gaming revenue, potentially yielding $100 million in taxes during that timeframe, which proponents claim could help fund regulatory bodies, compulsive gambling treatment programs, and education.

The Critique of the Amendment

However, not everyone is convinced. Critics led by a group called Missourians Against Deceptive Gambling have raised concerns regarding the ambiguity of the ballot language. Brooke Foster, the group’s spokesperson, expressed suspicions about the absence of "non-supplant language," which would ensure that the revenue generated does not replace existing funds allocated for education. Given Missouri’s historical practice of incorporating gambling revenue, such as that from riverboat gaming and the state lottery, into the foundation formula that determines educational funding, this is a significant concern.

Kari Monsees, the deputy commissioner for financial and administrative services at the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), explained that the current budget already includes $476 million in gaming revenue earmarked for schools. This funding is entwined within the broader foundation formula and is not additional funding that would be guaranteed from legal sports betting.

The Potential Impact on Educational Funding

Former AFT Missouri President, Bob Dorries, who has spent over two decades as a band director, shared his skepticism regarding the amendment, stating, "It’s a concern that the gambling revenue could simply replace existing education funding." His frustrations are echoed by many educators, like Jason Roberts, Kansas City’s AFT president, who voiced concerns about the lack of guarantees for salary increases for teachers, suggesting that districts may prioritize other expenses over teacher pay.

Michelle Baumstark, the communications director for Columbia Public Schools, further contextualized the issue: "Once revenue is allocated to the foundation formula, the districts receive funds as part of payments from DESE," indicating that the funds are not received directly from gambling revenue but are part of a complex funding structure.

Financial Projections and Expectations

Despite the optimistic forecasts from proponents, the reality may prove more complex. The Missouri Department of Revenue and Missouri Gaming Commission have expressed caution, noting that proposed tax revenues could be significantly constrained by various deductions allowed for gambling operators. For instance, operators could deduct up to 25% of promotional costs and other federal taxes, complicating the amount available for educational funding.

Eilers & Krejcik’s computation of anticipated tax revenues might also fall short, given that the study only accounted for the federal excise tax deduction. Historical data from states like Kansas indicate a disheartening trend, where deductions have reduced actual tax revenues dramatically.

The Broader Implications

As November approaches, the ramifications of Amendment 2 will become even clearer. Supporters and opponents alike acknowledge that the existing perceptions of gambling revenue as a panacea for educational funding are misleading. Monsees aptly noted, "There’s a false perception that riverboat gaming and the lottery were going to solve all funding issues for education."

Conclusion

The battle over Amendment 2 in Missouri is not merely about sports betting; it reflects broader questions of fiscal responsibility, educational equity, and the ethical considerations surrounding gambling. As Missourians prepare to cast their votes, both sides must confront the reality that shiny promises can reshape tomorrow, but they can also mask troubling truths in the present. In the end, whether the amendment passes or fails, the true measure will be in how the state’s educational funding landscape is affected and whether it serves the best interests of Missouri’s students.