The issue is a simple one: Do you want sports betting or not?

by Melanie Chance

Amendment 2, the Missouri Gaming Commission’s proposed initiative, seeks to regulate licensed sports wagering, including online sports betting, gambling boats, professional sports betting districts, and mobile licenses to sports betting operators. The amendment also aims to restrict sports betting to individuals physically located in the state and over the age of 21.

Additionally, it allows for license fees prescribed by the Commission and a 10% wagering tax on revenues received to be appropriated for education after expenses incurred by the Commission and required funding of the Compulsive Gambling Prevention Fund. Proponents of the amendment have highlighted the potential financial benefits for education, with an estimated initial license fee revenue of $11.75 million.

However, state governmental entities have estimated both one-time costs of $660,000 and ongoing annual costs of at least $5.2 million, with unknown tax revenue ranging from $0 to $28.9 million annually. Local governments also anticipate unknown revenue. One of the key concerns raised by opponents of the amendment is the lack of a non-supplant clause, which could potentially lead to a reduction in existing education funding.

While supporters emphasize the additional funding that sports betting revenue could provide for education, historical precedent and the complexities of revenue distribution across numerous educational institutions have prompted skepticism about the actual impact on schools and educators. Missouri Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick has emphasized the importance of considering the broader implications of legalizing sports betting, urging voters to focus on the legalization of sports betting itself rather than potential financial gains for education.

As the debate around Amendment 2 continues, Missouri voters face the task of carefully weighing the potential benefits and drawbacks of legalizing sports betting, particularly in relation to its impact on education funding. With a complex set of financial estimates and historical precedents at play, voters are tasked with making an informed decision that will shape the future of sports betting and its implications for education in the state. This is a significant decision that requires thoughtful consideration of all aspects.

While I understand this amendment is brought to the readers in a very biased way, unlike weeks prior, when I just shared the amendment with you, I was asked to break down this particular amendment and share my thoughts about it. So, yes, it is very biased.

I agree with Fitzpatrick’s statement that “we should focus on legalizing sports betting itself rather than focusing on potential financial gains for education.” I believe this is where it is up to the voters. It is simple: Ask yourself, As a Voter, “Do I want to legalize sports betting in Missouri or not? Let’s leave education out of it.”

In conclusion, this amendment was misleadingly presented to the voters. They should have kept education separate from it. The potential risk of this amendment is the impact it could have on existing education funding. In addition, the complexities of revenue distribution among educational institutions and the unknown tax revenue projections further contribute to skepticism about the actual financial benefits of education.

This uncertainty raises concerns about the actual impact of sports betting revenue on education, especially when considering the historical precedent in other states where the tax revenue generated from sports betting was relatively small compared to the total wagers.

References: https://www.ozarksfirst.com/news/investigates/does-amendment-2-really-guarantee-millions-for-missouri-schools/, https://www.komu.com/news/elections/election_report/do-amendment-2-tv-ads-make-false-promises-to-missouri-educators-and-voters/article_dc5d4848-8587-11ef-bdf3-439ca74f3a57.html.