TALLAHASSEE (FBW)—A gambling boom has come to the Sunshine State—starting in 2004 and escalating in the last year—with proponents promising economic development and new government revenues in a time of shrinking tax collections resulting from an uncertain economy.

The recent gambling expansion—occurring on the watch of a Republican governor and strong Republican majorities in both houses of the Legislature—was triggered by voters’ razor-thin adoption of a 2004 constitutional amendment authorizing referendums in Broward and Miami-Dade counties permitting local pari-mutuels to have Las Vegas-style slot machines to help the struggling dog and horse tracks.

With those new slots eventually approved by both counties and a federal law that requires states to permit at Indian casinos what is legal elsewhere in the state, the Seminole Tribe has gained a compact—or agreement—with Florida that significantly expands at its seven casinos gambling offerings beyond Las Vegas-style slot machines.

Gov. Charlie Crist, elected in 2006 on promises of opposition to gambling expansion, reached agreement with the Seminoles in November, giving the tribe Las Vegas-style slots exclusively outside of South Florida and authorizing the tribe to operate games like blackjack and baccarat currently illegal in the state. Crist also signed or allowed to become law four gambling bills in June and has counted on Florida Lottery expansion for new revenue in his proposed 2008-2009 budget.

Having failed on three occasions—1978, 1986 and 1994—to gain voters’ approval of full-scale casinos, the gambling industry in recent years has resorted to an incremental approach to achieve casinos, gradually chipping away at voter opposition through approval of local referendum, like the 2004 slots amendment for the South Florida pari-mutuels (sometimes called “racinos”), which has, in turn, created momentum for the Seminole compact, fueling the desire for greater expansion at pari-mutuels around the state.

Florida may be following the path of many other states and local municipalities that see an easy way out of budget deficits with gambling revenue to avoid tax increases and/or difficult spending cuts to balance government budgets.

As significant gambling expansion has occurred in Florida in recent years, some state leaders from both political parties—both current officeholders and former officeholders—are raising concerns.

Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio is one of them. Former Gov. Jeb Bush is another. Both Republicans agreed to interviews with Florida Baptist Witness to discuss their gambling concerns. (For Bush’s thoughts, see this story.)

Criticized in a July 5, 2007, Witness editorial for his role in allowing four pro-gambling bills to become law, Rubio responded with a July 26, 2007 commentary promising to be “more steadfast and diligent in my final term as Speaker to oppose gambling legislation.” Since then, Rubio has regularly argued against gambling expansion even in the current legislative session as leaders grapple with a looming budget deficit of at least $2 billion. He also has moved legally against Gov. Crist’s Seminole compact, asking the Florida Supreme Court to invalidate the measure on grounds that the governor cannot execute an agreement without legislative authority.

In a Feb. 20 interview in his Capitol office, Rubio hammered the $248 million in new lottery revenues in Gov. Crist’s budget proposal, calling Florida’s gambling situation “predatory” for its reliance on lottery playing by economically disadvantaged citizens.

“I do find it disturbing that Florida continues to build so much of its budget on the backs of our most economically vulnerable. We spend millions of dollars a year advertising, trying to convince people, particularly the poor and the working class, that they actually have a chance to become a millionaire when we know their odds are virtually none,” Rubio said, leveling a moral argument against the lottery.

Voters approved the lottery in 1986 with promises that the revenues would fund education. In reality, lottery revenues simply replaced education dollars moved to fund other programs.

Rubio said it was appropriate to invoke a moral argument against gambling, contrary to the advice of some political consultants. Avoiding the moral argument is a “grave mistake” because the “cornerstone of a strong economy has always been strong families. … We spend billions of dollars in state government trying to compensate for the destruction of the family and the family unit in our society.”

Rubio also voiced economic arguments against gambling expansion.

“Gambling and the lottery is a false promise because … it takes money out of one part of your economy and transfers it to another,” he said, adding that out-of-state gamblers will not make Florida a betting destination like Las Vegas, contrary to the claims of proponents. A Cuban-American, Rubio grew up in Las Vegas.

“In a country where 70 percent of our people are within three hours of a gambling establishment, no one’s going to get on an airplane and fly to Florida to play a slot machine at a dog track. That means all these machines are being played by locals,” he said.

Florida’s gambling is not “economic development, it’s not economic growth; it is predatory gambling that targets our most vulnerable to spend their money in a very unproductive way, in a way that’s bad for our economy and bad for them.”

Rubio said gambling revenue is also “a bad way to balance” the state budget because “it’s a stagnant source of revenue” that will not grow with budget demands.

The speaker would find support for his economic concerns in a July 11, 2007, Wall Street Journal report: “Bad Odds: As more states look to win the economic jackpot with casinos, evidence suggests they are playing a losing hand.”

“There are two simple questions: Where does the money come from, and where does the money go?” William Thomson, professor of public administration at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas told the Journal. “If the customers live in a local area, there’s no way you can have economic development.”

Earl Grinols, formerly a senior economist on the president’s Council of Economic Advisers who teaches at Baylor University, told the Journal casinos on average make no net tax contribution to sponsoring governments, while incurring a net cost of at least $97 per resident per year.

The Journal reported “studies have shown that casino gambling imposes significant costs on communities. The most important is crime: Cities with casinos provide relatively attractive targets for criminals, who see opportunities in the crowds of people carrying large amounts of cash.”

Fred Wacker, professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and “avid gambler” at the city’s casinos, initially supported the new casinos to help the struggling local economy but now sees little positive impact.

“Casinos always make money, but how much good they’re doing for Detroit’s economy is another question completely. I don’t see much community development,” Wacker told the Journal.

Some Florida Democrats have also raised concerns about gambling expansion.

State Rep. Dan Gelber (D-Miami Beach) House Democratic Leader, published an open letter at the beginning of the 2008 legislative session expressing concerns about various aspects of Florida government, including the current budget crisis.

“More gambling is not a solution,” Gelber wrote.

Even if the governor’s compact with the Seminoles is upheld by the Florida Supreme Court “gambling is an unsteady revenue base that brings with it offsetting social costs. Further, there is a real question whether gambling revenues from the Seminoles will merely displace tax revenues that the state would have otherwise received from higher taxed competitors in nearby counties,” Gelber said.

Former Florida governor and United States Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat, joined Jeb Bush in a letter opposing slot machines in Miami-Dade County in January.

“The future of our state is not going to be in slot machines,” said Graham, according to Capitol News Service. “It’s going to be in building quality communities, people with values, work ethic, educated in order to be productive. And those things, in my judgment, are not consistent with the kind of future that’s based on luck that is the essence of gambling.”

In a Sept. 30, 2007, commentary in The St. Petersburg Times regarding a special legislative session to balance the state budget, Graham wrote: “But if our leaders do nothing but swing a meat ax at key priorities, they will soon fall pray to snake oil salesmen who promise ‘easy and painless’ solutions like casino gambling. The second we succumb to those intoxicating promises, Florida’s character will be forever altered—our future determined by the chance turn of the roulette wheel rather than the character and capabilities of our people.”

Even with Rubio’s heightened opposition to gambling expansion—and illustrating the never-ending push for more gambling, legislation pending in a House council would provide tax breaks and allow off-track betting and card rooms at 10 pari-mutuels across the state, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported March 21.

The bill was originally introduced by two Democrats from the Palm Beach area to assist the Palm Beach Kennel Club struggling to compete with slots spinning at racinos across the county line in Broward.

The bill awaits further action in the Policy and Budget Council. Rubio met with council chairman and speaker-designate Rep. Ray Sanson (R-Destin) and the Kennel Club’s lobbyist, Brian Ballard, “to bring the bill back to earth,” House sponsor Rep. Richard Machek (D-Boca Raton) told the Sun-Sentinel.

Asked by the Witness whether the original bill is a form of gambling expansion, Rubio said it is not “because it does not allow them to do anything they are not entitled to do already. It is more of a regulatory food fight the pari-mutuels are so well known for.

“The bill has been substantially amended, however. It is my understanding that some of those amendments would allow gambling to expand. Until those are corrected, I do not anticipate this legislation moving forward,” Rubio said through his spokesperson.

In his February Witness interview, Rubio said state-sponsored gambling communicates a significant meaning to its citizens.

“I think the laws send a very powerful message to people about what is right and what you should be doing,” said Rubio. “And if you send out a message that not only is it OK to gamble but it’s OK to gamble a lot because [the state is] advertising on television, that’s a very powerful message that you’re sending.”