The following is the first in a continuing series analyzing political advertising this campaign season. Two Maine television stations took the following ad off the air after it was called deceptive by casino supporters. The ad is back on all stations.



Political action committee: CasinosNO!

Party: Non-partisan

TV ad: “Deceptions”

Length: 30 seconds

Producer: Stevens, Reed, Curcio and Potholm, Alexandria, Va.

Sponsor: CasinosNO! political action committee

Market: Statewide, via television (similar ads running on radio)

Announcer: Voice of Rep. Janet Mills, D-Farmington, former district attorney for Androscoggin, Franklin and Oxford counties.

Visuals: Looking lawyerly in a green jacket, pearls and a white blouse, Mills first appears putting away a Maine law book in an office, then walks down a hall as she speaks her views, looking directly at the camera. The ad then shows pages of the legal language behind Question 3 that asks voters to approve an Indian casino. Mills is then shown in front of a desk.

Text: Mills says she has read the language of the law behind the casino proposal, which voters will decide on Nov. 4. As a former prosecutor, she says, “I had to enforce the laws in Maine every day. So I read their bill. It’s just full of deceptions. First, we’d be powerless to change any of it. It could only be changed by the tribes. If the state share didn’t cover costs, we couldn’t change that either. And their records are confidential. So we’ll never know if we’re getting our fair share. Join me and Maine’s prosecutors voting no on this deceptive casino scheme. It’s a bad deal for Maine.”

Purpose: To raise concern and doubt about legalizing a casino.

Accuracy: The bill that would become law is long, complicated and, at times, ambiguous. If voters say yes, voters would be amending the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement. Once approved, the casino law could be changed but only if both the tribes and the state Legislature agree. If the tribes disagree, the act could not be amended. The law stays intact for 20 years and could be changed by Congress.

The language behind the question does allow the state auditor to look at financial reports of the casino. However, those reports must remain confidential and cannot be publicly disclosed.

The proposed law behind the question says the state would be compensated for “reasonable and necessary costs of regulating gaming operations and conducting law enforcement investigations.” Interpretation of “reasonable and necessary” public safety costs could differ.

The proposed law also says the state would be required to pay a portion of the revenues it receives “each year to pay for mitigation of costs resulting from gaming operations …”

The Maine Prosecutors Association on Sept. 8 came out in opposition to the casino proposal on the ballot.

Our view: This ad goes too far.

Neither the tribes nor the state could make changes to the law unilaterally, but agreed upon changes could be made. After 20 years, terms of the arrangement can be modified.

The proposed legislation guarantees that state regulators can audit the financial records of the casino. The audits would ensure that the state receives its money. It’s true that the results of the audit and other financial data would not be made public, but that’s also the case with the records of other privately held companies. For example, L.L. Bean, which is privately held and opposes the casino, has no obligation to open its financial records to public scrutiny and does not.

The ad is correct when it says there are no guarantees on how much revenue the state will receive. While pro-casino forces provide pie-in-the-sky projections of $100 million in revenue, the CasinosNO! folks deliver a message of economic gloom-and-doom. The truth of how much revenue the state will actually collect is probably higher than zero, but less than the optimistic $100 million.

Some portions of the proposed law are confusing and ambiguous, but that’s true of almost any legal document. Does the law favor the tribes and the casino? You bet it does. They wrote it.

[email protected]