The following is part of a continuing series analyzing political advertising this campaign season.

Political action committee: CasinosNO!

Party: nonpartisan



TV ad: “More Crime”

Length: 30 seconds

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

Market: Statewide, television (similar ad on radio)

Announcer: Voice of Gregory Spitzer, former state trooper

Visuals: Ad stars a somber Spitzer driving a vehicle at night. The mood in the ad is foreboding, dark. Spitzer’s face and tone, along with background music, is serious. As the ad progresses, there are police cars with lights flashing and sirens wailing in the night. Graphics show that a casino would increase gambling addiction and crime, including drunken driving.

Text, audio: Spitzer’s voice says: “I’ve been in Maine law enforcement for over 25 years. I know the damage that gambling can do to families. It’s a fact that a casino in Maine would lead to more crime, more drunk driving and more gambling addiction. Worst of all, local law will not apply on casino property. The sheriff’s department has no jurisdiction to enforce laws at the casino. Remember, this can’t be changed.” (Text then appears on the screen that reads, “Unless the tribes agree.”) “Please join me and vote no on this deceptive casino scheme.”

Purpose: To convince voters that a casino would increase crime and be bad for Maine.

Accuracy: Spitzer is a retired Maine State Police sergeant and worked in what was then Maine’s Beano and Games of Chance Division.

Studies considered objective have concluded that after a casino arrives, some problems do increase, but not to the level opponents imply. A University of Maryland study that looked at Indian casinos nationally concluded that four years after a casino was built, auto thefts, larceny, violent crime and bankruptcy rose by 10 percent. There was no evidence of mob crime, and prostitution may go up but not significantly, the study found.

Regarding the ad’s words that “local law will not apply,” the implication is that local police would have no enforcement ability. The language behind the referendum states that “officers of the state law enforcement agency” must have free access to any gaming facility in the casino. Opponents interpret that to mean local police would not be allowed into the casino since only the state police are named. Proponents counter that the language designates the Maine State Police as the lead law enforcement agency, but not to the exclusion of others.

It is accurate that, barring congressional action, nothing in the 20-page law behind the proposal could be changed by the state unless the tribes agree.

Our view: It’s not Halloween yet, but CasinosNO! is already trying to scare us.

Crime, including drunken driving, is likely to increase in and around Sanford if a casino comes to town. But Tony Soprano or the Russian mob won’t make inroads into Southern Maine on the coattails of a casino.

Casinos generally run tight ships. To be successful, they have to attract people and make them feel comfortable. Customers with money to spend won’t be attracted to a seedy operation full of drunks, prostitutes and pickpockets.

In this ad, and in conversations with the Sun Journal, opponents of the Indian casino have gone so far as to suggest that crime on the premises could not be investigated by police and that criminal laws would not be enforceable. That’s absurd.

The casino will not be a lawless, free-fire zone for hoods and crooks. The police will be able to do their jobs, which will become marginally more difficult.

[email protected]