A recent poll shows Mainers as having trouble deciding between the options.

AUGUSTA (AP) – Casino proponents hoping to sway Maine voters stick to one basic message. Anti-casino forces favor a multiple argument approach.

Heading down to Election Day, both sides see opportunities.

Voters in the Nov. 4 election will decide whether to authorize the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot Indians to operate a casino that would be part of a resort targeted for Sanford.

No one disputes that the balloting will help determine the state’s future.

Casino advocates paint the issue as one of jobs and economic growth.

A television advertising campaign launched in May cast the project as a “once in a lifetime economic opportunity” for Maine.

The pro-casino group Think About It claims that the project will produce not only 2,000 construction jobs and nearly 5,000 jobs at the resort itself but also spur enough associated economic activity to foster another 10,000 new jobs.

Those, according to the Think About It analysis, would be created “all across the state.”

Casino advocates say the proposed legislation calls for the project to channel new revenue to the state, estimate the annual new revenue at $100 million and suggest it could be used equally for education and property tax relief.

The claims give the Yes side of the debate much to promise voters. They also give the No side of the debate much to challenge and attack.

Opponents have taken to criticizing the proposed casino agreement with the state as a bad deal, imbalanced in its distribution of potential profits and unsafe because of lax oversight provisions.

Behind those complaints lies a basic concern that a large-scale expansion of gambling would not fit with Maine’s traditions.

Valerie Landry, a former state Labor Department commissioner and outspoken casino opponent, says the language of the referendum legislation would leave the state “locked in” to an uncertain if not lopsided deal for 20 years.

And she says the job claims are “misleading” with the likely pay scales being exaggerated by casino backers.

The statewide effect she sees includes additional costs for roads, police and programs to cope with social problems stemming from a gambling resort.

Some recent polling has given both sides some reason for optimism.

A Strategic Marketing Services telephone poll of 400 adults from Oct. 1-5 found 50 percent opposing or leaning toward “no” on the casino, suggesting the anti-casino forces had gained momentum.

About 43 percent said they supported or were leaning toward supporting a casino, and the rest were undecided in the poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

But the same poll found that about half of its respondents believed the Maine economy is generally headed in the “wrong direction,” with only one-third feeling the economy was heading in the “right direction” and the rest unsure.

Those sentiments, furthering a pessimistic trend, would seem to offer a potentially fertile field for the jobs message of the pro-casino advocates.

If Mainers reflect on recent losses in employment, says political director Rich Pelletier of the pro-casino campaign, “at the end of the day they’ll decide to go with more good-paying jobs in the state.”

High stakes have resulted in high spending in the battle for public opinion.

The latest filing by the self-supported Think About It group, backed by Las Vegas developer Marnell Corrao, claimed in-kind contributions of $4.7 million through the end of September. Reported expenditures matched.

Casinos No! reported that its total receipts had risen to $2.1 million, with expenditures of nearly $1.3 million.

Heading into the campaign’s final weeks, questions continue to swirl around the legal ramifications of the referendum proposal.

Both sides claimed to be comfortable with a question-and-answer analysis released late Thursday by Attorney General Steven Rowe in response to a series of questions posed by Maine Public Safety Commissioner Michael Cantara.

Think About It lawyer Dan Wathen expressed general satisfaction with Rowe’s expressed views, saying they buttressed the contentions of casino supporters that all generally applicable laws would apply to casino operations.

Casinos No! spokesman Dennis Bailey also voiced agreement with Rowe’s findings, although that left him as far apart as ever from the Think About It stance.

“The bill is carefully crafted to prevent the state from having any regulatory authority over the operations of the casino and to grant the owners huge tax breaks, not only on the casino but any related business the tribes may own,” he said.

Rowe suggested that some matters might only be determined in court.

“The most significant issue raised by the initiated bill,” he wrote, “is the attempt to bar the Legislature, as well as the people of the state acting through the initiative process, from amending it for a period of 20 years unless the consent of the tribes is obtained.”

Rowe continued: “The purported immutability of the initiated bill raises serious constitutional concerns, but their ultimate resolution is difficult to predict because of the complex relationship between the tribes and the state under a combination of state and federal law provisions.”


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.