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

Political action committee: Maine Coalition for Racing and Agriculture

Party: nonpartisan

TV ad: “Prescription Drugs “

Length: 30 seconds

Producer: Campaign Strategies Inc., Houston, Texas

Market: Statewide, television

Announcer: Elderly woman’s voice

Visuals: Ad begins with a close-up of prescription bottles. The scene then shifts to an elderly woman speaking in a park. Text appears that says money from slot machines would be used to lower prescriptions costs. Words “Vote yes on 2” also appears.

Text, audio: Background is soft piano music. The senior citizen looks into the camera and says: “The cost of medicine is skyrocketing. But passage of Question 2 can make a difference without a tax increase. Voting yes on Question 2 allows Maine harness racing tracks to have a limited number of slot machines, applying part of the new revenues to reduce the cost of prescription drugs for the state’s senior citizens. Vote yes on Question 2. It works for all Mainers.”

Purpose: To convince voters to vote for Question 2, and to convince them that slot machines at horse tracks will help seniors afford prescriptions.

Accuracy: The proposed law behind the bill sets no limit on how many slot machines the horse tracks could have. They could have a few hundred or a few thousand.

It is true that prescription prices are skyrocketing. Passage of Question 2 would give some money to the state. The bulk of slot revenue – 75 percent – would go to the tracks. The remaining 25 percent would be divided between fairs, horse drivers and the state government. Of that 25 percent, 10 percent would be intended for prescription drug assistance in the Healthy Maine Fund, 7 percent to enlarge harness purses, 1 percent to a Sire Stakes Fund, 3 percent to agricultural fairs, 3 percent to college scholarships and 1 percent for the Harness Racing Commission’s administration.

According to campaign estimates, slot machines would generate about $64 million a year, which means the 10 percent for prescriptions is projected to be about $6.4 million a year.

But passage of Question 2 does not guarantee that state lawmakers would use the money for prescription drugs. Without amending the state Constitution, lawmakers cannot be bound to spend the money in any way.

Our view: Question 2 has flown under the radar screen for much of the campaign season. CasinosNO!, a well-organized and well-funded organization, has been doing battle to stop a proposed casino in Sanford, but has done very little to oppose slot machines at horse tracks.

The proposal is intended to save the harness racing industry, with money set aside for prescription drugs tacked on to make the issue more attractive to voters. This type of pandering – and using an adorable senior citizen as a prop – is distasteful. Most of the profits will not go to help reduce drug costs or fund scholarships. They will flow out of the state to Las Vegas investors.

Question 2 represents a major expansion of gambling in Maine. It hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves, but the implications could directly affect more communities than the casino. Plans call for racinos at Bangor Raceway and Scarborough Downs, in the beginning. Other venues are possible.

Backers of Question 2 and Question 3 are racing, neck-in-neck, competing against one another and those opposed to increased gaming. The prize is a valuable commodity – a new state-granted gambling franchise.
[email protected]