Voters should reject Question 2 on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Like the proposed Indian casino in Sanford, Question 2, which would authorize slot machines at harness racing tracks, is a bad deal for Maine.

The question on the ballot makes a lot of promises. It says funding from the slots would help seniors and the disabled buy prescription drugs and provide scholarships to students in the University of Maine and Maine Community College systems. Plus, advocates say, the slots would save the dying sport of harness racing and all the jobs the industry provides.

It’s a compelling argument. Advocates suggest that the two possible racinos – one at Bangor Raceway and the other at Scarborough Downs, if voters give it the OK in November – could raise millions of dollars a year. Projections for Bangor alone estimate the slots would create revenue of $64 million a year and 300 new jobs.

Of that, 10 percent would go to help seniors and the disabled buy prescription drugs. Seven percent would go to support harness racing in the state, 3 percent would go to agricultural fairs and 3 percent would support scholarships for Maine college students. In addition, small percentages of the proceeds from the slot machines would go to Sire Stakes Fund and administration costs. Of course, that’s all up to the Legislature. The law cannot guarantee that the money will be allocated in this way.

The remaining roughly 75 percent of the money generated by the slot machines would go to the license holders, which includes Capital Seven LLC, a Las Vegas based corporation that owns 49 percent of Bangor Raceway, has optioned more land in Brewer and has financially backed the slot campaign.

When a race track is allowed to add slot machines, the resulting hybrid is often called a racino. By industry standards, as much as 80 percent of the profit generated at a casino is taken from slot machines. Put slots at the track, and what develops is a casino without the glitz, the shows and the table games. But there’s plenty of gambling and plenty of money.

This year, Bangor Raceway offered 27 days of pari-mutual wagering and harness racing this year. Once slots come to town, the track becomes a year-round enterprise.

Compared to the casino proposed by the tribes, the two possible racinos would be smaller scale with smaller profits and a much smaller cut for the state. The harness racing and agricultural fairs do OK, and the downward spiral of the industry might be forestalled for a while. But the state’s take for prescription drugs is projected to be about $6.4 million annually, depending on the outcome in Scarborough. That’s a lot of money, but nothing compared to the drug costs facing the state. For scholarships, the figure is about $2 million.

The financial incentive for the state is much smaller than it would be for a casino. Backers of the casino suggest it would bring the state $100 million a year and create as many as 10,000 new jobs. If that’s a bad deal, then the racinos have real problems.

Certain aspects of Question 2 elevate it above the casino deal. Significant gambling already takes place at the harness tracks. Although those operations would be greatly expanded, the racinos would not be entirely new entities. And unlike Question 3, the terms of this arrangement could be amended by the Legislature

We echo now the argument we made against the tribal casino. The state has a valuable commodity in its gaming rights. Those rights should not be sold without negotiations that guarantee the state receives the best financial deal possible. While a struggling industry would benefit, the state would receive only about 13 percent of the revenue from the slots for the public good.

That falls far short. Too much of the money from this deal lines the pockets of shadowy investors, and too little good is accomplished to make it worthwhile.

Voters should reject Question 2 and Question 3. Make no mistake, both questions are about big-time businesses trying to sneak sweetheart deals past state voters. Maine can do better. Vote no.


[email protected]