The negative tactics by the Oxford casino campaign should raise concerns about whether similar, aggressive methods would be used to influence the Legislature, if the casino is approved.

The enacting legislation for the casino is scary, after all.

If approved, voters would give a seat on the board of all organizations receiving gambling funds and a 10-year monopoly to the casino, reduce the gambling age to 19 and eliminate statutory limits on registered slot machines.

The bill needs major revisions, which the campaign – and some lawmakers, including Sen. Bruce Bryant of Dixfield and Sen. Deborah Plowman of Hampden – are promising. The message is, if approved, the company and legislators would work harmoniously toward the best bill for Maine.

Yet this purported synchronicity contrasts weeks of fierce negative campaigning by the casino, focused almost exclusively on destroying the credibility of its political opponent, CasinosNo!

This is a disconnect. Though the casino backers vow cooperation and cordialness, their campaign belies this conclusion.

Both CasinosNo! and Vote Yes on 2 employ strong language and imagery. Each employs the politicking they accuse each other of using – instilling fear, doubt and uncertainty is the weaponry of their war.

Yet only Vote Yes on 2 must convince voters it will work with the Legislature on responsible changes to its legislation, despite its political record and the powerful leverage that could result from a win.

So far, the campaign is unconvincing on this point.

Too often, its rhetoric skates honesty. One pro-casino ad had Rep. John Patrick of Rumford, for example, promising to work with his legislative colleagues to improve the bill, if approved.

It doesn’t mention that Patrick is termed out and won’t be in Augusta to do so.

Other advertisements use a clandestine recording of CasinosNo!’s Dennis Bailey, reportedly made in 2006 by controversial casino founder Seth Carey, who is now, according to spokeswoman Pat LaMarche, a “liability.”

If Carey is a liability to the campaign, isn’t material he collected two years ago as well?

While we do not object to casinos in concept, the spiteful tones of this campaign undermine our confidence that taxpayers will get a good deal. All we’ve seen the casino backers do is malign their opposition and accuse them of tricking voters.

If this tactic should work, why should we think they’ll treat lawmakers differently?