Could church, charity casino nights become illegal? Watch Video Read Comments
ADVERTISEMENT
Photo
By Laura Rice
Monday, August 24, 2009 at 4:15 p.m.

Read more: Local, State, Politics, Community, Entertainment, Consumer, Ballot, Issue, Casino, Gambling, Gamble, Bingo, Card, Game, Church, Charity, Fund, Fundraiser

TOLEDO, OH -- A ballot issue that would allow a casino to be built in Toledo might also make it illegal to place a bet for charity.

At least that is according to those against Issue 3.

Attorney General Richard Cordray says the rumor could be true.

His statement says the ballot language "would create a risk that a court could determine that some "games of chance" currently operated by charitable organizations would no longer be allowed."

The initiative language points out that bingo and horse racing are protected but makes no exceptions for charitable and church game nights and gambling.

That is a little scary for some local non-profits.

"Dealin' for Dogs is our major special-event fundraiser. It's one of a number of different things that we do to raise money," said Jan Brown, Executive Director for Assistance Dogs of America.

Brown says their Dealin' for Dogs brings in big bucks but, if they had to change it for legal purposes, it would not be anything new.

"You become very create in how you raise money," said Brown. "You also diversify your funding base a great deal so that you don't depend on one particular event or one particular project."

But the issue's authors say jan has nothing to worry about.

"The bottom line is that Issue 3 has absolutely no affect on charitable gaming. Period," said Bob Tenenbaum, Spokesman for Ohio Jobs and Growth Plan.

Tenebaum says just because the amendment does not mention charitable gaming, does not mean it will become illegal.

"This amendment doesn't mention speeding laws either and I think anybody would be being kind of silly if they tried to claim that our amendment would somehow change Ohio's speeding laws," said Tenenbaum. "They're totally separate parts of the law and there's no reason at all legally to think that our amendment in any way affects charitable gaming."

Two state church organizations: Catholic Conference of Ohio and Ohio Council of Churches have issued statements against Issue 3.

But they have admitted that they are against the casinos on moral grounds and not just because of the threat to church festivals.

SPONSORED CONTENT
2 Comments on this Story
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them; they are not reflective of the views or opinions of Barrington Broadcasting, NBC24, its directors or employees. If you believe a comment violates the Barrington Terms of Use, please report it here.

So let's say there were three lawyers in a burning car...

Posted by Peter Nance, Lima - Tuesday, August 25, 2009 at 12:06 a.m.

In fact, this story is correct and many types of charity fundraising will surely be affected. It doesn't take a lawyer to find the flaws in this poorly worded amendment. There are many.

The proponents are disputing the claim that casino nights will be affected by insisting that the definition of “casino gaming” contained in Issue 3 refers only to gambling at casinos, and not to gambling at church festivals. There is no such language in the proponents’ definition. The following is the definition contained in the proposed amendment:

"Casino gaming" means any type of slot machine or table game wagering, using money, casino credit, or any representative of value, authorized in any of the states of Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia as of January 1, 2009, and shall include slot machine and table game wagering subsequently authorized by, but shall not be limited by subsequent restrictions placed on such wagering in, such states. Notwithstanding the aforementioned definition, "casino gaming" does not include bingo, as authorized in article XV, section 6 of the Ohio Constitution and conducted as of January I, 2009, or horse racing where the pari-mutuel system of wagering is conducted, as authorized under the laws of Ohio as of January 1, 2009.

Where does it say “casino gaming” only applies to the four locations? Nowhere. Furthermore, if the definition does not apply to existing gambling, why did the proponents place specific exemptions in the definition for bingo and horse racing? Those types of gambling would need no exemption if “casino gaming” only applied to the four casino locations. The final nail in the proponents’ coffin is the fact that they specifically exempted bingo and horse racing but left out an exemption for church festival gaming defined in ORC 2915.02(D).

If bingo and horse racing needed the exemption the proponents obviously believed they did - they inserted those exemptions in the definition - then church festival gaming needed the very same exemption.

The people of Ohio don't need to be lawyers or have a college degree to see the one-sided monopoly written into Issue 3 - by the casinos, for the casinos. You talk down to us this way, it becomes clear you are an attorney for Issue 3.

If so, you wrote a bad amendment. Awful, in fact. You should be ashamed of the bad work you've done for your clients - no matter how much you shovel at us, you are to blame for the failure of this idea.

Shortest News Story Ever.

Posted by Dan Muszynski, Toledo - Monday, August 24, 2009 at 6:04 p.m.

This news story shouldn't take more than about four seconds of airtime (seven if you already made a graphic and want to use it). [VID FX][Anchor] "No." [VIDFX].

The amendment only says anything like that if you ignore everything that the document says. I can only assume that you are referencing the section that reads "Require that casino gaming be conducted only by authorized casino operators of these four casino facilities." That's the only language in the document that I can even imagine being so grossly misread to become your headline.

However, if that is the case then all you have done is throw fuel on a fire that no one needed. You've misled people, probably intentionally, in order to try to bump your share by .01 points. That's irresponsible, and you should apologize, frankly.

It must be intentionally misleading, because there is no way that you have no lawyers on your staff, or even no persons with a college education. The language clearly limits the scope of the prohibition to entities of the class "casino facilities" and the activity "casino gaming." However, the last section of the bill notes that the legislature will be able to determine what each term means. The Assembly will have little leeway to moot the clear meaning of "casino facility." They can only be the four casinos proposed. Even if they government defines "casino facility" more broadly, it will still have to be a definition that limits the term's applicability only to facilities expressly purposed for casino gambling. Since charity gambling never happens at these types of facilities, it is exempted.

While the Assembly might have more play in the meaning of "casino gambling," it is clearly going to have to be distinct from charity gambling for at least two obvious reasons. First, if the Assembly doesn't include an express differentiation between charity and casino gambling, a casino operator could attempt to skirt that 33% revenue tax with 501(c)(3) laws. Second, the laws regarding charitable gambling are not in Article XV section 6 of the Ohio Constitution, which is the only section being amended. To not allow for a difference between the two would therefore cause problematic contradictions within the text of the Constitution, and this would never be allowed.

I understand that you need to get people to watch your program, and that you're not doing very well in that regard, but it is never okay to be intentionally deceitful and misleading the way you have chosen to be in this article. It's cheap, low-brow scare tactics that are meant to distort people's understanding of an issue in the hopes that they come back to you in order to sort it back out again. You're hurting people's lives, not just getting eight dollars more for a 60 second spot. In fact, this kind of willful disregard for the truth and overt intent to mislead is more than likely a criminal act.

Let me know when to tune in for your public apology.

LOCAL SPONSORS
Thumbnail Image
Tips and Helpful Ideas from local experts on how to choose the right apartment. More Details



SPONSORED LINKS
Entertainment
ADVERTISEMENT

PopularCommented


CONSUMER INFO