Two camps funding most of casino ad campaigns

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- In politics, as in business, an observer can sometimes follow the money to reveal the reason for certain policies or proposals.

The most recent example appears to be proposed Constitutional Amendment 1, which on the Aug. 3 ballot will pose the question of whether to authorize a casino in Rockaway Beach, a tiny community not far from the entertainment mecca of Branson.

Supporters are running TV ads talking about a "riverboat" as a way to revitalize a community, create jobs, even open a child-care center. Opponents are countering with ads suggesting that approving the casino could lead to slot machines in grocery stores and gambling addicts on welfare.

Yet who are these supporters and opponents?

The pro-casino group makes no mention of its aim in its name, calling itself Missourians for Economic Opportunity. Neither does the anti-casino group, which calls itself Show Me You Care.

Behind the creative commercials and names, a battle is being fought for a share of the lucrative Branson-area tourism market. More than 7 million people visit Branson each year, spending about $1.7 billion.

State campaign finance reports show almost all the money raised for the casino campaigns -- a combined total of almost $12 million and climbing -- comes from two extremely interested parties: the would-be owner of the casino, Springfield trucking magnate Robert Low of New Prime Inc.; and the current owner of Branson's Silver Dollar City amusement park, Peter Herschend and his family.

New Prime has contributed more than $9.8 million of the $10.6 million raised by the pro-casino campaign, with the rest coming from would-be casino operator Southwest Casino and Hotel Corp., of Minneapolis.

Herschend Family Entertainment Corp., Silver Dollar City and various Herschend family members contributed all $1.3 million reported by the anti-casino campaign for the quarter ending June 30.

Although Herschend's campaign focuses on the casino's potential to ruin the family-friendly perception of Branson, the fund-raising totals also reveal a basic element of capitalism, said Richard Rawlins, chairman of the Finance, Economics and International Business Department at Missouri Southern State University in Joplin.

"To me, it's got to come down to the bottom line," Rawlins said. The opponents, namely the Herschends, "stand to lose money. They must feel they stand to lose money, or they wouldn't be putting a million dollars in there."

More to gain

If the campaign contributions are an indication, then the casino's would-be owners have a lot more to gain than its opponents have to lose.

Indeed, the least that any of Missouri's current 11 casinos took in was $25 million in adjusted gross revenue during the fiscal year that ended June 30. Several took in than $200 million.

"I can see easily why the backers of the casino would spend $5 million to $10 million in order to get the thing passed and get it put in there. That's a no-brainer," Rawlins said. The principle is simple: "Invest a million to return several million."

Political scientist George Connor, of Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield, concurs about the financial incentives surrounding the ballot measure. But he doesn't discount Herschend's stated motivation of trying to preserve Branson's family atmosphere -- something he promotes at his amusement parks.

"In one sense, it's hard not to believe him, because he has been at the forefront of Republican, conservative values in that region for some time," said Connor. Still, "you cannot overlook the significant negative potential economic impact that the casino would have on his business interests."

Casino supporters say it doesn't have to be a win-lose proposition. They contend a casino would expand Branson's pool of tourists, not simply shuffle them to different attractions.

Since the June 30 deadline for campaign finance reporting, Herschend said other Branson area businesses have chipped into the anti-casino cause with contributions large and small. And he hopes to get more.

Pass or fail, the proposed constitutional amendment may already have helped spur Missouri's economy. That's because much of the multimillion-dollar blitz has been spent with Missouri firms, which employ people, who may take a vacation to Branson someday.