MISSOURI WATCH: THE EVOLUTION OF GAMBLING CORRUPTION

Aristophanes was correct, you know, when he declared that man's corruption comes not all at once, but by slow degrees, until total corruption is complete. The same can be said for many of the public and political programs in society today, and perhaps nothing better illustrates this fact more than a report issued the other day by the Missouri Gaming Commission.

This report, funded by the taxpayers of Missouri, presents a compelling case for lifting the present restriction on per-excursion losses that can be sustained by patrons of the state's riverboat casinos. Currently a gambler may presumably lose only $500 each time the riverboat goes up and downstream, and the state commission's report makes a case for ending this restriction. The argument is a validation of the arguments against riverboat gambling when the issues were presented to voters. Despite these reservations, Missourians were assured that the State of Missouri was interested in the protection from large losses by individuals and would not relent in its efforts to provide the $500 loss limit.

Forget the assurances, for they have been abandoned by the one agency that is designed to protect casino gamblers, not only protect them from fraud and skimming but protect them from the debilitating practice of emptying their bank accounts onto the crap tables of riverboats. The commission and its staff have obviously spent a great deal of time and effort to compile their arguments against the $500 loss rule, since totals have been gathered from surrounding states where individuals receive even less protection than they are getting in our state.

The Missouri commission's report lists three principal arguments for lifting the loss provision, starting with one saying the restriction is "anti-consumer" because it limits the ability of the individual gambler to match the resources of the gambling casino. By being able to lose "only" $500 per excursion, the agency argues that this matches a Goliath against a handicapped David. Well, just how much should the gambler be able to risk in an effort to meet the cash resources of the casino? If the limit were $10,000 per excursion, the gambler would still be at a disadvantage, for the truth is, no individual regardless of wealth can match the resources of the house. Better the individual is limited to $500 rather than $5,000 or $50,000.

Because the gaming commission must keep tabs on how much a gambler is losing, the report argues that this makes the whole experience "inconvenient" for individuals, at least some of whom are seriously engaged in trying to lose everything in their bank accounts. This argument is based further on the fact that enforcement officers on the casino are unable to determine accurately whether loss vouchers have been rigged or traded among individuals. In other words, the commission doesn't want to make the prevention of financial disaster an "inconvenient" experience and it is unable to determine under present rules whether an effort is being made to skirt the law's requirements. The logical answers to these absurdities are not hard to come by. First, it's better to cause a slight inconvenience to an individual who is-in the process of going broke than allow him to put his family into bankruptcy court. And if the gaming commission is intellectually unable to facilitate the proper enforcement of the loss limit regulation, then perhaps the state would be better served by those who can resolve a relatively minor enforcement problem.

The commission report says the loss limit law is losing the state money. Gee, think what kind of money average Missourians are losing on riverboat casinos, and we will guarantee the commission that individuals are losing a far greater share than the State of Missouri. It is, after all, the money of individuals, often in the form of weekly paychecks, that's financing not only the fees paid to the state but the fees paid to municipalities, the expenses of operating the riverboats and the huge multi million-dollar profits of the gaming enterprises themselves.

The gaming companies, in an attempt to gain unfair advantages over their competitors, have been buying lawyers, public officials and public opinion ever since they began dreaming of state-sanctioned gambling in Missouri. There is the possibility that these companies have corrupted persons in our state who will face indictments and even prison terms as a result of illegal acts for gambling interests. This is but the first cost of legalizing gambling operations in our state, for others will follow, just as they have in every state where large gaming corporations are permitted to operate under the protection of state government.

The $500 loss limit was placed in the law in a sincere effort to limit the financial danger to average citizens who enjoy the thrill of betting against house odds. It is remarkable, if hardly surprising, that an effort this soon after legalization is being made to end this small degree of protection for individuals.

The reason for the effort, despite the gaming commission's report, is to create still more profit for huge gambling corporations, which already have guaranteed profits as a result of odds they themselves create. The evolution of corruption is always the search for still better odds, still higher profits, still more freedom to operate outside the laws of organized society.

Missourians are now witnessing this evolution, whether they recognize it or not, and as the evolution continues, there will be increased efforts to diminish the state's control over gaming operations and enhance the ability of casinos to set their own rules.

In the meantime, Gov. Carnahan should inform his gaming commission and its paid staff that they are in business to protect the public, not the profits of gaming corporations.

~Jack Stapleton is a Kennett columnist who keeps tabs on Jefferson City.