The Evolution of Legalized Gambling in Mississippi

1
The Evolution of Legalized Gambling in Mississippi
2
Introduction

• To allow for limited gambling on riverboats
  traveling on the Mississippi river, in 1990 the
  Mississippi legislature passed two laws allowing
  for gaming in counties bordering the Mississippi
  River and the counties along the gulf coast.
• However, the results of the policy change become
  different from the original purpose of the
  legislation.
• Why and How?
• Paper explains it through the advocacy coalition
  framework.

3
Intention of the policy

• The intent of the legislation was to provide a
  small to modest boost to the deteriorating
  tourism industry of Mississippi river
  communities.
• State Senator Bob Dearing of Natchez Original
  bill was introduced to allow gaming on riverboats
  under way, making way on the Mississippi river

4
Results of the policy

• Large industry with 30 casinos that ranks second
  in the country in total square feet gaming space.
• Economic impact total gaming revenue over 2.7
  billion in 2002.
• Tax collection from gambling industry about 10
  percent of total tax revenues collected by the
  state.

5
Initial economic situation

• Tourism industry was just about gone and economic
  conditions deteriorating.
• The example of Tunica County (in 1992)
• The nations poorest county, with about 53 of
  residents living in poverty
• 2,000 jobs available and unemployment rate 13.6
• Per capita income 9,900 and 51.2 of residents
  received food stamps.

6
Economic situation now

• Communities with casinos have experienced rapid
  and dramatic growth in employment, housing starts
  and retail sales
• The example of Tunica County (in 2001)
• Economic prosperity,
• 16,600 jobs available and unemployment rate 3.7
• Per capita income 20,200 and 14.8 of residents
  received food stamps

7
Policy process

• Without lobbing and considering the cultural
  climate of Mississippi, how did gambling become
  legalized and grow to its current status?
• The policy process is explained by applying the
  advocacy coalition framework in a nontraditional
  manner by describing how advocacy groups failed
  to oppose gambling.

8
Legislative process

• Bill was assigned to the Finance Committee in
  1990
• Made it out of the committee and passed the
  Senate
• Then went to the House and was assigned to the
  Ways and Means committee
• Ways and Means committee makes an important
  change to the legislation it removes the words
  under way, making way, thus opening the door to
  Las Vegas style and size casinos
• The bill passes both the House and the Senate
  with a few members realizing the implications.

9
Advocacy Coalition Network

• The bill should have never passed because
  normally, the Mississippi Baptist convention
  (MBC) was able to defeat any gaming proposal.
• The MBC is a powerful advocacy group which
  involves hundreds of Baptist churches.
• During the 1990 session the MBC was organized and
  focused on defeating the lottery and therefore
  missed the gambling bill.
• It was not a failed attempt by the MBC to
  influence policy, moreover, it was the lack of an
  attempt to influence the policy by the MBC that
  allowed for gamblings legislation.

10
Advocacy Coalition Network (Cont.)

• With the emergence of the gaming industry, a
  strong coalition dedicated to maintaining and
  promoting the position of gaming emerged
• The members of the coalition include the
  Mississippi Gaming Association (MGA) along with
  state legislators and local officials
  representing gaming localities.

11
Advocacy Coalition Network (Cont.)

• The MGA uses public awareness campaigns and
  political means to advance their position
• Because of the states economic dependence on
  gaming, legislatures are unwilling to put forth
  policy that would unravel the industry
• The economic impact (tax revenues) is also the
  reason why local officials are intended to
  support the favorable gaming policy.

12
Conclusion

• The gaming advocacy coalition has secured their
  position in the states political realm and thus
  successfully influences gaming policy.
• The opposition to gaming exists but has been
  limited and fairly ineffective
• Casinos continue to enjoy a favorable political
  environment and state enjoys the tax revenues
  generated by the casinos.