In covering politics, it often takes a lot of work to connect the dots.
I might suspect one guy is running a stealth campaign attacking another guy. But if the schemer is using shell corporations, LLCs and shady political committees to cover his tracks, it can be hard to prove.
That’s why I really appreciate this year’s campaign behind Amendment 3 — the anti-casinos initiative — because it’s just so blatant. There are no dots to connect. It’s all right there.
New financial reports show that, of the $27 million dumped into the anti-casinos campaign, $26 million comes from Disney and the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
The tribe runs some of the biggest casinos in America, including several in Florida. Obviously, it isn’t anti-gambling. It loves gambling. What it fears is competition.
Similarly, Disney doesn’t want another massive casino resort opening up and giving Florida tourists the option of dropping $250 at a blackjack table instead of $275 on a behind-the-scenes “Backstage Magic” tour.
So these two entities — to their complete, candid credit — are financing this amendment effort to protect their bottom lines.
Sure, the campaign may run ads that promote this amendment as an effort to put “Voters in Charge.” But this campaign isn’t about lofty ideals or altruism. It’s about two massive money-making operations trying to thwart competition — and trying to get you to change your constitution to help them do so.
And it’s brilliant.
I mean that. It is absolutely brilliant.
In fact, I predict it will pass. And if it does, these two entertainment goliaths will have pioneered a path for other goliaths to follow — a blueprint for using the state’s constitutional amendment process to help protect profits.
The amendment sounds great from the time you read its title: “Voter Control of Gambling.”
Who could be opposed to that? Everyone wants voters in control.
And the amendment is relatively straightforward. It says no more casinos could come to Florida without approval from voters — 60 percent of voters, to be precise.
That sounds swell, too. But it also means local communities won’t have local control.
Say, for instance, that citizens of South Florida — where the Seminole Tribe’s Hard Rock Hotel and Casino Hollywood is located — want to invite another casino to town to give the Hard Rock some competition. If this amendment passes, those residents couldn’t do so — unless 60 percent of the residents in the entire state of Florida agree. That includes residents hundreds of miles away.
You can see why the tribe likes this idea. It’s worth $11 million (and counting) to try to squash competition.
Similarly, the $15 million Disney has invested so far is a drop in the bucket if it staves off resort competition down the road.
To its credit, Disney is consistent in its objection to gambling. Unlike the tribe — which runs casinos while teaming up with the “No Casinos” group — Disney is so steadfast in its opposition to gaming that it doesn’t have casinos on its cruise ships, a rarity in the cruise industry.
But Disney is inconsistent when it comes to championing citizens’ voting rights. When activists in Orange County wanted to let voters decide whether the county should have a mandatory sick-time law, Disney pulled every trick in the book to stop voters from having a say. The company used lobbyists, secret texts and ultimately got county commissioners to break their own rules and block the vote … with some of the commissioners breaking the law in the process.
So Disney is all for putting “Voters in Charge” … when the company thinks voters will do its bidding. Otherwise, not so much.
Still, most voters won’t be thinking about old “Textgate” scandals when they step into voting booths this November. All they’ll see is an amendment that asks them if they want to be “in control.”
Amendment supporters say communities aren’t supposed to have local control on these issues under existing law and that they’re simply trying to solidify a casino ban Floridians approved in the past — one that legislators and courts have repeatedly usurped by allowing a new card room here, a race track there and so on.
It’s a fair point. Gambling laws have been a joke in this state. And if you’re just inherently opposed to casinos, I can’t blame you for voting yes on 3.
But I like local control of local issues. More importantly, I dislike deep-pocketed interests trying to jerry-rig the Constitution to thwart competition and protect their bottom lines. So I’m voting no.
smaxwell@orlandosentinel.com