Special Interest Groups Spending Millions on Amendment 3 in FL

Amendment 3 Florida

A question for anyone reading this post from Florida right now: Have you just about had your fill of political ads urging you to vote yes or no on Amendment 3? If so, you can thank well-funded special interests on both sides of the debate that have thrown millions into advertising in an effort to sway voters ahead of the November election.

Amendment 3 will appear on the November ballot in Florida and will give voters two choices:

  • Yes: A yes vote means any further expansions of gambling in Florida must be approved by 60% of the voters. In other words, a yes vote is a vote to slow down and possibly prevent any further expansion of gambling in Florida.
  • No: A no vote means Amendment 3 will be rejected and current gaming laws will remain as they are.

An eclectic cast of characters with deep pockets have shown up in recent weeks to back each side of the issue in an effort to sway voters down the final stretch before the November election. Some of those backing the amendment are entirely predictable, but others have been surprising. So today, we’re going to be looking at the big money behind Amendment 3.

The Cast of Characters Behind Amendment 3

Large sums of money have already come in on both sides, but those supporting the “yes” vote have spent significantly more than those supporting the “no” vote. Gaming and business interests on both sides of the funding campaign have every reason to back or support the measure as they see it critical to either maintaining the status quo or further restricting competitors from moving in on the Florida gaming market.

The Seminole Tribe of Florida: Yes

Some of the large players behind the Amendment 3 effort aren’t all that surprising. For instance, the Seminole Tribe has contributed heavily to the “yes” campaign. According to Ballotpedia, the Seminoles have contributed nearly $17 million to date.

This is completely expected considering the Seminoles hold a state-approved monopoly over blackjack, craps and roulette and is also the only group authorized to operate slot machines outside of Miami-Dade and Broward counties.

Backing Amendment 3 just makes sense for the Seminoles. They’re doing just fine as the only slots provider outside the southeastern tip of Florida and the only group allowed to run certain table games. If Amendment 3 passes, it will become even harder for legislators to approve new gambling initiatives that could potentially open the doors to increased competition.

Disney Worldwide Services, Inc.: Yes

Interestingly, Disney has contributed even more money to the Amendment 3 campaign. Disney has contributed nearly $20 million to the “yes” campaign to continue the family-friendly company’s longstanding tradition of opposing gambling.

Of course, Disney also has financial incentives to oppose all gambling expansion in Florida, which would compete with Disney for entertainment dollars.

Disney spokeswoman Jacquee Wahler put it this way:

“Amendment 3 returns that decision to Florida voters and enables them to have the final say on this issue. We oppose the expansion of casino gambling in Florida because it risks our state’s reputation as a family-friendly destination.”

No Casinos, Inc.: Yes

No Casinos was formed in 1978 by then-governor Reubin Askew and is occasionally reactivated to opposed gambling expansion efforts in Florida. So far, No Casinos has contributed more than $850,000 in support of Amendment 3.

Magic City Casino: No

Magic City Casino parent company West Flagler Associates has raised significant sums for two political action committees: Citizens for the Truth About Amendment 3 and Vote NO on 3.

Of the major gaming interests that have come out against Amendment 3, Magic City Casino has perhaps the greatest interest in opposing the amendment with slots, electronic table games, a poker room and jai-alai betting. If Florida is going to expand gambling in the future, you can bet Magic City Casino will be right in the mix of it.

Melbourne Greyhound Park: No

Melbourne Greyhound Park has put up about $145,000 for the “no” campaign, with all of that money going to a political action committee called Don’t Lose Your Control. It’s unclear how the park and that PAC are connected, but the Florida Division of Elections database shows Melbourne Park has been the only contributor to Don’t Lose Your Control.

With poker, live racing and parimutuel betting, Melbourne Greyhound Park has an obvious interest in seeing Amendment 3 defeated. Should Amendment 3 pass, it will only make it that much harder for the track to ever expand its gaming options in the future.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Miami Dolphins: No

Interestingly, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Miami Dolphins have also contributed over a million dollars to the Citizens for the Truth About Amendment 3 campaign.

Seeing pro NFL teams contribute to an expanded gambling effort is still strange to see considering the NFL’s long history of being anti-gambling, but the position makes sense now that the Supreme Court has legalized sports betting. The Dolphins and Bucs actually stand to make a lot of money from sports betting depending on the type of legislation Florida enacts when (if) it legalizes sports betting.

Other Contributors to Citizens for the Truth About Amendment 3

Florida PAC records posted online show most gaming entities with a property or an interest in Florida have contributed something to the fight against Amendment 3. Jacksonville Greyhound Racing, the St. Petersburg Kennel Club, MGM Resorts International, Hialeah Park and more have all donated serious sums of money.

The PAC has even received contributions totaling $200,000 from FanDuel and DraftKings, both of whom stand to benefit if Florida ever legalizes online sports betting or gambling.

What the Major Florida Newspapers Suggest for Amendment 3

Florida Today provided a nice roundup of six major newspapers that have chimed in on Amendment 3. Five newspapers have suggested voters vote NO on Amendment 3, and one has taken no position.

The Pensacola News Journal has taken no stance while Florida Today, TCPalm, Naples Daily News, Fort Meyers News-Press and the Tallahassee Democrat have all taken the “no” position.

Each newspaper has explained the reasoning for its position and there have been two recurring themes in their justifications:

  1. The Amendment 3 campaign is backed mostly by Disney and the Seminole Tribe, who both have an interest in keeping entertainment dollars right where they are. Disney would rather not see entertainment money go elsewhere, and the Seminoles enjoy their monopoly status over certain forms of gaming. In other words, Amendment 3 seems anticompetitive in nature.
  2. Amendment 3 sounds like a way to give voters control, but what it would actually do is take that decision away from locals and allow the entire state to decide where gaming may be expanded. As several newspapers have noted, any casino or business wanting to expand its gaming options would have to collect hundreds of thousands of signatures for a ballot initiative and then take the issue to a statewide vote, which would allow people in one part of the state to decide whether a gaming facility can open in another part of the state.

Similar Posts