Peter SchorschEconomics textbooks talk about “rent seeking” — the practice of obtaining benefits through the political arena.
Typically, “rents” are gained via subsidies or tariffs. Today in Florida, though, the best example of rent seeking is via regulation — rules that benefit an industry by hampering its competitors. Much of the time these efforts are obvious to political observers, but sometimes, motivations seem unclear.
For example, take a look at SB 1130 and HB 547.
These bills, sponsored by Sen. Garrett Richter and Rep. Halsey Beshears, would permit the Department of Lottery to authorize “point-of-sale” terminals — such as at gas pumps — for the sale of lotto tickets. The program would have strict limits and the model has been vetted and approved by the National Association of Problem Gambling. Most importantly, these terminals would raise considerable revenue for Florida’s educational system without raising taxes.
How so, you ask?
Because offering the sale of Florida Lotto tickets at the pump diversifies the player base by reaching a higher-end, occasional lottery consumer. Translation: soccer moms.
The terminals would require age verification through driver license swipes and would incorporate daily play limits to promote responsible play.
The concept has been a big revenue generator in Minnesota, and Missouri is in the process of implementing it too.
But Minnesota and Missouri don’t have a Seminole Tribe of Florida protecting its gaming turf and throwing up smoke screens that wrongly suggest point-of-sale lotto transactions would violate the Seminole Compact and cost the state some $172 million in revenue sharing. The Seminole Tribe is opposing Richter and Beshears’ bills, which given the nature and timing of the measure is a curious strategy.
The Seminole Tribe of Florida has a relative monopoly on gaming in Florida. But its turf is vulnerable due to a far greater threat than gas pump lotto sales. With the compact set to expire in mid-2015 and destination resorts eager to swoop in, why would the Seminole Tribe expend political capital to kill the lotto legislation, which would have almost no impact on Seminole gambling revenues?
If this is “rent seeking,” it is a less rational variety.
It would seem that getting on the side of Florida’s Lottery would be a far better strategy than alienating the only gaming interest in the state that has no interest in running tables or slots.
So much for textbook terminology.
Peter Schorsch is a political consultant and new media publisher based in St. Petersburg. Column courtesy of Context Florida.
