New Hampshire recently adopted a
state-run sweepstakes rather than
impose new taxes, and other states
are considering a similar step;
here are the pros and cons
and a chance to voice your opinion
GOOD
R MP?
would be irresponsible to ignore a
measure he considers both popular
and fair.
But is it moral?
Protestant ministers overwhelm
ingly opposed the measure. The Rev.
Hartley T. Grandin, executive direc
tor of the New Hampshire council of
churches, said the sweeps "put New
Hampshire in front in the practice
of fiscal irresponsibility."
Episcopal Bishop Charles F. Hall
described the measure as a "cheap
expedient that would tarnish" the
state's good reputation.
William loeb, publisher and
president of the Manchester
(N.H.) Union Leader, contends that
there is nothing immoral about "vol
untary taxation" which includes
levies on liquor, horse racing, and to
bacco. "No one has to go to the track
and bet. No one has to smoke tobac
co. No one has to drink. Betting at
tracks, smoking, or drinking are not
necessities of life . . .
"But how do those who oppose the
sweepstakes propose to raise this
money? By an involuntary forced
tax, of course either a sales tax,
an income tax, or some other kind
of levy that people will have to pay,
even though it will hurt them dread
fully to do so."
Besides, sweepstakes defenders ask,
is gambling itself "immoral"? Lot
teries are common in Europe. There's
the famous Irish Sweepstakes, for
example, and lotteries also are held
throughout Scandinavia, in France,
Austria, Spain, and Italy. Our own
forefathers tried to finance the
American Revolution with a lottery.
George Washington was an inveter
ate ticket buyer. When Thomas Jef
ferson was in financial straits, he
proposed a lottery on part of his
Monticello estate.
Ah! sweepstakes opponents ex
claim. Glad you brought up history
let's look at lottery history in the
U. S. Many states had lotteries in
the 1800s but ended them because
they caused corruption. Louisiana is
the most famous case. Lottery offi
cials there grew so powerful they
controlled the police, the legisla
ture, and a vice syndicate. Federal
regulations had to be enacted to free
the state of its sweepstakes masters.
True, but so what? ask the pro
ponents. Louisiana franchised private
operators to run its lotteries. Under
the New Hampshire setup, a governor-appointed
board would run the
sweepstakes and be answerable to
state authorities.
AND, proponents add, what about
. the corruption caused by illegal
gambling? Federal authorities be
lieve that $7 billion annually is wa
gered illegally in this country.
This money helps racketeers to
buy into legitimate corporations. It
helps them finance a growing narcot
ics trade and loan-shark businesses.
Legal lotteries siphon off some of this
corrupting money and channel it into
constructive uses.
Publisher Loeb recalls that as a
trustee of his church he once asked
his minister if he would accept a con
tribution from a gambling club. The
minister replied, "Why, of course!
It's been in the devil's hand long
enough. It's time that we put it to
good use."
But aren't lotteries a form of
"soak-the-poor" taxes?
That's what opponents of the
sweepstakes claim. Those who can
least afford to gamble are most
tempted by a lottery and its promise
of a "pot of gold." Gambling investi
gations prove that the numbers rack
et and similar types of lotteries are
most popular in economically de
pressed neighborhoods; the well-to-do
gamble at clubs or on trips to
Nevada, the Riviera, or swank race
tracks. The opponents claim, there
fore, that the rich will get out of
paying added taxes by shifting the
fiscal burden to those who are least
able to shoulder it.
Backers of the sweeps have argu
ments against all these points. First,
they believe that poor people who in
sist on wagering seek a form of
gambling with a quicker payoff than
lotteries. Secondly, they point out
that the same persons who deride
lotteries often advocate a sales tax
as an alternative, and they ask: "Is
a sales tax any easier on the poor?
The poor pay as much tax on bread,
milk, and other necessities of life as
the rich man. At least under a lot
tery, the poor have the option of not
paying the tax."
ARE LOTTERIES LEGAL?
L That is the crucial question of
the future. Ministers have threat
ened to test New Hampshire's law in
the state courts. But interstate legal
problems may present New Hamp
shire with an even greater headache.
The state has only about 350,000 resi
dents eligible to buy sweeps tickets
(you must be 21 or over), hardly
enough to raise a net profit of $4
million. Obviously, the state expects
most of its money to come from out-of-staters.
Yet New Hampshire cannot mail
tickets to out-of-state buyers because
it is against Federal postal regula
tions. Its newspapers cannot carry
information about the lottery if they
are to be mailed; even its radio sta
tions are hamstrung by law from
promoting the lottery. Both Federal
and state officials in the New Eng
land area have promised to prosecute
any person carrying lottery tickets
across state lines. And in Washing
ton, D.C., there looms Attorney Gen
eral Robert Kennedy, a relentless foe
of gambling. These problems lead
Reverend Grandin to say: "I only
hope the inherent difficulties and pit
falls of a state-operated sweepstakes
will become so apparent that it will
never be put into operation."
BUT LOTTERY backers are equally
hopeful that these problems can
be solved. Attorney General Kennedy
has never prosecuted individual hold
ers of Irish sweeps tickets, for ex
ample. Governor King has suggested
that out-of-staters could visit New
Hampshire, buy a lottery ticket, and
deposit it with the state. And even if
they did carry the ticket across state
lines, how could authorities set up
roadblocks and search travelers with
out acting unconstitutionally?
These are some of the lottery argu
ments that made New Hampshire a
hot spot during the past cold winter.
And they are bound to steam up tem
pers across the land as other states
consider adopting a lottery as a pos
sible solution to their growing finan
cial problems. How do you feel about
it? How would you vote on the ques
tion of a legalized lottery if your
state ever considers the possibility
of following the example set by New
Hampshire?
Family Weekly. August 25, 1963
5