Editorial: Looking for fairness in gaming ads

Federal law prohibits broadcast advertising that promotes gambling -- with some notable exceptions that make the law unfair. Congress has exempted state-run lotteries and Indian casinos, meaning they can run all the television and radio advertising they want while non-Indian casinos have their hands tied.

That unfair playing field may be leveling off, though. Last February the U.S. Supreme Court let stand an appeals court decision that struck down Congress' ban on broadcast advertising by casinos. But since the court didn't make a ruling on the overall issue of the ban's constitutionality it was a limited victory for the gaming industry, since just nine states in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were affected.

A full review, though, finally appears likely. The Supreme Court last week agreed to address the issue in a Louisiana case in which New Orleans broadcasters are seeking to overturn the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the ban on casino ads.

Despite any noble intent to prevent broadcast ads from luring people who otherwise wouldn't gamble, the existing law's inequities make it unconstitutional. Do any advocates of a ban sincerely believe that gambling at an Indian casino is benign while gambling at a Las Vegas casino is harmful?

And what about state lotteries? Compared to casino ads, some state lottery ads are unconscionable, offering false hope to the poor who should never be encouraged to gamble, least of all by state government.

The Justice Department, which supports the ban, would have a much stronger argument about the social and economic ills stemming from gambling if state lotteries and Indian casinos were included in the ban. Don't expect that to happen anytime soon, considering the clout the states and tribes possess. It will be up to the Supreme Court to restore equity and strike down this law.

archive