"Facing South Florida" with Jim DeFede.
Good morning. I'm Jim DeFede.
And welcome to facing South Florida.
On Monday, the Florida legislature
will begin a special session to consider an agreement
with the Seminole tribe of Florida
that would expand gambling across the state
in ways I don't think the public fully understands.
So one of the things I want to do this morning
is break down what critics say
is the largest expansion of gambling in the state's history.
Now, under this deal, the Seminole will be allowed
to add craps and roulette to their existing casinos.
But even more consequential, under this agreement
you will be able to bet on sporting events
with the Seminole now acting as your bookie
and in return, the state will be guaranteed
$500 million a year for five years.
Think about that for a second.
The tribe would now have the exclusive right
to sports betting in Florida
and I will be able to make a bet
anywhere in this state on my phone.
And here's where it gets tricky, because under the law
the Seminole are only allowed to offer gambling
on tribal land.
This was one of the major selling points
for the original agreement with the Seminole
more than a decade ago, that gambling will be limited
to a handful of locations across the state.
But under this deal,
my phone essentially becomes the tribal casino.
I can place a bet anywhere I want in Florida
as long as the server that my phone is communicating with
is located on tribal land.
But wait, there's more. After this deal is approved,
the state and the Seminole tribe
will begin negotiating another deal
which would allow slot machines and poker
and other games on my phone and on my computer
as long as the server for those games is on tribal land.
Now, at this point, it's worth remembering that in 2018
nearly 72% of four radians passed amendment three
which says voters have the exclusive right to decide
whether to authorize casino gambling
in the state of Florida.
Lawmakers, however, have no plans of placing this deal
in front of voters to hear what they have to say.
As we get ready for the session,
I spoke to John Sowinski,
president of No Casinos who pushed amendment three
and has been arguing against casino gambling for years.
What's your impression
of the deal that the governor has struck with the Seminole?
Well, it's a bad deal because it expands gambling
throughout Florida, both on and off of tribal lands.
One of the benefits of a compact between states and tribes
is the opportunity to confine gambling
to specific geographic areas, and that's tribal lands.
This compact not only blows the lid on all of that
by relying on this fantasy, that if the bedding occurs
on a mobile device but the file server is on tribal lands
that the gambling is taking place on tribal lands.
This defies not only common sense
but federal law and the state constitution.
The argument in favor of this
is that gambling is already pretty much
here in the state of Florida.
You have it in lots of different options,
lots of different forms around the state already.
And this is a way of generating a lot of money for the state
at a time when the state can use those dollars.
I mean, the tribe is guaranteeing
two and a half billion dollars minimum
over the next five years. Doesn't that make it worth it?
No, there are a couple of things.
One Jim, any independent economic analysis
and even the state's own regular revenue estimators
have looked at the question of gambling revenues.
And what they have found is that money spent gambling
whether it be on a mobile device or in a casino
is money not spent somewhere else in the economy,
usually at a restaurant or a bar or a movie theater
or a tourist attraction or whatever the case may be.
And so, this is not new money into the economy
and it's not new money into state coffers.
And it comes with a host of social costs.
We live in a society that when people become addicted
and become needy, that we as society step forward
and fill the gap.
And so we believe it would end up
actually costing taxpayers money because of addiction
that would go on the rise.
Now, the piece of this that's interesting
is both the sports betting piece
and there is buried in the text of the compact
in the miscellaneous section at the very end,
a requirement that the state enter into negotiations
within 36 months with the tribe for full online e-betting,
for any casino game on a mobile device,
essentially turning any every cell phone
into a slot machine.
And where we have a lot of mobile betting
in places where it is legal
and back to your question about, gosh, we got it going on.
It's not legal in a lot of circumstances,
well, what they find with gambling
is that the more legal gambling that there is
the more illegal gambling that there is.
And that has an effect on kids
to the point that more than half of 11 to 16 year olds
in England, I point out in England
'cause they're one of the very few mature markets
with this form of props betting and sports betting
where you're not just betting on,
it's the Dolphins by seven,
you're betting on is the next play from scrimmage
going to be a handoff or a pass.
Is Titre going to sink the putt in one stroke or two?
You know, these sorts of things get constantly remarketed
and for that reason are very very addictive
and kids are getting a hold of it and using it.
It's creating big problems in England.
And we don't want those problems here in Florida.
Well, let me go back to something you said earlier,
'cause it seems counterintuitive to me.
If I have the ability to gamble legally through my phone,
or by placing a bet at a casino,
why would I then go to an illegal bookie instead
to do the same thing?
So doesn't it take it from, you know
a shady back room and brings it into an area
that could now be regulated?
You will now have a gaming commission,
you will have rules in place.
Wouldn't people be better served
by bringing it out into the open?
In certain circumstances,
certain people would make the shift from what they're doing
that's not legal now to means that we're legal.
But what it does is it grows a whole other market
for the illegal, for two reasons.
One, the under-age better is not going to be allowed
into the, it's going to be, but it would be better policed
one would hope in the legal form
than it would be in the illegal form.
So that's one thing.
And the other thing is that people seek better odds
from less, the more people that get involved with gambling
they enjoy it a lot and they say,
"Hey, this other site has better odds
than does the regulated side."
And they end up there as well.
But I've yet to see a study that doesn't demonstrate
that where you elevate the amount of legal gambling
you also elevate the amount of illegal gambling.
So let's now turn to the issue
of whether or not voters should have a say in this.
I spoke last week to Senate president, Wilton Simpson.
He says that it's his understanding
that the public does not need to vote on this.
He says he's not a lawyer
but he knows that there are views on both sides
but that he's persuaded by those who believe
that it is not necessary to have this compact
go before voters, that this is the province of the governor
and the state legislature.
You disagree. Why?
Sure. There's a couple of reasons.
One, our constitution,
we wrote amendment three to be unequivocal.
It says that voters have,
the people of Florida, the voters of Florida
have the exclusive right to legalize casino gambling
in the state.
The legislature does not even have the authority
to propose an expansion of casino gambling onto the ballot.
It has to be put to the ballot by citizen initiative.
Now, those who say that the compact
does not trigger amendment three and does not fall under it,
they're wrong for two reasons.
Number one is that they rely on this fiction
that if the gambling is happening
and it'd be happening at your home or my office,
or wherever in Florida it may be,
then legally it's happening on tribal lands
if the file server that is serving that up
is on tribal lands. That's incorrect.
If the legislature goes ahead and approves this compact
does it, talk to me about what next steps are.
Is one of the steps that has to be taken
that it has to go to the Bureau of Indian Affairs?
Does it have to be approved at Washington
on that level by the interior secretary as well?
That is correct. That is correct.
It would have to be approved by the federal government
Bureau of Indian Affairs department of interior.
So the first step would be challenging it in Washington
but do you also envision that if the legislature
and it seems all but certain
that the legislature is going to approve this compact.
I've sensed no real resistance among legislators
about moving forward with this.
So if the legislature approves it,
do you first challenge in Washington
or do you also simultaneously file a lawsuit
and is it state or federal court
to try to block the compact?
I think there are parallel paths.
It certainly violates amendment three
by not giving voters control of gambling
both on and off of tribal lands.
I have deep respect for the rights of tribal nations
to operate what agora, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act says
that they can operate on tribal lands on the reservation.
But the minute we try and say
that anywhere is considered tribal lands
because of a connection in cyberspace
that opens the door to anything and everything.
And if the history of gambling in Florida
teaches us anything, it's that where voters
or legislators have given an inch
gambling interests have taken a mile.
And this leaves so many doors open.
It is in and of itself,
the biggest expansion of gambling in Florida history.
One gambling analyst said it would have
Florida rivaling Nevada and Macau, China
for the amount of gambling that takes place in the state.
I don't think anybody wants to remake our state
into Nevada or Macau.
But the other thing is that if you look at this
from the quality of the deal financially
the original compact in 2010 paid the state
$350 million a year.
All the tribe got was slot machines and blackjack
and the blackjack was only
at a couple of facilities of theirs.
And now with this, it adds crabs, it adds roulette,
it adds sports betting on the reservation,
it adds sports betting off the reservation
and it adds a guarantee of negotiations
for full online e-betting within three years.
And the tribe goes from paying 350 million to 500 million.
And the best I can see,
it's an exponential increase in gambling
and a marginal increase in return.
So maybe 100%, 200%, 300% increase in gambling
and the state gets 30% more revenue?
Not a good deal, not a good deal.
So then why do you think governor DeSantis moved forward
with this deal?
I think that there is in Tallahassee,
there's a desire to have a deal.
I think in Tallahassee, Tallahassee is a place
where when something has been kicked around so long
and in the case of a Seminole compact
there's been discussions dating back to 2015
on this matter and before
that everyone who's an office holder looks and says,
"Those folks before me couldn't get it done,
but by golly, I can get it done."
So there's virtue in Tallahassee of getting a deal done
even if it's not a particularly good deal.
You recently did a poll
across the state of Florida on the compact.
Tell me what you found.
Sure.
What we found was number one, is that we asked people
do we have too much gambling in Florida,
too little gambling in Florida
or do we have an appropriate amount of gambling?
And a plurality about 44% said that we had
an appropriate amount of gambling.
Too little gambling was 16%, too much gambling was 13%.
That's hardly a mandate for action
or any expansion of gambling,
much less a major one that is represented in this compact.
The other thing that we found was that 76% of Florida voters
believe that this compact should be decided by voters
not politicians in Tallahassee.
We'll be right back to discuss
Robert Runcie's big payday when we return.