Majority Statement in Opposition

Position taken by 17 of 24 panelists

We, 17 members of the Citizens’ Initiative Review, oppose Ballot Measure 82 for the following reasons:

(click to view)

  • Measure 82 changes the Oregon constitution. If this measure passes it will allow more outside influence on gambling within the state. The backers who wrote this measure stand to gain significant profits by changing the Oregon constitution.
  • The social impact to the overall culture and values of Oregon are at risk with the added casinos that Measure 82 will allow.
  • Changing the Oregon state constitution, with no clear economic benefit to Oregonians, is not worth the possible negative effects to our citizens.
  • According to local experts more than 70,000 adult Oregonians have problems with gambling. Our concern is that an increase of private casinos will increase addictions to gambling, alcohol and drugs.
  • Measure 82 will negatively impact the revenue generated by tribal casinos traditionally used to support tribal communities, nearby rural areas, non-profits and charitable organizations throughout Oregon.
  • Small businesses near private casinos could stand to lose up to 46% of Video Lottery Terminal revenue on average. We believe this loss would have a substantial impact on businesses.
  • If Measure 83 passes, the proposed private casino in Multnomah County will negatively impact surrounding communities who have a State vote, but not a local vote. Our concerns are traffic congestion and the possible increase in crime.
  • Sustained funding for Oregon education shouldn’t be dependent upon our citizens’ private casino gambling losses.

Minority Statement in Support

Position taken by 7 of 24 panelists

We, 7 members of the Citizens’ Initiative Review, support Ballot Measure 82 for the following reasons:

(click to view)

  • Measure 82 changes the Oregon constitution to allow the people of Oregon to decide whether they want private casinos and allows the local communities to vote for or against the measure even if voters approve a casino in a statewide election.
  • The current funding structure for K-12 schools in Oregon is not sufficient. Private casinos may provide an additional revenue source for education.
  • Private casino construction and operations will result in additional well-paying jobs and property taxes for the local community.
  • Research has shown the existence of a casino in a community does not in and of itself increase gambling behavior and does not cause the behavioral problems that many fear.
  • A casino is a new tourist attraction and may revitalize the surrounding areas.
  • The casino must be developed in an incorporated city and must be owned and operated by an Oregon tax-paying corporation.
  • If measure 83 passes and the voters of Wood Village approve the proposed casino, net revenue to State and local governments are estimated to be $32 million to $54 million annually to be divided amongst: *
    • Public schools
    • Job creation
    • Oregon tribes
    • Problem gambling programs
    • Local and state police
    • City of Wood Village
    • Adjacent cities
    • Parks and natural resources

*Refer to section 3 of Ballot Measure 83

Key Findings

The following are statements about the measure and the number of panelists who agree with each statement.

(click to view)

  • Economists disagree on the long term economic impact of private casinos in Oregon. (22)
  • For every dollar of revenue from Video Lottery Terminals, about 65 cents goes to the State lottery. In addition, under Measure 82, for every dollar of revenue produced by private casinos, 25 cents would go to the State lottery. (24)
  • Private casinos could negatively affect the gaming revenues of the tribal casinos and the communities they support. (20)
  • The Oregon Lottery and businesses with Oregon Video Lottery Terminals that are located within a close proximity of a private casino would likely lose money. (23)
  • According to the “Measure 82 Estimate of Financial Impact” Measure 82 will have an unknown impact on state revenue, however, 25% of a private casino’s adjusted gross revenue will be given to the State of Oregon for specified purposes. (22)
  • In Oregon, the state government has compacts with all nine Tribal governments, however, those agreements do not prohibit private casinos. (24)

Additional Considerations

The following are statements about the subject matter or fiscal considerations related to the measure and the number of panelists who agree with each statement.

(click to view)

  • If Measure 83 passes, approximately 2,000 full-time jobs with benefits may be created; however, jobs could be lost at tribal casinos and small businesses as well. (22)

Read the Full Results for Measure 82

Majority Statement in Support

Position taken by 19 of 24 panelists

We, 19 members of the Citizens’ Initiative Review, support Ballot Measure 85 for the following reasons:

(click to view)

  • Measure 85 does not affect the personal “kicker” and does not increase personal or corporate taxes.
  • There is broad bipartisan agreement that the corporate “kicker” is not good public policy. It is unreasonable to refund legally due taxes to corporations as a result of inaccurate revenue projections. We believe Measure 85 is an improvement to current policy.
  • Measure 85 would keep the corporate “kicker” dollars in the Oregon economy instead of issuing tax credits to corporations headquartered out of state.
  • The intent of this measure is for 100% of the “kicker” to go to K-12 education. Despite the potential for General Funds to be redirected, the wording in the measure specifies the funding would be in addition to and not replace current education funds.
  • The K-12 budget is declining due to inflation, the funding of other services, and increased costs. The passage of Measure 85 would demonstrate Oregon’s commitment to improving education.
  • Oregonians and Oregon businesses benefit from keeping money in the state.

Minority Statement in Opposition

Position taken by 5 of 24 panelists

We, 5 members of the Citizens’ Initiative Review, oppose Ballot Measure 85 for the following reasons:

(click to view)

  • As written, Measure 85 cannot assure additional funding for K-12 and may give the public the perception that tax policy and K-12 school funding issues have been solved thus inhibiting the discussion for future, comprehensive budget reform. The Legislature retains control and discretion of the General Fund.
  • Measure 85 removes the flexibility to place corporate kicker funds into a rainy day or other reserve fund for future use.
  • Due to the history of infrequent Kicker payouts, they are too random and cannot be considered as a reliable source of income.
  • Over a 30 year period, Oregon Legislators have, on average, spent 99% of the available General Funds. Demonstrating an inability to prepare for budget shortfalls.
  • Measure 85 seeks to change the Oregon constitution and should not be passed without serious consideration. This measure removes the flexibility to use the corporate kicker funds where they are most needed at the time of the distribution. We feel that this measure creates an illusion that it is “fixing” the current K-12 economic situation in Oregon. Having spent the majority of the available general funds over the last three decades the Legislature has demonstrated that “if you send it, they will spend it.” We feel that real reform is the answer and Measure 85 does not “measure” up.

Key Findings

The following are statements about the measure and the number of panelists who agree with each statement.

(click to view)

  • The corporate “kicker” funds are not guaranteed to increase K-12 funding because of the Legislature’s discretionary spending of the General Fund. This ballot measure earmarks the corporate “kicker” to fund K-12 education, but does not prevent the redirecting of current funding resources to other non-education budgets. (24)
  • The corporate “kicker” has had no effect on the stability of Oregon revenue due to its unreliability. (22)
  • The corporate “kicker” has the potential to stabilize State spending by introducing unexpected revenues to fill in funding gaps (Oregon Office of Economic Analysis). (24)
  • There is no evidence that the corporate “kicker” benefits or harms corporations. (19)

Additional Considerations

The following are statements about the subject matter or fiscal considerations related to the measure and the number of panelists who agree with each statement.

(click to view)

  • The corporate “kicker” has been triggered 8 times over the past 16 budget periods making it an unreliable source of school funding. (24)
  • Oregon tax revenues vary greatly in each budget cycle making future revenue predictions difficult. (23)
  • Oregon Legislators have spent, on average, 99% of the available General Fund monies each budget cycle (General Fund Budget History). (21)
  • Corporate businesses learn about the “kicker” after their operating period, therefore it has no effect on business decisions (Sierra Institute of Applied Economics). (18)
  • Corporate businesses do not expect or depend on corporate “kicker” credits. (22)
  • Since 2003, the percentage of the General Fund spent on K-12 education has changed from 44.8% to the current 39.1%. (23)

Read the Full Results for Measure 85

Top