Casinos and Cloning

Commentary by Jim Day, Publisher

St. Louis MetroVoice

What do casinos and cloning human embryos have in common? The casual observer would say they’re miles apart. However, if you live in Missouri you just might find something important that ties the two together.

Remember how casinos made their way into the “Show Me State” with promises of curing our state’s education budget problems? Remember all the TV ads promoting gambling as entertainment on nostalgic paddle wheelers cruising down the Mississippi. Do you remember the commercials promising to help education by hiring new teachers, buying computers and strengthening math and science courses? What about the teacher who was concerned that our children’s education would suffer if we didn’t vote “Yes” on Amendment 6? (That was the Constitutional Amendment which brought us casino gambling.)

Less than a hand full of casino companies poured millions upon millions of dollars into TV and print ads as well as political campaigns to essentially buy their way into Missouri. And what were the results? Try to find a casino boat that cruises down a river in Missouri. You won’t find one – they’re all in oversized bathtubs. And what happened to all that extra money for education that was promised? Perhaps it was somehow misplaced because every time you turn around school districts are asking for a tax increase.

What did the citizens of Missouri gain by approving Amendment 6 in 1994? How about some 18,000 slot machines which rake in millions upon millions of dollars that are sent out of state, increases in personal bankruptcies, robberies, embezzlements, 100,000 new seriously addicted gamblers, a lot of broken homes and several suicides...not to mention the continual pleas for tax increases from school districts. Talk about a ‘bait and switch’, you might call this “The Great Missouri Bait and Switch.”

That’s your first clue.

Clue Two

Now, let’s fast forward to today and Amendment 2 – the Stem Cell “Cures” Amendment which will be on the November 7th ballot. Here comes yet another “cure” with promises being portrayed that really tear at your heart. Only this time there’s no hint of entertainment, only serious talk about finding cures for life’s most difficult illnesses. More TV has already been used to promote Amendment 2 than most campaigns use in total.

That’s your second clue.

Count the Costs

With respect to both Amendment 6 and Amendment 2 there was and is a cost (make that costs) to be counted. I think we can all agree that the cost of Amendment 6 came in the form of a dramatic increase in the number of gambling addicts, broken families and education budgets that are still in trouble. In 2006 what will be the cost if Amendment 2 passes?

Naturally, we aren’t hearing about the costs from the proponents of Amendment 2, but experts from a number of fields are warning us to read the fine print. What we know so far is the fact that Amendment 2 was challenged in court over its deceptive and misleading language. Despite the court’s ruling that the Amendment was ‘OK as written’, the fact remains that should Amendment 2 pass (and you can count these as costs) it will: legalize human cloning in Missouri which will lead to who knows what; result in the destruction of countless human embryos (human beings); put thousands of women at risk of serious injury or death as researchers seek their embryos for experimentation; prevent any future legislative action to try to limit or control anything or anyone dealing with stem cell research; and opens the door to having the citizens of Missouri foot the bill with their tax dollars.

Two More Commonalities

Now that we’ve talked a little about the costs of both Amendments, let’s consider two other common elements of importance connecting Amendment 6 and Amendment 2.

First, Amendment 6 was paid for by a handful of extremely wealthy casino companies. These out of state companies knew that they stood to regain their investments and gain millions upon millions of dollars more if they could get Amendment 6 passed. (Which of course they did.)

About ninety-five percent of the expenses for Amendment 2 are being paid for ultimately by one couple – namely multi-billionaires James and Virginia Stowers out of Kansas City, MO. The Stowers own, among other things, the Stowers Institute for Medical Research. Aside from their investment in the campaign to pass Amendment 2, the amount of money involved in their business agreements, plans to build new research facilities and deals cut with research facilities such as Washington University, the University of Missouri System, the University of Kansas Medical Center (I could go on and on but there’s not enough room here to list them all) staggers the imagination.

Why are all these people so interested in pouring so much money into Amendment 2? Why are all these research facilities and researchers cutting such deals? Is it all about finding cures through stem cell research as the Amendment 2 campaign says? Or, could it be these people stand to reap untold billions of dollars on patents which may come out of their research? (And that doesn’t include our tax dollars.)

Commonality Two

Here’s our second commonality. The marketing campaign for Amendment 6 was handled by one of the most expensive, aggressive, no-holds-barred campaign companies in America – Winner, Wagner & Mandabach who are based in Santa Monica, CA. (Today they’re just Winner & Mandabach. I don’t know what happened to Wagner.)

Over the past 20 years, Winner & Mandabach have managed more than 100 ballot issue campaigns in 20 states, winning an unprecedented 90 percent of their campaigns. The company is noted for utilizing an overwhelming array of television, print, direct-mail and person-to-person pleas in their battle plans. However, their no-holds-barred tactics have not gone unchallenged. In 1996, they were hired by a conglomerate of timber industry companies to stop a Maine ballot initiative banning clear-cutting in the state’s commercial forests. In an editorial that appeared in the Bangor Daily News written by a member of the Maine Green Party, Winner & Mandabach’s campaign was called “short on facts and long on fear-mongering.” Winner & Mandabach has also been called “the uncontested roto-rooter of the referendum business” and the “Darth Vader of environmental referendum politics.” More recently, as of the 29th of last month to be exact, Winner & Mandabach have been threatened with a lawsuit for unethical actions in a campaign in California.

Now, back to Amendment 6. As a reminder, lets look at a couple of stunts which the Amendment 6 campaign tried to pull off back in ‘94. Keep in mind Winner & Mandabach ran that campaign.

On September 22, 1994 a plan was implemented by the Amendment 6 campaign to discredit their main casino opponent, Mark Andrews, Chairman of CasiNO Watch, Inc. The plan was to connect him with David Duke and the Louisiana Nazis. Press packets were prepared to aid in getting the smear started and were dropped off at TV stations in St. Louis. Channel 2, the ABC affiliate, was one of the recipients of the packets. However, quite by accident (I would say by Providence) a copy of a campaign inter-office memo outlining the plan to smear Andrews was left attached to the packet that Channel 2 received. Fortunately the Channel 2 reporter did the right thing and exposed the outlandish plan on the evening news.

Then, on Sunday, October 23, 1994, the campaign placed a full page ad in Missouri newspapers touting the names of individuals who allegedly supported Amendment 6. It was a full page of fine print names many of whom were prominent, well known politicians and civic leaders. However, readers soon discovered that the ad contained names of people who were actually against the proposed amendment. Aside from the politicians and civic leaders listed who stood against the Amendment, the ad also contained the name of a deceased individual, a pastor who had just given a sermon on the evils of gambling, and even a cartoon character. When confronted with the obvious mistruths, the campaign issued an apology, but by then the damage was done.

All of the aforementioned regarding what happened during the Amendment 6 campaign is important to keep in mind. Why? Because guess who’s handling the campaign for Amendment 2? You guessed it - Winner & Mandabach. And, they have already been paid $5,000,000 for their work. Work I might add which capitalizes on the deceptive and misleading language contained in Amendment 2.

Given Winner & Mandabach’s history I believe we can safely say that these people will do anything and say anything to pass Amendment 2 in November.

Their commercials are slick to say the least. One thing you’ll notice is the fact that they never mention “embryonic stem cells” – it’s always just “stem cells” and “stem cell research.” They know that mentioning embryonic cells means killing innocent life in a lot of people’s minds. One doctor from Washington University in one of their spots stresses that “all types of stem cell research” must be protected. Of course that would include embryonic stem cell research.

One of their commercials tells viewers that stem cell research is “not about politics.” If that’s the case, then why do they have another commercial stressing that “some politicians want to ban stem cell research” – which is definitely not true. I don’t know of a single politician that wants to ban adult stem cell research – which is already legal in Missouri. And, more to the point, why does Amendment 2 have a specific clause in it to prevent our elected officials from having any thing to say about stem cell research should this Amendment pass?

When the Amendment 2 people were first collecting signatures to put their initiative on the ballot I was told that the initiative would “ban human cloning.” Even today phone solicitors for the campaign are telling people that the Amendment will “ban human cloning.” To tell people that Amendment 2 will ban human cloning is a purposefully misleading statement. The research procedure which Amendment 2 will protect is called “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” which is another term for cloning.

Conclusion

I could go on and on about the false hope of cures for various diseases which the proponents of Amendment 2 are insinuating are just around the corner. I could point out their total disregard for the ethical questions of taking one life to save another and the fact that this Amendment actually mandates the destruction of human life. I could expound upon the greed aspect of potential patents which these people see on the horizon and other topics, but that would take a book.

If these people were really serious about finding cures and helping people, does it make any sense that they’re spending millions upon millions of dollars to change our constitution to do so? Wouldn’t the $5,000,000 they’ve already paid Winner & Mandabach have been better spent as an investment in adult stem cell research that has already helped people?

We know for a fact that in 1994 we were hoodwinked by Amendment 6. The people of Missouri must learn from their mistakes and not let that happen again. I beg you to VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 2 THIS NOVEMBER 7th!