For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222

Analysis of the CA Lottery Through Process & Rationalism
  Term Paper ID:27569 		Get This Paper Free! or
Essay Subject:
Analyzes the installation of the California Lottery by examining the arguments of both the pro- and con- forces.... More...
5 Pages / 1125 Words
6 sources, 8 Citations, APA Format
$20.00

More Papers on This Topic


Paper Abstract:
Analyzes the installation of the California Lottery by examining the arguments of both the pro- and con- forces.

Paper Introduction:
INTRODUCTION The California Lottery is today a well-established institution, seemingly accepted throughout the state, with millions of customers each week paying money to play a variety of games offering potential prizes up to several million dollars. The passage and implementation of the lottery in California can be analyzed according to policy formation with reference to the stakeholders involved and the arguments offered on both sides of the issue. The issue will be analyzes according to Process and Rationalism. California is not the only state to institute a state lottery, and the fact that California has done so is in part a response to a perception of success in other states. Yet, this is also an issue that has raised serious questions regarding

Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.


Many see the lottery as a fraud on the public, and in anycase revenues have been decreasing in recent years so much that a newleadership has tried to revitalize sales (Yarber, 1992: p. Also formed as a group called Californians for BetterEducation, in part funded by Scientific Games (Endicott, 1984: p. The proposals for a statelottery had been in existence for some time, and proponents pushed foracceptance in 1984 through the political process. California is not the only state to institute a state lottery, andthe fact that California has done so is in part a response to a perceptionof success in other states. The education connection was part of the new legislation written byTeresa Hughes and also a proposed constitutional amendment and legislationoffered by Californians for a Better Education, with the idea that revenuesfrom the lottery would be used to fund education. The introduction of bills inthe legislature for ten years was part of this policy process. The bills were either defeated or languished in committee,never brought to a vote. INTRODUCTION The California Lottery is today a well-established institution,seemingly accepted throughout the state, with millions of customers eachweek paying money to play a variety of games offering potential prizes upto several million dollars. Theseattempts could have been successful, in which case the issue would havebeen settled. The legislature, however, had been rejecting such proposals for twentyyears, and backers had previously been unable to raise sufficient financialsupport to place the issue on the ballot. Problems raised with referenceto a possible California lottery could thus be countered by proponents byreference to the experience in other states. By 1984, the polls showed that up to 77 percentof the voters supported a state lottery, which should have given a boost toefforts to pass the bill in the legislature. With passage, thousands of retailers had to belicensed to sell lottery tickets, a process that had to be undertaken by astate administration that had opposed the measure (Jacobs, 1984: p. 16-2 .Endicott, William. As part of thepolitical process, to allay fears about organized crime taking control,bidders had to reveal the income tax returns of all owners, officers, anddirectors. A1, 18.Yarber, Mary Laine. Proposition 37 allowed thelegislature to change the statutory requirements of the initiative, butonly with a two-thirds vote (which is difficult to achieve) and only if thechanges further the purposes of the initiative (Jacobs, 1984: p. A3). The bill was considered incommittee in January of 1984 but was still not passed, so the next step forbackers was to take the bill to the voters. Opposition to the measure camefrom several sources, including anti-gambling groups and religious groupsand the horseracing industry that thought the lottery would siphon offbusiness. "The Lottery Craze." Newsweek, 2 September 1985, pp. Support came from Assemblywoman Teresa P. Theinitiative required implementation within 135 days and within 3 days thenaming of a lottery commission and director.RELATIVE SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING GOALS The goals of the proponents of the lottery were met with the passageof the proposition, the implementation and creation of the lottery, and nowwith seven and one-half years of operation. Hughes (D-LosAngeles), who authored one of the bills being considered, and ScientificGames, a subsidiary of Bally Manufacturing that made electronic gameequipment. Some wanted to change the law to assurecompetitive bidding, but as things worked out, there has been littlecompetition because of the requirements of the law, requirements intendedto keep all associated with the lottery honest. A28). Proponents claimed a socialbenefit because of the money that would go to education, an important claimbeing the improvement of education coupled with a possible reduction in thetax burden for the average citizen, presumably because of a reduced need onthe part of education.PATTERN OF ADMINISTRATION The administration of the state lottery, as noted, began formingbefore passage of the proposition. For most school districts, this amounts to less than threepercent of the annual budget. However, the rationalistintention of benefiting education has been less successful. A3, 19.Jacobs, Paul. A3). Since October1985, the lottery has provided $5.3 billion to the state's 1, 9 schooldistricts. This required a good deal ofmoney, and money was supplied by Scientific Games. (1985) cite concerns such aspossible erosion of the work ethic, abetting "undesirable elements,"misleading of players over possible winnings and odds, the addiction tothese revenues on the part of state officials, and the fear that lotteriesconstitute a regressive tax on those who can least afford to pay (p. The issue was sold to the voters on the basis of social value,following the approach of rationalism. 12-13.Wood, Tracy. A28.Kaus, Mickey. Some people thought they were voting toprovide extras for school districts, but instead the money goes forfundamentals. The issue will be analyzes according to Process and Rationalism. "Odds Leaning Toward OK of State Lottery This Year." Los Angeles Times, 21 February 1982, pp. "Hearings Ahead for Lottery Bills." Los Angeles Times, 19 January 1984, pp. J9.----------------------- 7 J9. Opponents raised the issueof the propriety of the state supporting gambling, concerns about organizedcrime, and the issue of regressive taxation. A1).PROCESS OF POLICY FORMATION The process of policy formation shows the operation of the processtheory, with policy as political activity. Yet, this is also an issue that has raisedserious questions regarding the feasibility of using a lottery to raiserevenues, the morality of using this particular method, and the socialconsequences of such a policy. "Lottery No Jackpot for Schools, but It Helps." Los Angeles Times, 2 August 1992, p. A28).SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT The social environment at the time of the passage of Proposition 37included an awareness of other states with a lottery system and anawareness of how successful these had been. The passage and implementation of the lotteryin California can be analyzed according to policy formation with referenceto the stakeholders involved and the arguments offered on both sides of theissue. The policy was said to offer themaximum social gain by providing revenue for education, with at least 34percent of lottery monies going to education. "Officials Get an Early Start on Plans for State Lottery." Los Angeles Times, 2 November 1984, p. 12). It was reported before the proposition was even placed on the ballotthat according to polls, 7 percent of California voters supported alegalized lottery, adding California to the 17 other states with a lottery. 16).The California State Lottery was instituted following the election ofNovember, 1984 and the passage of Proposition 37, with the start-up datebeing March 21, 1985. Once the legislationwas passed, Scientific Games was given the first lottery contract, worth$3 to $4 million, as the company was the sole bidder. Beck et al. This will be discussedin detail in the next section, but essentially proponents saw anopportunity to interest the people through a ballot proposition when theycould not interest the legislature, which had considered without passage alottery proposal every year for ten years. ReferencesBeck, Melinda, Peter McKillop, Lynda Wright, Nikke Finke Greenberg, and Patricia King. Kaus (1985), however, notes that Bally had already done this toattain a license for a New Jersey casino, and he sees the provision as apolitical move to close off all competition (p. "Sleaze Factor." The New Republic, 1 July 1985, pp. However, many of thepotential beneficiaries of this legislation, including the CaliforniaTeachers' Association, the PTA, and the California Federation of Teachers,held back support for two reasons: 1) uncertainty as to whether they wantededucation partially financed by gambling; and 2) because some of the groupswould rather see such money go into school building and maintenance, anarea short of funds for some years (Endicott: p. The latest effort, on the otherhand, had enough money to accomplish this task (Wood, 1984: p.

If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:

Search for:

or

We can write a Custom Essay just for you.


Browse Essays by Subject