State clamps down on lottery competitors
Back in 2005, I wrote favorably about a state Court of Appeals decision that found a long-distance calling card/lottery gimmick wasn't illegal.
This week, I wrote an editorial offering the opinion that a calling card/video gaming gimmick is illegal.
(Mark reported on this Sunday.)
What's the difference?
A change in state law.
The state is serious about outlawing any and all forms of gambling ... that would compete with its own gambling racket.
Addendum: Please look again at our North Carolina Education Lottery Web page. Is that not a violation of state law that says, "No advertising may have the primary purpose of inducing persons to participate in the Lottery"?
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
With regard to the question in your addendum: I can answer this only because I sat through more hours of the lottery debate than I care to think about. The intent of that "inducing persons to participate..." was to keep advertising from inducing people to play who would not have otherwise have bought a ticket. One could presume that someone visiting the lottery's homepage is interested in the lottery and therefore already pre-disposed to playing.
The intent of that provision - whether it spells it out well or not - was to allow for advertising without having it go over-board and without having it aimed at inducing people who would never have bought a lottery ticket to purchase one.
Yes, that's a thin distinction. And before you start yelling at me, I'm just relaying what the debate/intent was.
Posted on March 6, 2008 8:58 PM
I'm sure you're right.
But who actually monitors the NCEL for compliance with the advertising restrictions in the law? I put that question to a legislator not long ago and he said, No one.
Posted on March 7, 2008 8:33 AM