Pro-slots group hits the airwaves and Franchot

Pro-slots group For Maryland For Our Future says its new television ads aren't just designed to promote November's slots referendum, they're intended to correct Comptroller Peter Franchot's "misleading" and "false public statements" about Question 2.

"In the past year, Peter Franchot has tried to run away from his record on slots," said For Maryland For Our Future in a statement.

Franchot (D-Takoma Park) has been an active opponent of November's slots referendum and is a steering committee member of Marylanders United to Stop Slots, which has already called on its rival organization to pull two radio ads.

"Can Maryland afford not to pass slots this November?" asks a narrator at the beginning of the television ad, which will be airing in the Baltimore market.

"It pumps millions into public schools and colleges every year," says a woman who appears to be in a classroom.

"It's the most tax-payer friendly way of protecting our schools," adds a man standing on the street.

The narrator jumps back in: "But opponents of slots have a different plan. They've already proposed almost 700 million in new taxes," he says. "An increase in taxes no one can afford in times like these."

But Joe Shapiro, a spokesperson for Franchot, said his boss took a tough and principled stand on the issue.

"The Comptroller regrets the nasty personal attacks launched today by the pro-slots campaign, a campaign that has chosen to make direct attacks on individuals rather than discuss the issue," said Shapiro in a statement. "But Peter Franchot has never been a favorite of the special interests.  Instead, he's been looking out for the interests of hard working Maryland families."

Shapiro argued that a vote on the slots referendum isn't a vote about the past, but the future. He says the impact of slot machine gambling could span generations.

"A vote about whether a gambling industry bailout -- sold to voters using gambling industry money and using gambling industry lies and political manipulation -- should be enshrined in our constitution," he said.

Voters will decide on November's ballot if the state constitution should be amended to allow no more than 15,000 slot machine installations at five different locations across the state.

The slots referendum has become one of the most heated issues in the state. Proponents argue the slots will provide necessary funding for the state's education infrastructure and will help close the budget deficit. Opponents believe the revenue projections are overly optimistic, the ballot's language is misleading and the problems associated with gambling far outweigh the benefits.