Lottery Now Wearing the Black Hat : Politics: The games have been cast as a villain by politicians seeking to tap into voter disaffection.

As the Nov. 6 election draws near, lottery-bashing is fast becoming a new sport of political types who want to grab headlines and woo the electorate.

The state-sponsored games of chance have been cropping up more and more in political statements and radio and television advertising as campaign strategists try to capitalize on what they perceive as voter frustration with the games’ funding of education.

The lottery took its first thrashing in the primary when Republican state treasurer candidate Angela (Bay) Buchanan came up with the catchy phrase “looting the lottery” to describe her complaints that state lottery officials were spending too much on overhead.

Buchanan was defeated, but three months later alcoholic beverage interests ran television ads contending Proposition 134, an initiative that would hike beer, wine and liquor taxes, would disappoint voters just as the lottery has. “Remember those promises about all that lottery money for schools? I wonder where it all went,” the ad said.

In September, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dianne Feinstein sought to ease voter frustration by proposing that the lottery be forced to take some of the money it now gives to prizes and funnel it into an early childhood education program.

And lately, Democratic state treasurer candidate Kathleen Brown has been airing television and radio spots that suggest the lottery has not provided the benefits to education that voters expected.

Lottery officials concede the politicians have homed in on a public perception that they began noticing a month ago--that schools are no better off financially now than they were when the lottery was approved by voters in 1984. The campaign to pass the lottery had focused heavily on a provision in the lottery act that required at least 34% of all revenue to go to education.

In recent years, that has amounted to about $1 billion a year for schools, which is only 3% of education’s annual budget. Even at that, most school districts defy anyone to point to a 3% increase in needed resources.

To improve the lottery’s public image, officials began their own media campaign last spring. Since then they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on newspaper advertising and, in the last month, on radio advertising. The ads attempt to show that the lottery was never meant to be a major funding source for education, only a supplemental source.

Although the lottery was not an issue in previous campaign years, Public Affairs Director Joanne McNabb said officials suspected last spring that this year would be different.

“We knew there was a possibility this would become a political issue because from what we hear from the public, we are aware the public doesn’t understand the role of the lottery in education funding,” she said. “When they hear about million-dollar jackpots, that sounds like there is plenty of money for education. People really have no idea how much education costs.”

Jennifer Openshaw, press secretary for Brown’s campaign, said the candidate decided to mention the lottery in a political ad because she got so many questions about it on the campaign trail.

“She gets asked a lot about what can be done about the lottery. Even though (the lottery) is doing what it is supposed to do, people have a perception that it should do more,” Openshaw said. “People are feeling their children cannot receive an education because schools are so overcrowded.”

Rick Manter, director of the alcoholic beverage industry’s campaign against Proposition 134, said the lottery ad was “extremely effective” for his campaign. He said even now, nine weeks later, it is still drawing comment from viewers, and that “kind of lengthy recall is unusual in a campaign.”

Richard Satnick, a marketing psychologist for California Survey Research, said politicians are taking advantage of something he noted when his company conducted a public opinion poll in early October on the lottery. In the poll, conducted by the firm as a public service, 968 California adults were interviewed by telephone in English and Spanish.

To the question, “Do you think the lottery helps the schools or does not help the schools?” 43% said it does not help, 32% said it does help and 24% said they didn’t know.

Satnick said the poll seemed to show that the lottery’s own advertising was confusing, that viewers were more interested in hearing specific examples of what the lottery had done for schools.

“They talk about billions of dollars for schools like Carl Sagan talks about billions of stars. Who can comprehend billions?” Satnick said.