Letter: Denying a casino may violate anti trust laws

The Sherman Act states “the fortunes of the people will not be dependent on the prejudices of a few.”

Violations include: restraint of trade; abuse of monopolistic power; any contract, conspiracy, discussions or effort to divide or allocate markets or customers. Some Gazette articles refer to the term cannibalization of other casinos. The term cannibalization is improperly used, the correct term is competition, one of the basics to our capitalistic economy.

The Sherman anti trust law states the “activity must not restrict trade that is positive for the consumer or society.” The protection should therefore be for the Cedar Rapids public who voted for a casino, rather than an investment 50 miles away.

The people of Cedar Rapids should not need to bear the expense to drive 100 miles round trip to go to a casino just because the gaming commission so dictates. Using government rates, that’s an extra travel cost of $55. And are we supposed to conserve energy? Nor should the community be denied the 3 percent of the revenue or not have the opportunity for 200+ jobs and the benefits to support industries. This is a free-market economy, not one for the government to decide winners and losers through protection and some would say favoritism.

In this free enterprise economy, the investor may choose to enter a business decision with its risks and rewards based on current and future facts and assumptions of the economics, not based on the government guarantee of market protection.

Ed Ulch

Solon

Like what you're reading?

We make it easy to stay connected:

to our email newsletters
Download our free apps

Give us feedback

Have you found an error or omission in our reporting? Tell us here.
Do you have a story idea we should look into? Tell us here.