The state court might have resolved the whole controversy in TTC's favor. Alternatively the state court might have interpreted Indiana law to place an insuperable obstacle in TTC's path no matter what the district court made of its arguments under the first amendment. As things turned out neither occurred, or at least neither has occurred yet. When a federal court abstains, it should send the whole case to state court, returning to the subject only if the final disposition in that court leaves an open federal issue, and then only to the extent principles of preclusion per- mit successive litigation. Because the risk of advisory adjudication has not become a reality in this case, and because neither side has asked us to defer decision, we shall proceed to the merits.
People buy cards in the hope of win- ning back more than they spend.
Gambling has traditionally been closely regulated or even forbidden, without anyone suspecting that these restric- tions violate the first amendment. According to the complaint, TTC uses bingo games to spread the word about its activities. But persons who seek to engage in speech cannot avoid the application of state laws that are neutral with regard to the content and view- point of their expression. The state may collect income taxes, which reduce the resources at the command of speak- ers, but laws indifferent to the content or even existence of speech pose no constitutional difficulties. See also, e.g., FTC v.