Court Opinion

ID: 9654446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:21:15.140707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:09.393908
License: Public Domain

KNOPF, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with Judge Buckingham’s well-reasoned and well-written opinion, but choose to write separately. Section 226 of the Kentucky Constitution forbade the establishment of lotteries until 1988. This prohibition included bingo, even if conducted for charitable purposes. Otto v. Kosofsky, Ky., 476 S.W.2d 626 (1971). The General Assembly had no authority to regulate bingo in any way other than to completely ban it. Id. at 630. Despite the prohibition, bingo continued to be popular both as a pastime and as a means for charitable fund-raising. Many law enforcement officers and prosecutors simply refused to enforce the prohibition. As a result, bingo and other charitable gaming remained unregulated.
In order to correct this situation, the General Assembly presented two (2) amendments to § 226 to the voters. The 1988 amendment to § 226 permitted the establishment of a state lottery and the 1992 amendment allowed the General Assembly to permit charitable lotteries and charitable gift enterprises. These amendments were both approved by the majority of Kentucky voters. In particular, paragraph (2) of § 226 allows the General Assembly to enact laws regulating charitable lotteries and gift enterprises. It is clear that, since the General Assembly has the authority to ban charitable gaming outright, or, under § 226 of the Kentucky Constitution, to regulate it, the charities have no valid argument that Chapter 238 is unconstitutional under the Kentucky Constitution. Furthermore, the 1996 amendment to KRS 238.540(4) clarifies the question of whether volunteer workers are prohibited from accepting tips.
However, the underlying issue of whether or not such a prohibition violates the First Amendment protection for free speech is a difficult question. The United States Supreme Court has held that solicitation of money by charities is protected speech for purposes of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 100 S.Ct. 826, 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980). In Schaumburg, and its progeny, Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson, Co., 467 U.S. 947, 104 S.Ct. 2839, 81 L.Ed.2d 786 (1984); and Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina, 487 U.S. 781, 108 S.Ct. 2667, 101 L.Ed.2d 669 (1988), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment places severe limits on states’ ability to regulate charitable fundraising. Schaumburg explains:
Prior authorities, therefore, clearly establish that charitable appeals for funds, on the street or door to door, involve a variety of speech interests-communication of information, the dissemination and propagation of views and ideas, and the advocacy of causes-that are within the protection of the First Amendment. Soliciting financial support is undoubtedly subject to reasonable regulation but the latter must be undertaken with due regard for the reality that solicitation is characteristically intertwined with informative and perhaps persuasive speech seeking support for particular causes or for particular views on economic, political, or social issues, and for the reality that without solic*822itation the flow of such information would likely cease. Canvassers in such context are necessarily more than solicitors for money. Furthermore, because charitable solicitation does more than inform private economic decisions and is not primarily concerned with providing information about the characteristics and costs of goods and services, it has not been dealt with in our cases as a variety of purely commercial speech.
Id. at 632,100 S.Ct. at 832-33, 63 L.Ed.2d at 84-85.
Thus, any restriction on charities limiting payment of professional fundraisers must be narrowly tailored to accomplish legitimate state objectives, to ensure that the statute will not create an unnecessary risk of chilling free speech. Munson, 467 U.S. at 967-68, 104 S.Ct. at 2852-53, 81 L.Ed.2d at 802-03. In essence, the Supreme Court has set forth a “strict scrutiny” test in judging the constitutionality of limitations on charitable fund-raising. Riley, 487 U.S. at 786-87, 108 S.Ct. at 2671-72, 101 L.Ed.2d at 684. The charities in this case assert that, since their charitable gaming is merely another form of fund-raising, it is protected speech and cannot be restricted without meeting the strict scrutiny standard.
I believe that the charities’ comparison between direct charitable solicitation and fundraising through charitable gaming is flawed. Solicitation is intertwined with informative and perhaps persuasive speech seeking support for particular causes or for particular views on economic, political or social issues. On the other hand, bingo or other charitable gaming does not implicate the same free speech interests. Wagering is an activity, not speech. The state’s authority to regulate or proscribe gambling is unquestioned. Consequently, I fail to see how the use of gambling by charitable organizations to raise- funds implicates free speech. I would also point out that the charities’ argument, if taken to its logical conclusion, could completely exempt charitable organizations from compliance with many laws of general application. The First Amendment does not entitle a charity “to stage a bullfight in the Hoosier Dome, if in its view that contest would raise money for its endeavors and be a good forum for the dissemination of its views.” There to Care, Inc. v. Commissioner of Indiana Department of Revenue, 19 F.3d 1165, 1168 (7th Cir.1994). Such a result would not lead to greater dissemination of ideas, but to chaos. As pointed out so well by the Seventh Circuit in There to Care, “Charities do not have special privileges under the first amendment; by parallel reasoning then, political and educational organizations, the press, and speakers in general could engage in gambling and other proscribed activities to raise funds”. Id.
Therefore, I agree with the majority that no First Amendment rights are implicated by the Charitable Gaming Act. The regulations set out in KRS Chapter 238 affect only the charities’ conduct of their games, not the message which they seek to promulgate. The restrictions are reasonable and are rationally related to the legitimate State interests set forth in § 226 of the Kentucky Constitution and in KRS 238.500. As a result, I agree with the majority that they do not unconstitutionally impinge upon the charities’ First Amendment rights.
In closing however, I would add that the ban on tipping volunteer workers may go beyond what is necessary to prevent fraud in all cases. Unlike direct payment of volunteer workers by the charity, tipping is initiated by the players themselves. The involvement of the charity, if any, is minimal. Thus, I question whether the ban against tipping actually furthers the goals set out in § 226 or in KRS 238.500. However, it is not our place to pass on the wisdom of the laws, only their application and constitutionality. Courts should exercise a liberal rather than a restrictive attitude toward legislative acts enacted pursuant to the police power inherent in the exercise of governmental functions. Legislative acts should not be set aside lightly, but only when it is plainly violative of some constitutional provision. Whitaker v. Green River Coal Co., 276 Ky. 43, 122 S.W.2d 1012, 1016 (1938). Therefore, since no constitutional rights are affected by the Charitable Gaming Act, the issue of tipping volunteer workers must be addressed to *823the General Assembly by those interested or affected.