Lottery is the most popular form of gambling in the United States. People spent more than $100 billion on tickets in 2021. The money raised by the lottery goes to state government programs, and some of it is directed toward education. But just how meaningful that revenue is in broader state budgets, and whether it’s worth the trade-off of people losing their hard-earned cash, merits scrutiny.
Many people buy lottery tickets in the belief that they’re not just losing their money, but they’re doing a good thing. Purchasing a ticket, they argue, is no different from buying a bottle of wine or going to the movies. It’s a low-risk investment that could pay off big, and it’s an alternative to saving for retirement or college tuition. That rationalization is flawed, however. Lottery advertising is largely deceptive, inflating odds and jackpot values, and promoting a mythology of illusory wealth. It is also at cross-purposes with state policy goals, such as combating compulsive gambling and reducing poverty.
The casting of lots to make decisions and determine fates has a long record in human history, including several references in the Bible. But the modern lottery originated in the 15th century, with public lotteries held for municipal repairs and to distribute cash prizes in the cities of the Low Countries. The word lottery is believed to derive from a combination of Middle Dutch “lot” and Middle French “lotterie,” although the exact origin is unclear.
As the popularity of the lottery grew, governments expanded the types of games they offered and promoted them more aggressively through advertising. They also began to rely more heavily on revenues from the lottery for general operating expenses and as a source of new revenue. During the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin even sponsored a lottery to raise funds for cannons to defend Philadelphia from the British. In the 1830s, Thomas Jefferson tried to hold a lottery to help pay his mounting debts.
State officials often fail to take a broad view of lottery operations when making policy. They tend to make decisions piecemeal and incrementally, with little or no overall overview. They also tend to be insulated from pressures for a more comprehensive public welfare agenda. This leaves state authorities at the mercy of market forces that are driving the industry in new directions, with little or no control.
In addition, state officials are often influenced by the public perception that lottery proceeds benefit specific public interests. This is an argument that plays well during times of economic stress, when the prospect of higher taxes or cuts in public services threatens popular support for the lottery. But it’s a flawed argument, because research has shown that lottery approval isn’t related to the actual fiscal conditions of a state. It’s more a function of the way state leaders frame the lottery issue. They tend to promote it as a way to help children or other worthy causes, without actually explaining that the lottery is a costly form of taxation.
