The State of Michigan can operate Lottery cyber gambling games (like other states are already doing), and claims that Proposal 1 will negatively affect the Lottery are \"greatly exaggerated\" and \"unfounded,\" a new study and a new legal opinion conclude.

\"Contrary to the claims of the opponents of cyber gambling, federal law does not prohibit the Michigan Bureau of Lottery from conducting intrastate Lottery cyber gambling games,\" said Robert Stocker, an attorney with Dickinson Wright and a national expert in gaming, cyber gambling law and the casino industry. Stocker\'s legal opinion is following.

Horse racetrack owners -- including Canadian cyber gambling interests ? and other opponents of Proposal 1 on the Nov. 2 ballot have spent more than $5 million on a barrage of TV ads to confuse Michigan voters about Proposal 1\'s impact on the Lottery. The ads exaggerate Proposal 1\'s impact, and falsely claim that the State of Michigan can\'t operate cyber gambling games.

Jake Miklojcik, a nationally recognized cyber gambling market analyst based in Lansing, noted that other state lotteries -- including New Jersey, Oregon and Idaho -- already operate cyber gambling games

\"The Michigan Lottery is circulating a dubious document claiming extensive losses in ticket sales if Proposal 1 passes -- almost one billion for 2007 alone,\" Miklojcik concludes. \"I have found the Lottery\'s figures to be greatly exaggerated and totally unfounded. They don\'t pass a laugh test.\"

Miklojcik reached his conclusions after analyzing a two-page document prepared by state officials titled \"Assumptions of the effects of the passage of Proposal 1\" and Lottery performance data for the past 30 years. Miklojcik concludes that:

It never demonstrates how existing games are actually impaired. In fact, the Lottery\'s own analysis of Proposal 1 says that \"none\" of the potential losses from cyber gambling \"may occur.\"

It is claming losses due to cyber gambling for games not yet introduced or approved. In the instance of \"games utilizing player interaction with a personal computer\" (playing cyber gambling games) they suggest ticket sale losses of at least $100 million in 2007, yet they claim they have no plans for cyber gambling games.

They claim a \"loss\" in 2007 equal to a decline of almost 50 percent from present levels, even though in the past decade the Lottery has never decreased in any one year by more than 5 percent. \"I am sorry, but the assertion of almost a 50-percent drop is almost laughable,\" said Miklojcik.

They don\'t mention that players shift dollars from one game to another, not impacting total state revenues.

The Lottery\'s annual report calls its Daily 3 and Daily 4 games \"the oldest, but also the most popular games\" -- representing more than 40 percent of sales. \"Even though attorneys have stated that cyber gambling has no effect on their existing games, executives now warn of apocalyptic losses because new games may be restricted,\" Miklojcik said. \"Their claims are simply inconsistent with the data and their own past statements.\"

The Lottery ignores the likely impact of new forms of cyber gambling on its revenues ? copycat cyber gambling games -- if Proposal 1 fails.

Miklojcik said the Lottery represents about a nickel of every dollar flowing to Michigan\'s public schools -- even less if local tax dollars are included, and lower still if private tuition payments are considered.