Secret winners? A losing proposition
State Rep. Ted Harhai's well-intentioned proposal to let lottery winners remain anonymous nevertheless would pave Pennsylvania's road to a hell of less state government transparency and more suspicion about lottery drawings' integrity.
The Monessen Democrat says his House Bill 1893 would “protect lottery winners from criminals and scam artists that prey” on them. Such downsides to quick lottery riches are sad facts, particularly worrisome for the lucky few who win big in multistate Powerball and Mega Millions drawings when jackpots total hundreds of millions of dollars.
But the people's right to know protects the broader public interest in keeping tabs on state government — and keeping the lotteries it runs honest — and thus must outweigh such concerns. Results of anything run by government should be public — and public trust in such lotteries depends on openness.
“The lottery has long viewed the identities of winners as a public record because this protects the lottery's integrity and reassures players that our winners are real people,” a Pennsylvania Lottery spokesman told The Sentinel of Carlisle.
The lottery's parent agency, the Department of Revenue, hasn't taken an official position on Mr. Harhai's bill but should oppose it strongly. So should his fellow lawmakers, who should kill it as the bad idea it is.
And as for Pennsylvanians who don't want to be publicized as winners, they can avoid that fate the way they always have — by not playing the lottery in the first place.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.