Flocks of dollar bills fly across the screen with the message: "Keep the money in Nebraska."

Ordinary folks talk about expanded gambling, new job and tax dollars: "That's a good thing. It's a good thing for Nebraska."

A relaxed Warren Buffett, looking less than billionaire-ish, talking about addicted gamblers who write to him from prison.

Three organized groups likely will spend more than $2 million this fall trying to sway voters who will see two very different gambling proposals on the Nov. 2 ballot.

But the half-minute television commercials don't answer all the questions. How many casinos? How much additional gambling is likely to occur? Where does the tax money go?

One proposal is a simple, single constitutional amendment offered by the state Legislature.

The other has four parts, four initiatives that voters will mark individually, but that supporters hope pass as a package. The initiatives spell out the details of a comprehensive gambling plan that could mean slot machines and video gambling across the state.

The third option, touted by Gambling with the Good Life, a statewide coalition opposed to any expanded gambling, is a no vote on all gambling proposals.

But if several or all of the expanded gambling proposals pass, the courts likely will determine what happens next.

The Nebraska Constitution says if conflicting measures are approved, the one with the most votes takes precedence to the extent that they conflict. The question then becomes whether the three proposed constitutional amendments and two law changes conflict and where.

What might occur depends on whom you talk to, said Neal Erickson, deputy secretary of state for elections. "Some people say there will be conflicts. Others say there aren't. It's probably going to end up in court one way or another, depending on what combination of things gets passed."

In fact, the attorney general's office already is researching the issue to prepare for the likelihood of legal action should both pass, spokeswoman Regan Anson said.

Here are the details on the three options:

Initiatives 417-420

The four initiatives would allow gambling statewide, including two casinos in Omaha. Plus, there likely would be gaming centers with slot and video machines, probably at the five Nebraska race tracks and locations along Interstate 80 and U.S. 81, according to supporters.

Local towns and counties could join to create regional gaming centers that could have between 250 and 500 slot machines and video machines. Or a community and county might join with the local race track, which would house a slot parlor.

Such gambling could bring $75 million in additional tax revenue to the state and another $65 million to local cities, villages, counties and racetracks, said Julia Plucker, an Omaha attorney and spokeswoman for Keep the Money in Nebraska.

"I think it will mean money directly for communities who chose to participate, much like the keno revenues, but to a larger extent," she said. "Hopefully the state will choose to do good things with that."

Passage of the initiatives, she added, would give Nebraskans more entertainment choices.

The four initiatives — two are constitutional amendments and two are state laws — spell out such specifics as the tax rate and number of machines allowed in each community and county, a grand total of about 4,900 machines based on today's statewide population, plus the two casinos.

Plucker believes communities likely would band together to create slot parlors at race tracks or Interstate 80 and U.S. 81, then split the money.

"We just want to stress that we don't see gambling spread out across the state," she said. "Communities will realize they can get the revenues by placing the machines outside the community, but the money will come back to the community."

Once the state's constitution allows casino gambling, Native tribes would be able to negotiate for their own casinos.

The four initiatives, to be voted on individually, were put on the ballot by a successful petition drive. The amendments would create new gambling options, from large casinos to video machines in bars. The proposed laws detail how the gaming would be regulated and taxed.

Initiative 417: Constitutional amendment

This allows Nebraskans to create gambling proposals through initiative petitions, paving the way for Initiatives 419 and 420.

Initiative 418: Constitutional amendment

This requires at least a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to change or repeal any law created by a successful petition drive, so any changes to the gambling proposals that follow would require agreement of 33 senators.

Initiative 419: State law

This details fees and taxes.

* It establishes a $100 license for all businesses with gambling devices, including casinos.

* The tax is set at 36 percent of the first $15 million in gross revenue and 20 percent of additional gross revenue. Gross revenue is defined as the dollar amount operators have won, minus federal taxes other than income taxes.

* With casino taxes, the state government gets 75 percent and the local government authorizing the casino gets 25 percent. Supporters estimate the state would get about $75 million in taxes from casinos and slot machines, about 3 percent of the state's $2.4 billion annual budget.

* Local governments that authorize all other gambling get 75 percent and the state gets 25 percent. Lincoln would get about $2.8 million a year with its maximum number of machines, based on sponsor estimates. That is about 2 percent of its $126 million annual budget. Lancaster County would get about $601,000 a year.

Initiative 420: State law

This details the kind of gambling allowed and creates a five-member Gaming Commission appointed by the governor to regulate it. Under it:

* Omaha could have two casinos, with approval of the City Council. As population grows, the number of casinos could rise.

* Thoroughbred race tracks could have slot machines, with a total of 700 for all the tracks.

* Local communities and counties could allow video machines (with a ticket for winnings) at bars and restaurants that serve liquor. Depending on population, a community could have a 30-machine parlor. Some bars would be limited to three machines. 

* Communities, individually or jointly, could create gambling parlors with 250 to 500 slot machines. The parlors would have to be within two miles of either Interstate 80 or U.S. 81 and would have to be at least 50 miles apart.

* About 4,900 slot machines and video machines would be allowed at bars and restaurants, race tracks or gambling parlors using a population-based formula.

Amendment 3

Nebraskans would see one casino in Omaha in the near future if voters pass Amendment 3, according to supporters, who say it would help draw Nebraskans who now drive to Council Bluffs.

"I don't think people are disputing much the $300 million" Omaha Sen. Pam Brown said, referring to  the amount studies say Nebraskans spend at Bluffs' casinos. And they're not disputing the $70 million in taxes Iowa makes off Nebraska players.

Limited gambling is the key to the Legislature's proposal, according to senators who put it on the ballot.

The proposal allows two casinos — authorized by the state and approved by voters in the county in which it would be located. In addition, the amendment would allow Native tribes to negotiate with the governor for their own casinos.

"We have talked a lot about casinos," said Brown. "To me it's not about casinos. It's about slot machines, and the availability of slot machines. By limiting (to two casinos) you mitigate some of the social costs."

Eventually, she said, there may be three tribal casinos. "That's the most realistic picture of Indian gaming."

And at some point the Legislature may allow a second casino in the state, Lincoln Sen. DiAnna Schimek said.

"We have limited this to two casinos, period. So it is a very different scenario than the alternative (initiative proposal)," she said.

The Legislature would draw up rules governing the bidding process for an Omaha casino, and Douglas County voters would have to approve casino gambling.

"I think the Legislature would try to walk that line between mitigating social consequences and maximizing the money going to the state," Brown said.

In Illinois, she said, a casino paid $400 million for a license. Illinois has more people, Brown noted, but even $40 million could be put to good use here.

Building and staffing a casino would bring in jobs, Schimek said. Using numbers from a study by Creighton University Economics Professor Ernie Goss, she said a casino in Omaha could bring in about 1,218 jobs and $21 million in wages and salaries.

"That is not small potatoes. That is economic development by anyone's stretch of imagination."

Neither initiatives nor amendment

The statewide coalition Gambling With the Good Life opposes both proposals.

It's not just casinos in Omaha or slots in Ogallala that worry Good Life Executive Director Pat Loontjer.

She looks down the road to a Nebraska awash in gambling and the social costs that come with it.

If Nebraska's constitutional door is opened to casino gambling, pressure will continue for more and more, Loontjer said.

"It will open up a can of worms we cannot close," she said.

Take Iowa, she said. It started with five riverboats in 1991 and a limit of a $200 loss per day.

Today there are 10 state-sanctioned casinos, three parimutuel racetracks that have casino-type gambling, three Native casinos and no loss limit.

"Iowa never could have predicted the mess they have now when they began," Loontjer said. "Once they got the riverboats, then the dog and horse tracks went back and said, ‘We are dying.' Then they took the betting limit off, and they put the ATM machines in.

And the industry goes back every year to get more machines in existing casinos.

"They (the gambling interests) are insatiable. They will drain every drop of blood out of the state."

Gambling revenue to the state and local towns, she said, has not meant lower taxes. In fact, Loontjer said, Council Bluffs has raised local taxes three times since the casinos opened.

Her coalition believes slot machines and casino gambling breed ills from more divorces and bankruptcies to more crime. Those outweigh economic benefits, they say.

Some gambling supporters challenge some of the studies the Good Life group uses indicating there is never an economic benefit from casino gambling. But a University of Nevada-Las Vegas researcher, whose studies indicate destination casinos like those in Las Vegas benefit communities, says Nebraska won't see those benefits.

An Omaha casino or slot parlors along the interstate probably will produce more social costs than economic benefit, said William Thompson, professor of public administration at UNLV. Destination casinos bring more in than is lost to bankruptcy, lost work, government payments for welfare and medical costs, said Thompson, who has studied and written several books on gambling issues. But unless a casino can get 30 percent to 40 percent of its gambling money from people who live 100 miles away — outside an area's shopping zone — social costs outstrip economic benefits, he said.

Reach Nancy Hicks at 473-7250 or nhicks@journalstar.com.