The "bad rep" gained by gambling is not because of gambling itself, but by people who either gamble outside their means, or even with money that they don't own. Since the blame falls on the players, and not the gambling organization itself, it's easy to see that any charitable actions taken would push gambling into a positive light.
Even if gambling were to be totally outlawed, people will still gamble. It does not matter if a casino donates money to charities or not, people will still gamble. It would be best to let gambling establishments stay they way they are, rather than restricting them with the label of undesirable.
The lottery, which is a form of gambling, pays for education and other things. Without that money, our economy would be even more stressed and education would suffer more than it already has.
Gambling is an addiction that effects millions of people but it is also something that can be extremely beneficial to help maintain a prosperous society. The fact that there are many charitable contributions made and jobs created by the industry more than make up for the negative side of gambling.
While gambling is considered a vice that taints the morality of its victims by many, it is also considered a perfectly moral and legitimate form of entertainment by many others. Charitable gambling completely negates its immorality in many religions and in the minds of many. The only problem left from charitable gambling is the possibility of individuals' development of addictions. In those cases, some of the profits may continue to be diverted to their protection, as many large-scale gambling operations already do.
I see very little difference between gambling in a casino and gambling on the stock market. If gambling establishments give to charity then that is great, should make a difference in how people view the whole concept of gambling. I think that if they give to their communities then that is more than other corporations do unless forced to to maintain some kind of public image. So, yes, gambling's contributions should make up for negative views.
I personally was able to go to a state college for free due to the Hope scholarship, which is funded by the lottery, as were thousands of other Georgia student, many of whom, myself included, would otherwise have either been unable to go to school or would be heavily indebted to the student loan companies. Gambling is not necessarily the most noble pursuit, but there are lots of people who enjoy it, so it is good that money from it can be helpful to others.
Gambling makes up for it's "bad" rap with charitable contributions because it takes money from people who can afford to gamble and redistributes it people who are poor. If someone makes the choice to wager their money on something, it means that this money is not absolutely necessary to their daily living. By taking some of this money and donating it to charities that benefit the poor, all parties benefit. The rich have an entertaining chance to win more money and the poor receives the excess that the poor have wagered for entertainment.
The charitable contributions made by gambling represent just a tiny fraction of the funds collected by this predatory industry. Because gambling is addictive and no restrictions are currently placed on how much gambling a person can do, regardless of how it hurts them, I do not believe that the charitable donations made by these organizations come anywhere near making up for the bad rap that this industry has earned.
Gambling gets its money from giving people false hope. It is evil in motive and operation. When a gambling business makes charitable donations, they are just trying to muddy moral waters. They want to appear beneficial, so that their business will be tolerated. What they really want is to take more money from victims.
Gambling will never make up for its "bad" rap by donating to charity. Gambling is a very addictive pastime. Casinos suck so many people into their worlds and drive their needs. Most people who gamble lose money. Gambling takes so much money that even if they do make charitable contributions, they are still hurting a lot of people. Gambling causes many people to lose their life savings, their homes and their families. Gambling will always have a bad rap.
No matter how much money you give away, if you are earning it in a way that is detrimental to society you can't justify it. If I was a drug lord and made 100 million dollars a year and gave away 95 million to charity would that make it okay for me to be a drug lord?
Gambling ruins lives, just like drugs, alcohol, food or any other addiction. Most people can't handle it. They get sucked in and whole families are torn to shreds over it. Charity is lovely, but dressing a filthy swine up in beautiful clothing does not change the fact that it's still a filthy swine.
There are many reasons for making charitable contributions which are more selfish than charitable. These include tax breaks, possible tax evasion, and obvious self-promotion.
Another reason that I disagree is that so many people end up having such terrible gambling addictions that they lose everything and then they end up needing far more charity than what the gambling institutions have contributed in the first place.
Charitable contributions made by casinos do not erase their "bad" rap with the public because it doesn't undo the negative stigma they have surrounding them. The only thing charitable contributions do for the casinos is keep those organizations that do want casino illegal quiet in the short-term - until something bad happens that those groups can use toward their arguments. Ultimately, charitable donations mainly are just used to keep people quiet. It is a means of paying the public or the government into liking you, but it does to mean that the way those gambling facilities are viewed by the public is going to be any different with a charity donation.
No matter how much good charitable giving by gambling establishments does, it cannot make up for the many lives it ruins in the process. Oftentimes those who gamble are least able to afford it. Family members suffer from the excesses of chronic gamblers. Children go hungry and bills are not paid.
Unfortunately, if it was all about giving money to charity, people wouldn't gamble so much. A donation is not worth someone's quality of life. There are other ways to get contributions. They cannot be used to justify a harmful addiction. Tom could be improving the schools in his community by purchasing scratch offs everyday. In the meantime, Tom isn't paying his child support. The contribution can't cancel out the diminished capabilities of the addicts.