Merle and Pat Butler of Red Bud, Illinois look happy in the video that has been making the rounds online. That’s not surprising, because in the video, Merle Butler has a novelty check for more than $218 million.

He was the last of three winners to claim a share of the $656 million Mega Millions lottery prize that set the record for the largest jackpot in US history.

Most likely, the three winners were satisfied. But the Butlers were the only ones whose smiles were broadcast to the world. Perhaps they enjoyed their turn in the spotlight; I guess they were just being good sportsmen and would have preferred to keep the news secret.

However, unlike the other winners, the Butlers had no choice in the matter. Illinois requires lottery winners to present their beaming faces at news conferences and other promotional appearances, unless they have “compelling reasons” not to.

In fact, only six states (Kansas, Maryland, Delaware, Michigan, North Dakota, and Ohio) allow lottery winners to remain anonymous. He just so happened that the other two Mega Millions winners were from Kansas and Maryland. At a news conference, a poster replaced the Kansas winner. The Maryland ticket belonged to three public school employees who, like the Butlers, posed with a novelty check, but did so while holding the check, made out to “The Three Amigos,” over their faces.

The other 37 states that run lotteries, along with the District of Columbia, differ in the amount of publicity they require from winners. Some, like Illinois, insist on dragging the winners before a camera, while others simply publish the names of the winners and let the media follow the trail. In some places, including Colorado, Connecticut and Vermont, winners can avoid the spotlight by forming a trust or limited liability company to claim the money on their behalf. However, at least one state, Oregon, explicitly prohibits this practice. I also can’t imagine the strategy would work well in states that require news conferences. No matter where one stands on corporate personality issues, trusts and limited liability companies are notoriously unphotogenic.

On its website, the Illinois Lottery says the following about winners’ obligations: “Billionaire winners must participate in a one-time press conference, but we will always respect their wishes for privacy as much as possible.” Illinois Lottery Superintendent Michael Jones told The Associated Press that despite the established rule, the lottery would work with winners who wish to preserve their privacy. He cautioned, however, that “ultimately, an enterprising reporter can find out who that person is.” (1) Missouri, one of the states that does not require a press conference but does release the names of winners, similarly warns winners that they may want to end their unwanted 15 minutes of fame, as “If you choose not to hold a press conference, the media may still attempt to reach you at your home or workplace.”

When speaking of “compelling reasons” to remain anonymous, Illinois seems to have things like restraining orders in mind. But in my opinion, most people have compelling reasons not to spread personal financial information, particularly news about sudden and unexpected acquisitions of wealth. Dennis Wilson, executive director of the Kansas Lottery, said the Mega Millions winner in that state must remain anonymous “for the obvious reasons most of us would consider.” (two)

There is the so-called “curse of the lottery,” in which big winners quickly go bankrupt after being bombarded by requests from distant friends and family and aggressively targeted by vendors. Roughly nine in 10 grand prize winners lose their windfall within five years, according to a Florida study that looked at bankruptcies and a Stanford University study of lottery winners, both cited by Reuters. While some lottery winners are smart enough to hire reputable attorneys and financial advisors, others are not and face lawsuits they are not prepared to handle.

According to the Missouri Lottery, 97 percent of jackpot winners say the experience is “very positive.” Even taking that statistic at face value means that for the 3 percent of winners, the hassles of winning, including having their names published in the media, outweigh the benefits of receiving thousands or millions of dollars. And despite advertising campaigns urging players to dream big, we can assume that the percentage of less than positive results is greater than 3 percent among those with the biggest prizes.

Lotteries claim that they need to be able to identify winners to prove that they are actually paying prizes. While lottery scams are a real problem, I doubt many people will steer clear of Powerball out of skepticism. Independent auditors and state attorneys general could maintain the public trust, as they already do for legally registered charities.

What lotteries really want, when they put winners on camera, is to convince other people that they can win too. Of course, the vast majority cannot and will not win. That is what makes a lottery a lottery and not something productive, like an investment.

Amid the hype leading up to the big Mega Millions draw, various news sites and blogs posted lists of things most likely to win the jackpot. However, such information makes little difference to the way most people behave. Thanks to a phenomenon known as the “availability heuristic,” people tend to consider events more likely if they can easily think of examples of those events occurring. So the more lottery winners we see, the more likely we think it is to win the lottery, even though the actual odds of a jackpot are still small.

State lotteries exploit winners and losers alike. Winners are subjected to the publicity they don’t want so lotteries can sell more tickets to people who are almost always destined to lose.

I hope, for the Butlers’ sake, that they avoid the “curse of the lottery.” So far, they seem to be doing things right. They took the time to consult with financial advisers and an attorney, keeping their big news quiet before showing up for the mandatory news conference. Both have had full careers, raised two children and own the house they’ve lived in since 1977. If anyone is prepared to deal with the complications that the much-hyped award will bring, it’s a mature and assertive couple like the Butlers. seems to be.

Of course, your responsibility won’t stop outsiders from making ill-informed judgments about your character, as I’m doing here. It also won’t keep the Butlers from feeling guilty when they are inevitably approached by former co-workers, neighbors, charities and, suddenly, not-so-distant relatives. They will have to submit not only more requests to give, but also requests to give larger amounts.

A fundraiser for a local civic group, who might have been very happy with a $100 contribution before the Butlers’ windfall, can now look at them and say, “You have all this money and you’re only giving $100? ” The implication, often used to manipulate suddenly wealthy people, is that they don’t deserve their good fortune and therefore have an obligation to share when asked. Many of us, raised to be good citizens on the playground and in kindergarten, have a hard time saying “no.” The pressure is greater for those who live in small towns, where saying no means getting a healthy dose of sarcasm and spite from people you see every day.

All lottery winners are, by definition, lucky. The luckiest are those who live in states that respect the privacy of winners.

Sources:
1) The Associated Press, “Big lottery winners often choose to remain anonymous, if their state allows it”
2) The Courier-Journal, “Kansas Says Mega Millions Lottery Winner Will Remain Anonymous”