Wisconsin could be another domino falling in favor of winner's safety.

 I am assuming there are safeguards in place to catch the Eddie Tiptons now.

 Fraud and harassment are major hazards that if reduced could see more players for the Lottery's bottom line. We do not know how many players do not play because of threats.

There really isn't any valid reason for all states not to let winners remain anonymous.

They keep saying they need to broadcast winners for transparency and to build public trust in the lottery.  Australia has allowed anonymity since the 60s and Australians play the lottery like crazy every single week. There's been no lack of trust or suspicion that "real people" aren't winning. Or are Australians more trusting and Americans too suspicious?

It goes back to when lotteries were created by individual states and it's never been "one size fits all". In some states full disclosure was part of negotiations for having a lottery in the first place and some states have full public information acts. It's not really a problem for states that never had or had very few large jackpot winners. 

"We do not know how many players do not play because of threats."

I've played lottery games for years and not once did I get threatened or even harassed. Saw a statistic where roughly 49% of American adults bought a lottery ticket in the last year. IMO without the huge MM and PB jackpots the percentage might be in the 30s or lower. The percentages of people that play lottery games ever day or week is probably much lower than you think.

Where are you getting your information about "major hazards" to lottery players?

I was researching per capita lottery spending for ea. state a few yrs. ago because I was one of those who argued for transparency in the lottery, but mostly because I do believe the lottery entities when they say it drives sales. Who doesn't like to see some winner grinning from ear-to-ear while holding that big check?  It's just not the same when it's "Some anonymous winner in Texas is now a hundred million dollars richer!" Anyway... I found just one comparison that could make my case and that was with North and South Dakota.  Otherwise, I could not prove nor disprove that the sales are comparable in anonymous claiming states vs. ones where the winner's name is announced. 

While reading about it, though, I found some interesting information about Australia.  I don't have the exact stats now, lost in in an external hard drive crash and don't care to go research it again, but I found out that while the avg. American spends a couple hundred bucks ea. yr.  on the lottery, the Australians spend about or over six times that much.   Make of that what you will, because I do know there's sometimes no correlation on any subject or issue among two different countries or cultures, that it's not just comparing apples to oranges, but coconuts to bowling balls....and in my own particular case, if I HAD to choose between those last two, I guess I COULD eat that bowling ball.

Who are the "they" that keeping saying it's about transparency and public trust?

And "they" could say that about any public local, state or Federal agency. Most people that care want transparency in government agencies.

FYI, there is no United States lottery, but are currently 44 individual state lotteries with two more (Alabama and Mississippi) starting in the near future. Each state legislation creates rules that govern their state lottery and have no effect on any other state lottery. Several lotteries group together and share common jackpots, but players must collect jackpot winnings in the state that sold the ticket. 

And using what the Australian or any other country's lottery does is a terrible straw man argument.

They claim they have to be transparent because the lottery is funded by the public, those who buy tickets.  So they say the transparency is to show public trust.  To which I call BS.  If a mega winner wants to take a lump sum, they get 50% of the jackpot, what happened to the rest of it, not talking about the taxes??  Dont they have to run the lottery system and pay those lottery host??  Do they disclose that??  What about salaries for those host and clerks, and mailrom people??  I dont see them talking about that, but they wanna blast a mega winners name all over the place and put them in danger of unknowns!!

So they say the transparency is to show public trust. To which I call BS

Why is it BS? That's not ALL "they" say for wanting transparency;  as I mentioned in my previous post, "they" claim that it drives lottery sales.  What I don't understand is that people trust the lotteries to award the money (cough-Tipton-cough) yet don't trust them when they make the claim it helps sales?  Again, their claim that it brings interest to the games makes sense to me. 

If a mega winner wants to take a lump sum, they get 50% of the jackpot, what happened to the rest of it, not talking about the taxes??

If you play the lottery you should know this.  If you opt for the annuity, then that's what you've won, an annuity the lottery purchases that will eventually pay "X" amt. of dollars annually on an upwards sliding scale over the course of 30 yrs. (29, not counting the initial payment)  The amount invested is the cash value.  From what I understand, they make more interest than you or I could on the amount b/c they have banks and other financial institutions who bid on it. 

Dont they have to run the lottery system and pay those lottery host?? Do they disclose that?? What about salaries for those host and clerks, and mailrom people?? 

I do not know, but I would wager that's information you COULD find out;  maybe all you have to do is write your lottery headquarters and ask nicely or file a FOIA request.   I'm pretty sure you could at least find out the administrative costs, but maybe not a breakdown for ea. employee...IOW what the janitor at the lottery headquarters makes.  Of course, you should also realize that there HAS to be people administrating the lottery and that costs money.   Do you expect them to work for free?  All that comes off the top end of the buck or three you spend on ea. lottery ticket....just like any other business, I reckon.

I dont see them talking about that, but they wanna blast a mega winners name all over the place and put them in danger of unknowns!!

I see that you're a brand new member;  welcome to Lottery Post!  Unless you've been lurking for several yrs. you've probably missed posts by myself and a few others that have proved that lottery winners have much more to fear from their family than they do strangers. (or, I can call them "unknowns" if you like)  I've seen people claim they could keep a lottery win secret from their family, but I call BS on THAT.  Me?  I will repeat something I've said many times before, namely that if I'm lucky enough to ever win the lottery, I will be more afraid of men in suits carrying briefcases stealing my money than I would be thugs in ski masks carrying guns. 

All that said, if you want your state to go to anonymous claiming, then you need to contact your state representative and tell them.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease.  I contacted mine, but by that time the wheels for anonymous claiming in Texas were already in motion.  I DID get a couple of rules changed in this state, one of which did include the lottery (at least peripherally), namely that a store cannot give you a money order for your winnings and charge you a fee for it.  I knew whining about it in a lottery forum was not going to change things.

Stack47, You have not been threatened or harassed since you have not won a jackpot. 

 I am talking about, The Curse of the Lottery. Past winners have made major mistakes. The attorney for the last PB winner in Wisconsin, Marco, is Andrew Stoltmann and he represented six winners who were conned out of their winnings. 

 I agree with mikeintexas when he writes that we must be aware of family and friends and not so much strangers. He does include the businessmen who wear suits and ties.

 For example, Your Aunt Carol needs life saving surgery but has no insurance would you say NO to her? 

 As Barbara Corcoran on Shark Tank said, "Everybody has a $10,000.00 problem that only you can fix."

  Most lottery players are aware of Andrew Jackson "Jack" Whittaker. There are so many lessons of what not to do when you win. 

I'm not a fan of anonymous winners. It takes the excitement out if it. Part of the entertainment is hoping to snag the BIG jackpot. Then if you don't win, waiting to read the news report on who won. If you're lucky a few questions to the new multi-millionaire. Most people have no real threat to their lives. It is a perceived threat. So basically you are acting out of FEAR. 

Currently there are ways to get around your name being published, such as a trust or hiring lawyers to claim on your behalf. So making all these winners in each state anonymous is over reacting.

From a book about investments talking about windfalls, any windfall, inheritance, lottery, etc....

The less people that know about your windfall the less potential scammers. 

That is false. The majority of non-anonymity states do not allow trusts or allow an attorney to claim on their behalf. Some that allow trusts, may insist on publishing the name behind the trust. Check out the top pinned post in the jackpot forum.

Apparently I made a major mistake asking you a simple question that you never answered BTW. You said:

"Fraud and harassment are major hazards that if reduced could see more players for the Lottery's bottom line. We do not know how many players do not play because of threats."

You said nothing about huge jackpot winners and it sure looks like you were saying "more people would play but won't because if they beat 300 million to 1 odds, they might get threats." There is a huge difference between "hoping to win" and "expecting to win". So does it really make any sense saying "I'd play but I'll probably win and I don't want to be harassed and/or threatened"?

"I am talking about, The Curse of the Lottery. Past winners have made major mistakes."

Making "major mistakes" is not the same as fraud, harassment, or being threatened. And going on The Curse of the Lottery or any other show about lottery winners is voluntary. Just a guess but I seriously doubt you'll find anyone on one of those show that claimed their prize anonymously. Oh and being conned is not always illegal but being threatened, harassed, or extorted usually is.

I won't ask how an Aunt Carole needing life saving surgery qualifies as fraud, harassment, or threats.

Yes, I do think I make sense, "I'd play but I'll probably win and I don't want to be harassed and/or threatened."

 Each person is unique and I do not know what they are thinking.

  If you say NO to Aunt Carol you could be harassed by family.