Indeed, a year after proponents and opponents of expanded gambling spent more than $90 million in Maryland, a Nov. 5 referendum that would allow up to seven full-scale casinos in New York is conspicuous largely for the opposite reason, with little public discussion, minimal advertising and hardly any high-profile opposition at all.

New York has plenty of residents with the same moral, ideological or economic objections to gambling that are raised in every state where casinos are put before voters. But unlike in other states, where casino proposals have been fought by big-money elements of the gambling industry with competitive concerns, in New York that sort of opposition has effectively been neutralized.

Owners of racetrack casinos, or racinos, which have limited electronic gambling, have been promised that they will be taxed at the same rates as the full-scale casinos, and that they will be allowed to bid for full casino licenses. That pledge has enabled the New York Gaming Association, which represents racinos and had initially opposed the idea of expanded casino gambling, to throw its “full support” behind the referendum.

The Legislature has also added a new and uncertain variable by adopting legislation that would allow a significant expansion of video lottery terminals — and hence more competition — if voters reject the casino referendum.

Meanwhile, Indian tribes that run a number of upstate casinos have also stayed silent since Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed deals to keep new casinos far from their reservations in exchange for payment of past, and future, revenue sharing.

The Rev. Jason J. McGuire, the executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which opposes the casino referendum, called the concessions “very shrewd” of the governor and most likely too much to overcome.

“You’re getting gambling expansion shoved down your throat whether you like it or not,” Mr. McGuire said. “Even if I raise a million dollars to oppose it, it’s a drop in the bucket.”

The opposition is a ragtag array of religious conservatives who associate gambling with social ills, liberal intellectuals who see gambling as a form of regressive taxation, and skeptics who believe that Mr. Cuomo has overstated the economic promise of his casino plan. They are trying to fight a feisty but largely cost-free campaign involving data, debates and the occasional sledgehammer.

“We’d love to have a white knight ride in,” said Dave Colavito, a former microchip engineer, a current deer hunter and an unpaid spokesman for the Coalition Against Gambling who lives in Rock Hill, in Sullivan County. “But I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

Potentially powerful critics like the New York State Catholic Conference have not joined the opposition. The Catholic Conference issued a statement last month that urged careful consideration of the measure but stopped short of asking for a “no” vote. Despite the absence of an organized opposition, the referendum is not a sure thing: the most recent Siena College poll, released on Monday, found that a majority of voters supported the measure after being read the words that will appear on the ballot, language that emphasizes the positive economic benefits of gambling. Without hearing those words, voters were divided.

The practical differences between the “yes” and “no” campaigns are stark. In recent weeks, supporters have been gearing up: planning a TV ad campaign, staking yard signs and producing flashy mailers promising all manner of benefits, including “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” — as one brochure put it. There are two big boosters of the referendum: Citizens for NYS Gaming Inc., a recently formed ballot issue committee, which can raise unlimited amounts of cash, and NY Jobs Now, a coalition of business, labor and political leaders that has held a series of rallies around the state in recent weeks.

Endorsements for the referendum are also starting to roll in. Both major party candidates for New York City mayor — Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, and Joseph J. Lhota, a Republican — support the measure. Mr. de Blasio called it a “win-win for New York.”

And then there is Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, who has trumpeted casino resorts as a salve to upstate economic woes, promising the first four resorts to three regions — the Catskills/Hudson Valley, the Albany area and the largely rural Southern Tier region along the northern border of Pennsylvania.

“I support it,” Mr. Cuomo said, “and I will be making that known.”

The opponents are a decidedly more do-it-yourself operation, pinning their hopes on free publicity: op-ed articles, television interviews and, in one case, the publication of an academic report. Bill Mahoney, the research coordinator for the New York Public Interest Research Group, a government watchdog, said there was basically “no opposition money at all” in the referendum campaign.

The state’s Conservative Party and Edward F. Cox, the chairman of the state’s Republican Party, have come out against the measure, saying casinos are not a reliable form of economic development. And the opposition has also picked up some support from newspapers, including The Times Union of Albany, which called claims of increased school aid from new casinos “dubious.”

The opposition has picked up some steam in recent weeks, participating in public debates, including one last week in Manhattan that Mr. Colavito, the Coalition Against Gambling spokesman, commuted to and from in a single night, an hour and a half each way, so he would not have to spend money on overnight parking. Opponents have also shown a flair for guerrilla marketing, including a stunt last week in which they smashed a slot machine outside the State Capitol.

David Blankenhorn, an opponent of casino gambling and the founder of the Institute for American Values, said he detected “a sense of weariness and inevitability” among liberal groups that might be opposed to casinos, but were wary of taking on Mr. Cuomo. But Mr. Blankenhorn’s institute recently issued a report with 31 criticisms of casinos, including, “modern slot machines are highly addictive” and “casinos extract wealth from communities.” And he is not giving up.

“We don’t have much except good arguments and shoe leather,” he said. “But that might be enough.”