[jetset]

MASS. ONLINE GAMBLING BAN SLAMMED AT RALLY

Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson and iMEGA representatives criticise online gambling ban clause in Governor's proposal

The Harvard university group Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society, the Poker Players Alliance and the iMEGA Internet freedom pressure group between them marshalled a protest rally this week outside the Massachusetts legislature's offices where a debate on allowing land casinos in Massachusetts as proposed by Governor Deval Patrick was taking place.

But it wasn't the land casinos that motivated the protest. Instead it was a clause tucked away in the proposal that would make online gambling in the state a banned pastime on pain of draconian penalties that was the focus for the rally....and no one was 'fessing up to its drafting.

Harvard Law Professor and founder of the Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society (GPSTS) Charles Nesson criticised the proposed casino bill for making it a crime for individuals to play poker on the Internet when he addressed the crowd in front of the Massachusetts State House. He had earlier submitted written testimony prepared for the Legislature's public hearing.

Nesson said, "Governor Patrick's Casino bill would make it illegal for state residents to play poker online, with penalties ranging from hefty fines to jail time of up to two years. How crazy is that? Who wrote the bill's strange provision to criminalize online games? The Governor's people say it wasn't him (even though it's nominally his bill). The Las Vegas casino interests say it's not them. Both questions should be put to the Governor..."

Nesson has been in contact with the Massachusetts Governor's office about the drafting as well as the chairman of the board of the Las Vegas Sands Corp, which is thought to have a hand in the creation of the bill, trying to get answers on who inserted the provision making it illegal to play online poker.

"I don't think filling our expensive jail cells with poker players is what Massachusetts voters had in mind when they elected Deval Patrick," Nesson said in a press release.

At the hearing Joe Brennan Jr., Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association chairman, expressed his organisation's opposition to the anti- Internet gambling provision in the bill. "It is ironic for a bill to legalize gambling in Massachusetts to outlaw and severely punish gambling online. It simply makes no sense," Brennan said.

"How can an activity that is legal in 48 of the 50 states be a criminal act simply because it utilizes the Internet? If an American has the right to choose in the "real world," shouldn't they enjoy that very same right when they are online?"

"Like many of the government's forays into cyberspace, these efforts are well intended but yield the considerable practical problems of unintended consequences," Brennan said. "In this case, Americans' right to privacy and freedom of expression are imperiled by overzealous lawmaking."


GOVERNOR PATRICK ADMITS CASINO BILL DEFEAT LIKELY

Blames "House leadership" for negativity regarding possible Massachusetts land casinos

Gov. Deval Patrick conceded after hearings in Boston this week that his plan to build three resort-style casinos in Massachusetts is heading for likely defeat in the Legislature, blaming "undue pressure from House leadership."

But Patrick, in his second year as governor, indicated he isn't giving up on the idea, saying he's still looking for ways to make the bill stronger.

"I have no illusions about the plans in the House for this legislation," he said Tuesday at a packed legislative hearing. "I'm simply asking that an open debate begin, rather than end, today."

The hearing could determine the fate of Patrick's bill for the current legislative session. Patrick says casinos would generate new jobs and revenue. Critics warn the proposal exaggerates the economic benefits and would bring increased crime and even worsen the foreclosure crisis if gambling addicts spend their mortgage payments on slot machines.

If the committee releases the bill with a recommendation that lawmakers reject it, it could come up for a vote as early as Thursday. House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi has pressed lawmakers to kill the bill, saying casinos would "absolutely cause human damage on a grand scale."

Patrick has said the casinos would create tens of thousands of construction jobs and 20 000 full-time permanent jobs and bring in $200 million in fees per license plus an estimated $400 million a year in new revenues.

"Casinos in Massachusetts will be neither a cure-all for all of our fiscal needs nor an end of civilization as we know it," he said to an overflowing crowd of mostly casino supporters in Gardner Auditorium.

Earlier in the day, DiMasi told a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast he could not support the governor's plan because it would ultimately harm residents. "We will absolutely and no question have increased bankruptcies, foreclosures, divorce, broken families, increased property crimes, domestic violence and on and on and on," DiMasi said. "The cost of cleaning up the human devastation brought by casino gambling is too great."

DiMasi said he has seen strong public opposition to Patrick's plan, but those voices have not been heard as prominently as advocates.

"After six months of debate on this bill, I believe the evidence is not there, the case has not been made and time is running out," DiMasi said. "Right now, my answer is no."

A long list of supporters and opponents signed up with the state's Joint Committee on Economic Development to testify during the public hearing, which began at 10 a.m. and stretched into the afternoon. They included clergy members, environmentalists, online poker players and dozens of union backers.

Committee co-chairman Rep. Daniel Bosley, one of the fiercest critics of casino gambling, warned that allowing three casinos could open up a Pandora's Box of trouble. He pointed to the state Lottery - which began with a single daily number and grew into dozens of scratch tickets, Megabucks, Mega Millions and Keno - and said the state could quickly become just as addicted to casino money.

"The Lottery should be a cautionary tale," said the North Adams Democrat. "We love the revenues, but we hate how we get them."

Rep. Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown warned that the pull of the casinos could end up hurting some of the state's traditional tourist attractions, particularly in her Cape Cod district. "It will be good for tourism around the resort casinos, but it will be bad for other parts of the state," said Peake, who also owns a bed and breakfast.

Before the hearing, hundreds of casino supporters rallied on the Boston Common to urge lawmakers to support Patrick's plan. Many of the union members at the rally wore hard hats and carried signs saying "Casinos equal 20,000 jobs for Massachusetts and I need one of them."

Robert Haynes, Massachusetts president of the AFL-CIO union, urged his members to attend the hearing and push their state lawmakers to back Patrick's proposal. "I want to know which legislator is going to deny you a job, who's going to pay your mortgage when you can't pay, who's going to leave 20,000 workers in an unemployment line," Haynes said.