Massachusetts stealth attack...

[BingoT]

The great Town of Palmer, MA is one of them I heard.
That was one place I use to go to the bars.
Great Town

[just play]

Originally Posted by jetset

And therein lies the rampant hypocrisy of the proposal - try to expand land gambling, and then insert a pretty much hidden clause banning its (potential) online gambling competition.

The more I see of politicians like this, the less I like 'em! Everywhere!

The more and more I think of this, the more and more I get angry.

It's like they are taking your paycheck and telling you what to spend your money on.

Okay ma'am, today you can spend $100 on groceries, you have to pay your phone bill and electric bill, you cannot use your left over money for yourself to enjoy, because if you do, you will find yourself in jail. Unless of course you want to drive down to our new and wonderful casino, then I will permit you to use your left over money.

[just play]

Originally Posted by BingoT

The great Town of Palmer, MA is one of them I heard.
That was one place I use to go to the bars.
Great Town

Palmer is kind of close to me. At least there will be one in this area. Not that I will go, lol, I went to Foxwoods once and didn't like it. But then again I was with a person I didn't like. Hahahahahaha

[BingoT]

See You went with the wrong person.
You go with me we are talking another story.
Yes the one in Palmer, MA is going to be close to a place I went to as a kid lol The Magic Lantern What a sleaze I was lol.

[silkprint]

I know that the people who in the past screamed NOT to have casinos in Mass are now changing their tune for some strange reason and saying it will be good for shutins?[ would'NT ONLINE playing be better for them ] I know how I will vote . I would rather gamble online that have casinos here in Mass run by Massachusetts. We know the chances of winning on their slots will be harder than hell anyway . Just look at our taxes ! It does amaze me though that they hate online gambling so much but if you walk into any convienience store here there are over 80 instant scratch tickets for sale .

[BingoT]

For some strange reason is.
Foxwoods
Mohegan Sun
Twin River But this one is open from 9am to 2pm
Do you know how many Buses from Mass go to all three daily LOTS
Mass has to step up to the plate and get some of that cabbage.And I don't blame them one bit.

[jetset]

STEALTH CLAUSE ON INTERNET GAMBLING INCLUDES HEAVY FINES (Update)

Echoes of Washington State in proposed draconian penalties for Massachusetts online gambling

If Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has his way, online gamblers in the state could face jail terms of up to two years and $25 000 fines, reports the Boston Globe, which has examined the governor's latest legislative proposals in depth.

The Boston newspaper has carried incisive reportage on the bill, which seeks to expand land gambling in the state with new casinos, but includes a hypocrisy ridden and deeply buried clause that would ban online gambling and follow the Washington State example by making it a C class felony.

Patrick's proposed legislation has evoked criticism from a number of other Massachusetts politicos, including fellow Democrat and high profile pro-online gambling champion Representative Barney Frank.

Frank, who has launched legislation to regulate and license online gambling in the United States as a means of better protecting players and giving them back their right of choice voiced his reservations about the governor's bill this week when he said: "Why is gambling in a [land] casino OK and gambling on the Internet is not? He's making a big mistake. He's giving opponents an argument against him."

Governor Patrick's spokesmen have thus far failed to explain the governor's rationale for including the provision in the proposed legislation. They also declined to respond to Frank's comments.

But Kofi Jones, who spoke on behalf of the governor's chief gambling adviser, said: "Several of the provisions of the governor's proposed resort casinos bill seek to clarify the laws relating to gaming in Massachusetts, including online gaming."

Others have suggested the provision was included to make casino licenses more lucrative by preventing competition from online operators, the newspaper reported.

"If you were cynical about it, you'd think that they're trying to set up a monopoly for the casinos," the report quoted David G. Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Patrick's bill will likely not be voted on until 2008.

[jetset]

DEVAL BILL CRITICISED BY iMEGA (Update)

Internet gambling ban "another unconstitutional infringement of Americans' digital rights."

The feisty Internet Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) has joined the growing number of critical voices against a bid to ban online gambling on pain of severe penalties in the state of Massachusetts (see previous InfoPowa reports).

The proposed legislation, which is ironically contained within a bill that seeks to expand land casino gambling in the eastern state, has been submitted by Massachusetts governor Patrick Deval but has come in for heavy flak and extensive media coverage centred on its hypocrisy and felony level penalties. The proposal will not be voted on until 2008, according to political observers.

Edward Leyden, President of iMEGA suggests that the governor holds fire until the results of iMEGA's clash with the Department of Justice over the constitutional legality of UIGEA are available.

"This past Saturday, The Boston Globe reported that casino legislation filed by Gov. Deval Patrick contained a provision to ban online gaming," said Leyden. "The proposed law, which would criminally punish conduct carried out by Massachusetts residents on the Internet, would be another unconstitutional infringement of Americans' digital civil rights.

"Currently iMEGA is embroiled with the Department of Justice in litigation in federal court over the constitutionality of the Unlawful Internet Gaming and Enforcement Act, a bill that [effectively] banned most Internet gaming nationally. We believe our lawsuit will result in an affirmative recognition by a federal court of the existence of fundamental privacy and associational right to communicate and interact with others via the medium of the Internet in a manner similar to communication and interaction outside of the Internet.

"As this case makes it way through the legal system, we believe that it would be best for the Massachusetts legislature to forestall action on this provision and, if, as we expect, a preliminary injunction is issued in iMEGA v. DOJ, et al., legislators should remove this provision from the legislation."

[jetset]

MASSACHUSETTS BILL CONTINUES TO ATTRACT FLAK

Governor's attempt to expand land gambling could stumble on Internet banning clause

The row over Massachusett governor Deval Patrick's attempt to ban online gaming whilst promoting land gambling expansion in the Bay state continued to make mainstream headlines across the United States yesterday.

The widely read daily Boston Magazine typified much of the comment when it declared it was still trying to figure out "...what the hell the governor was thinking."

The op-ed article continued: "Making it legal to play poker in buildings while making it illegal to play poker on computer screens, is beyond hypocritical, it just sounds stupid."

The magazine goes on to examine a scenario where land casino operators are made "sole overlords" of Massachusetts gambling as a means of generating bigger revenues for the state, and associates the attempted ban on Internet gaming with eliminating fair competition to the land casinos.

But it points out that Patrick’s casino bill faces an uphill climb, and the last thing it needs is more boulders blocking its path, "....and hypocrisy tends to be a pretty big rock."

Democrat Rep. Frank Hynes was questioned on the Internet gambling ban proposal and the severe penalties Patrick wants to impose with it. Despite maintaining that it’s way too early in the process to decide his final vote, Hynes sounded exceptionally miffed when discussing the online gaming clause. “I mean, why do that?” he said. “It doesn’t make a whole of sense to expand gambling and then say online gambling should be shut down.”

Hynes’ main gripe—especially coming from the perspective of a gambling sceptic making a concerted effort to study both sides—was the lack of thought and analysis that seems to have gone into the online gambling clause, buried deep within the legislation.

Hynes told the magazine that he is of the mind that the state ought to be embracing the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act bill that Democrat Rep. Barney Frank is working through Congress, which would make online gambling legal.

“By marketing online, you plug into a very easy way of capturing revenues that otherwise would be lost,” said Hynes. “We ought to embrace the Internet as being the new marketplace of the future, rather than prohibiting its use.”

The magazine hyptothesised that if the state’s three new [proposed] land casinos hosted online poker games themselves, maybe even with incentives, it could work for them as well.

"Better to use the Internet than try to quash it, right? We’re not China, after all," the article concludes.

[jetset]

MASSACHUSETTS GAMBLING BILL DEBATE NEXT WEEK

Governor Deval Patrick will attempt to persuade state politicians to accept casino plan

Controversial state legislative proposals to license and tax casinos in Massachusetts, including a buried protectionist clause to outlaw online gambling, are to be extensively debated by lawmakers this week.

Governor Deval Patrick and Mayor Thomas M. Menino, as well as several casino executives, are expected to headline a hearing at the State House on the financial impact of the governor's casino proposal. The hearing will be the highest-profile to date on expanded gambling since the governor unveiled his proposal to license three casinos in September, reports the Boston Globe.

"The administration expects to be there in full force," said Kyle Sullivan, the governor's press secretary.

Also expected at the hearing are casino moguls Gary Loveman, the chief executive officer of Harrah's Entertainment, and Sheldon Adelson, who owns Las Vegas Sands and is the third-richest man in America.

Celebrity businessman Donald Trump, who is also interested in developing a casino in Massachusetts, declined an invitation to attend and is sending his lobbying team from Ventry Associates, led by Dennis Murphy, former state representative.

The hearing, which is before the Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures, and State Assets, is designed to better gauge financial estimates of the casinos, so that legislators can better learn about long-range spending implications. It will provide a preview of the debate to come next year, when the bill is expected to be considered in full by a different panel, the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies.

"This has become, at least temporarily, the big circus," said Senator Mark Montigny, a Democrat from New Bedford and co-chairman of the committee.

The hearings had been pushed by the House chairman, Representative David Flynn, a Bridgewater Democrat and longtime supporter of the state's four racetracks. Owners at three of the state's four racetracks - Wonderland Greyhound Park, Plainridge Racecourse, and Raynham Park - also plan to present a rare united front, testifying that legislators should resurrect a plan to add slot machines at their tracks.

But an informal Globe poll of all 19 members of the legislative committee that will consider Patrick's proposal showed that it would probably get a negative vote that could prove difficult to overcome.

"There's a lot of strikes against it," said Representative Barry Finegold, a Democrat from Andover and a member of the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies who does not support the governor's plan to license three casinos.

"I don't think the issue is dead," he said. "But it needs a whole lot of convincing."

Interviews with members of the influential panel present a microcosm of the debate that is taking place on Beacon Hill and illustrate the large hurdles Patrick faces, chief among them House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi.

Twelve members of the committee said they are inclined to vote against the proposal, unless wholesale changes are made, such as reducing the number of casinos in the plan, giving more gambling proceeds to cities and towns, or allowing the state's racetracks to add slot machines. Three members said they are leaning in favor of the proposal. Four said they are on the fence.

Patrick's administration said it has been speaking with legislators, but most of those on the committee said they have not been contacted by the governor on the issue.

The governor's legislation, which was filed in October, would license one resort casino in Western Massachusetts, Southeastern Massachusetts, and metropolitan Boston. Patrick says each casino could generate $200 million to $300 million in licensing fees every 10 years. He is also counting on another $400 million a year for state coffers, gambling revenue that he would use for property tax relief and roads and bridges.

Proponents of the proposal argue that the state needs new sources of revenue. They also cite the amount of money Massachusetts residents are spending at neighbouring Connecticut casinos.

Committee members against the idea cited several reasons, saying they do not trust the revenue estimates supplied by the Patrick administration, which did not conduct an independent study and has provided little explanation of how it arrived at its numbers. They also argued some local businesses and resort communities would be negatively affected by the competition from casinos.