THE HEAT'S ON MASSACHUSETTS GAMBLING PROPOSAL

15 February 2008

Anti-casino activist joins the fight over casino legislation


Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick has his hands full with his proposal to bring on three resort-casinos in the state (see previous InfoPowa reports) in the face of determined opposition. Over the past week the governor has been faced with challenges to his earnings predictions for the casinos, an Indian tribe casino proposal and the appointment of a top anti-casino activist by an anti-casino pressure group.

The fight in Massachusetts is of interest to online gamblers as well as land casino opponents and supporters, because buried in Governor Patrick's proposal is a clause that seeks to make online gambling in the state a felony, with penalties for players as draconian as those introduced in Washington State.

There's a strange dichotomy in this issue which has been attributed to an attempt to protect the governor's proposed casinos by excluding online gambling and Indian land casinos from the state.

Governor Patrick claims that accepting his proposal for three resort-casinos will bring in $2 billion in state tax revenues annually and create 20 000 permanent jobs and thousands of temporary construction jobs.

Eyeing the promise of such labour largesse, labour unions are supporting the governor and applying increased pressure on the state Legislature. Robert Haynes, president of the 400 000 member Massachusetts AFL-CIO, announced this week that the labour organisation will be lobbying lawmakers to support the Patrick proposal.

Gambling opponents led by Economic Development Committee Chairman Rep. Daniel Bosley have fought the prospect of casinos being introduced to the state, and are preparing figures that challenge the governor's revenue estimates. Patrick faced criticism from the Legislature last month when he included potential revenue from casino licensing fees in his budget to help close the state's $1.3 billion deficit, with critics pointing out that even assuming the casinos were approved, it would take 18 months to 2 years before any significant revenues would be seen.

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Council of Churches, the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and the Massachusetts League of Women Voters have joined with other gambling opponents to form a pressure group called Casino Free Mass., opposing the governor.

Dennis Bailey, a leading strategist in anti-casino lobbying and campaigning across the United States, has been engaged by this pressure group to help defeat Patrick's bill. Bailey is widely credited with defeating legislation proposing casinos in Maine and believes that the close race in Massachusetts will swing to reject the Patrick proposal if the voting public can be properly engaged and fully informed.

He faces a formidable pro-casino machine in the political power of the governor and the weight of the unions.

Governor Patrick is also fighting off an application by the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe’s that more than 500 acres of land in Middleborough be rolled into a trust for the purpose of operating a tribal casino. This week the Patrick Administration submitted a 125 page response to the federal government opposing the application, in stark contrast to his avid support for his own casino concept.

"The process that the tribe is involved in does not take into account the interest of the whole of the commonwealth. Our proposal does," Patrick said at the time. "The question is whether this is going to be done to us, or whether we are going to influence and shape casinos, whether they are Indian casinos or not, in ways that respond to all of our best interests."

Apparently growing impatient with the opposition to his own 3 casino proposal, Governor Patrick has tried to set a timeframe for resolution of the issue.

"It's very hard for us to engage with individual [Legislature] members and encourage them to come and support this in the absence of a deadline, so we want a deadline. Let's move on it," Patrick said. The governor said he wasn't worried that pressuring legislators, many of whom have resisted his proposal, would backfire.

The Massachusetts AFL-CIO unions president backed him, saying he had spoken with House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a casino opponent who controls the House agenda, and that DiMasi had "recognized that we have to press our case."

However, DiMasi continues to oppose the proposal, saying through a spokesman: "The speaker continues to have serious concerns about creating the casino culture in the Commonwealth. We understand they want jobs for their members, but the question is what kind of job. We think higher paying, stable jobs like life sciences will bring in, and not jobs at a blackjack table or spinning the roulette wheel."

The draconian online gambling provisions of Governor Patrick's proposal have been all but submerged in this fierce debate over the land casino issue, but Massachusetts online gamblers will be less than enthusiastic about state legislation that directly seeks to prohibit the pursuit of a private pastime using their own money in their own homes, enforcing it with jail penalties more appropriate for serious and violent crime.

Online Casino News courtesy of InfoPowa