Passionate Testimony on Gambling -- From Both Sides

	LIBEL by New York Times by J. Edward Pawlick Order Yours Now!

Sidebar:

House Rejected Slot Machines For State's Tracks

No fewer than ten bills regarding gambling were heard the at the State House on Monday.

The hall was packed. The most visible contingent were casino supporters wearing T-shirts with the slogan, "Casinos + Unions = Good Jobs." Despite that sentiment and the growing sense of panic over the state fiscal situation, however, testimony was heard on both sides—in fact several sides—of the issue.

After Attorney General Tom Reilly made his plea that any legislation a comprehensive gaming act. Treasurer Tim Cahill asked that the legislature do nothing to harm the lottery, and a parade of legislators and citizen panels testified before the committee.

The sides taken by legislators who testified before the committee should be no surprise to anyone. Sen. Joan Menard (D-Somerset), a sponsor of one of the pro-casino bills told the committee, "We should site three commercial casinos. This is an opportunity being presented and we should take it." She concluded that the people of Massachusetts have already embraced gambling; therefore this is no big leap into the unknown. She said, "Everybody's grandmother goes to Foxwoods, and they go every week. They go to shows, they go to spas. Is that a good thing? I think so."

Rep. David Flynn (D-Bridgewater) expressed that he was "very disappointed in the leadership coming from the Governor's office, the [House] Speaker's office and the Senate President on this issue." He asked, "How can we leave $100 million on the table?" He advocated immediately placing 1,500 slot machines in each of the state's four racetracks.

Rep. Karyn Polito (R-Shrewsbury) plugged her bill favoring the installation of Video Lottery Terminals (VLTs) in restaurants. These slot machine-like terminals, she asserted, in accord with several other witnesses, would be instant income for the state because they could be up and running in 60 to 90 days. Sen. Steven Panagiotakos (D-Lowell) added: "We're already feeling the social costs of casino gambling without reaping any of the fiscal benefits."

The only legislator to speak against casinos was Rep. Paul Demakis (D-Boston) who stated that he is specifically opposed to a casino being located in the Hynes Conference Center.

Members of several, diverse, religious groups expressed their collective desire that the Commonwealth delve no deeper into the gaming industry. Calling gaming "an ill wind which brings no good," the Rev. Dr. Edward Dufresne of the Inter-Church Council of Greater New Bedford stated, "For us, it is a moral issue when our government considers gambling with its net loss economic effect and its devastating social consequences as a quick financial fix in a time of budget crisis. As spiritual leaders, we decry the pain and human losses that the poor, the young, the elderly and the addicted will suffer if this predatory industry is allowed to exploit our people and change our way of life forever."

Presenting his own set of studies and statistics, as did witnesses on both sides of the issue, Dufresne laid out several reasons that his coalition of Liberal and Evangelical Protestants as well as Catholics, oppose casino gambling. He and the other clergy witnesses urged the committee to resist, "the temptation to gamble on a 'quick-fix." Casino gambling will be a burden, not a blessing, if it is allowed to come to Massachusetts, he said.

Representatives of the Wampanoag Tribe see the issue in a different light, an economic one. Beverly Wright, Chair of the Wampanoag Tribal Council at Gay Head, requested that any proposal concerning gambling include her tribe. Legal counsel for the tribe, the only federally-recognized Indian Nation in Massachusetts, spoke in stronger terms than Wright. In answering some questions from members of the legislative committee, he said that according to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), any gaming which is allowed in any part of the commonwealth is automatically legal on any tribal lands, without government regulation.

Perhaps most vehement in their testimony against casino gambling in Massachusetts were two residents of other states. Sen. Rhoda Perry, a member of the General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island, testified that since gambling has been legal in Rhode Island, the cost has been immense in both monetary and social terms. She urged that if Massachusetts does go down the road to casino gambling that it at least not link casinos and racing. She said, "In Rhode Island, dog racing has become a loss leader for casino gambling."

The most articulate and most passionate opponent of casinos at this hearing was Jeff Benedict, a resident of Connecticut, where he said they have the "benefit of ten years' experience." An attorney and the author of Without Reservation, a book describing the creation of Foxwoods by the Mashantucket Pequot tribe of Connecticut, Benedict describes that gambling empire as one based on "fraud" and systematic skirting of the law. Among other things, Benedict claimed that casinos do not create new revenues or new jobs. They merely move them from one place to another. He also said that of the 2,300 casino jobs in Connecticut, not one is a union job.

Regarding relations between state government and Indian tribes, Benedict issued some stern warnings. He said that the experience of the State of Connecticut indicates that "IGRA [a federal agency] will dictate that Indians can do whatever they want if you allow casino gambling." When asked what the expectation should be if the state had to enter into litigation with the Wampanoag Tribe or any other Indian entity, Benedict answered quickly and firmly, "Be prepared to lose."

Congratulating the Massachusetts Legislature for its willingness to hold hearings on the topic, Benedict said that his state did not have such hearings. He said, "We dove into a pool, the depths of which we did not know."

The hearing was by the Joint Committee on Government Regulations, chaired by Sen. Michael Morrissey (D-Quincy) and Rep. Daniel Bosley (D-North Adams). It is expected to make its recommendations on these bills within the next two weeks. Morrisey said he expected them to be debated in the legislature around April 15.

Rep. Daniel Bosley (D-North Adams)

The House debated two bills on April 15 to expand legalized gambling in Massachusetts. Both were voted down. The bills came to the House floor with a recommendation from the Government Regulations Committee that they be rejected. One sought to authorize slot machines at the four existing racetracks and the other would have approved slots, Indian gaming and three commercial casinos. When polled prior to the session, the House was pretty solidly against expanded gambling.

The final debate was lengthy but, under an order already adopted by Representatives, it was agreed that there won't be any more talk of gambling as a revenue source during the upcoming House budget debate once the vote was taken.

In fact, the order adopted by the House has some Senators wondering what it might mean if that branch endorses expanded gaming and includes it in its version of the budget. While there's been some backroom debate over whether the House would even consider any gambling provisos surfacing from the ultimate House and Senate budget conference committee, most believe it would survive as a matter of courtesy between the branches and tradition. Measures shot down in one branch are often included in the budget of the other branch and in the final spending plan that goes to the Governor.

The House voted 95-59 to reject legislation authorizing slot machines at the state's four racetracks and at two other locations in Central and Western Massachusetts. The House also voted 87-65 to turn down legislation allowing 1,500 slot machines to be installed at the state's four racetracks.

Several House members predicted the Senate will embrace slot machine legislation. Which its supporters say will add as much as $500 million in related revenues to its budget. If that occurs, it would set up a major budgetary disagreement between the branches.