"From Pennsylvania, a cautionary tale of casino profits trailed by corruption" by Noah Bierman Globe Staff / September 25, 2011
Now they tells us after it is a done deal.
PHILADELPHIA - Few states have a more compelling story to tell about how casino gambling is helping to balance the government’s books than Pennsylvania. Just five years after its first slot parlor opened, Pennsylvania now has 10 full-scale casinos, paying an annual $1.3 billion in taxes. That’s more revenue than New Jersey, Nevada, or any other state in the country.
Yet Pennsylvania’s story is also about how badly things can go wrong within the halls of government when billions of dollars are at stake. The financial success of Pennsylvania’s casinos was built on the ambitious scope of the effort and the rich profitability of the industry, but also on a foundation of cronyism, patronage, and back-room deals, not to mention overlooked criminal histories and alleged mob ties, according to a grand jury report released earlier this year.
As if Massachusetts needed more of that.
The report concluded that the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board - which was created to protect taxpayers’ interests - had instead looked after the industry, that it had taken “the public policy objectives and essentially turned them on their head.’’
That is what government does, duh!!
“It’s that kind of scandalous beginning that launched this experiment with casinos in Pennsylvania,’’ said state Representative Curt Schroder, a Republican who chairs the House Gaming Oversight Committee. “If you weren’t on the inside, you didn’t stand a chance.’’
As Massachusetts lawmakers prepare to embrace the riches that gambling venues can bring, the Pennsylvania experience could serve as a cautionary tale, a reminder of the vigilance necessary to protect the integrity of the casino development process. It’s a lesson that resonates in a state with its own rich history of patronage and public corruption, where just in recent weeks two former state officials were indicted and the former house speaker was sentenced to prison on corruption charges.
“The notion that somehow Massachusetts is going to do it differently is naive, and it’s not based in reality,’’ said Les Bernal, executive director of the Stop Predatory Gambling Foundation, which opposes the state’s casino legislation. Bernal points out that many of the casino operators in Pennsylvania have shown active interest in opening casinos in Massachusetts.
I've found that AmeriKa isn't based in reality.
But lawmakers who crafted the Massachusetts bill say that they are cognizant of what happened in Pennsylvania and have taken steps to guard against the inevitable temptations that come when the government creates and begins regulating a multibillion dollar industry overnight.
Uh-huh.
In 2004, Pennsylvania’s Legislature - then led by Republicans - approved casinos, helping the Democratic governor, Ed Rendell, fulfill his top campaign promise: property tax relief through casino windfalls....
:-(
Rendell, whose term ended in January, remains a strong advocate, saying casinos have had “virtually none of the downsides that people’’ predicted. He said the grand jury report was “overblown, if you look at the number of venues we had and the number of people who had ties to organized crime.’’
To Rendell and other boosters, the casinos have been an unmitigated success, employing 15,000 people, including 6,000 who came on last year when the state added black jack, roulette, and other table games.
But critics say the social and public safety costs outweigh the tax benefits. One casino, for example, had a rash of incidents in which parents left their children in cars so they could go in and play the slots.
Doug Harbach, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania board, said the state’s timing was lucky, because the first casino opened in 2006, before the economic meltdown. That luck did not extend to all the state’s casinos, however. The site of one of two casinos planned for Philadelphia’s waterfront remains a vacant thicket of weeds growing behind barbed wire. The developer, Foxwoods, faced intense neighborhood opposition and then missed several financing deadlines. The gaming commission finally revoked its license last year, and the matter is now in court.
Gee, I can't imagine why.
In an industrial section of Philadelphia’s waterfront, across from a meat-packing plant and beside a set of new high-rise condominiums, a casino called SugarHouse is the newest of the state’s 10 casinos.
It celebrated its one-year anniversary last week with $5 cocktails, a chance to win a Mercedes, and live music yesterday from The Hooters, a pop act known for the 1980s hit “And We Danced.’’
Free “Sugar Express’’ trolley buses, painted with the slogan “Philly loves a winner,’’ roll all over town to pick up customers, competing against double-decker buses that charge to see the city’s historic sites.
Inside the casino, it feels like nighttime, even on a weekday afternoon. Amid the electronic blinging and clanging noises and heavy cigarette smoke, some players cheer at the craps table, while less animated patrons insert coins into a Wizard of Oz themed slot machine.
Work crews are reconfiguring the floor, to add more table games that have soared in popularity.
“It’s all right,’’ said Dave Melan, a 44-year-old carpenter who says he plays slots and craps once a week or so. “In the beginning, they’re all the same. They pay out pretty good.’’
But Melan is down $50 and his girlfriend, Debbie Ryan, said she’s done even worse.
“I don’t have any money left over,’’ Ryan said.
It’s time to go home....
Massachusetts lawmakers say they have learned from other states, including Pennsylvania, and inoculated themselves against such problems by creating an independent commission, subject to the open meeting law, whose budget is not approved by legislators and whose members are appointed by the governor, the attorney general, and the treasurer. The state police will investigate everyone associated with any aspect of the gambling board or the industry, even outside vendors, renewing employee background checks yearly....
--more--"
Yeah, good thing nothing like that will happen in Massachusetts.
About those checks:
"Senators OK casino check on employees; They would review immigration status" September 27, 2011|By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff
The size of the casino bill and the money that would come to the state from casinos has encouraged lawmakers to use the legislation as a vehicle for a host of pet causes. An amendment to spend casino money to improve fire stations, for example, was voted down yesterday, as was one to let paid professionals run charity poker tournaments. A measure to devote more casino profits to local tourist development funds was approved.
Senator Bruce E. Tarr, Republican of Gloucester and the minority leader, said during the debate that lawmakers are counting up ways to spend the new casino dollars, even if they have not yet received them.
“You can feel the excitement about the prospect of new money,’’ Tarr said....
I'm feeling something, readers, and it sure isn't excitement.
The Senate is expected to continue debating amendments today, before taking the rest of the week off for Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year....
--more--"
Maybe I should start taking time off from the Boston Globe.
"Senate kills five-year ban on taking casino jobs; One-year prohibition OK’d for legislators" September 28, 2011|By Mark Arsenault, Globe Staff
A state Senate proposal to impose a five-year ban on former lawmakers taking casino jobs triggered an uproar yesterday by Democratic senators who abruptly broke off a heated public debate to rewrite the measure in secret.
I was raised to believe Democrats had better ethics than Republicans. WTF?
An hour later, and with no further discussion, the Senate approved a watered-down, one-year restriction.
Massachusetts democracy in action!
Lawmakers’ rationale for weakening the bill may be hard to explain outside the marble corridors of the State House: They said that a strong prohibition would only feed the public’s perception that lawmakers cannot be trusted.
Remember what I said above about reality?
“We’re creating a presumption that the people in this body cannot operate with integrity,’’ complained Senator Gale Candaras, Democrat from Wilbraham. “It’s bad law. It’s bad precedent.’’
Already got a job lined up, 'eh?
But the Legislature has not been without its high-profile problems. The past three House speakers have been indicted; the most recent, Salvatore F. DiMasi, was sentenced this month to eight years in federal prison for political corruption.
Yeah, they sure have proven how much integrity they have over there.
The five-year ban was proposed by James Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, who argued in the public portion of the debate yesterday that the bill authorizing three casinos and one slot parlor should only be an economic development program for the state, “It should not be an economic bill for legislators.’’ He said a five-year ban would address any perception or public cynicism that legislators might be motivated by personal interest to support the casino bill.
Members of Senate leadership were already working the floor to urge a no vote on the amendment. But when they met unexpected pushback from legislators, they tried a different course, signaling that they would go along with the ban, even though they didn’t agree with it.
“We will support this amendment,’’ said Senator Stephen Brewer, a Barre Democrat and Ways and Means Committee chair, in angry remarks from the floor, “but I reject and resent its implications.’’ He said “98 percent’’ of all the people he has served with in the Senate have been hard workers who served honorably.
But as the debate continued to simmer and tempers flared, Senate President Therese Murray inexplicably slammed on the brakes and called for a recess, so Democrats could hash out their differences outside of public view.
See: Secret Statehouse
The Perils of One-Party Politics: The Ruling Party
The Perils of One-Party Politics: Massachusetts' Democracy
And yet the state is filled with so many self-righteous shits!
When the closed caucus emerged, the five-year ban had been shaved to one year, though the change was not publicly announced before the vote. The Senate quickly passed the amendment 36 to 1. Debate on the entire casino bill continues next week.
“Most people don’t pay attention or understand the political process,’’ said Peter Ubertaccio, a Stonehill College political scientist who watched the debate yesterday. “But what people will understand is when a major political party goes into closed caucus and makes it easier for themselves to get jobs when they leave.’’
Legislators have tremendous power to influence private industry, Ubertaccio said, and the potential exists for them to profit personally from the decisions they make.
Only Republicans do that -- or so I was told.
“People are going to perceive them as more corrupt because they have only put one year between themselves and jobs with the casino industry,’’ he said.
Hard to believe that pieces of shit could stink more.
Senate Republicans, shut out of the private debate among Democrats, delighted in the inter-party dispute on the other side of the aisle.
“Nice to see a little passion here once in a while rather than a bunch of sheep,’’ said Senator Robert Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican, in comments to reporters. He said he favored the more severe five-year ban. “I sat next to Wilkerson for a while. I sat next to Marzilli.’’
He was referring to Dianne Wilkerson and James Marzilli who, along with Anthony Galluccio, left the Senate in disgrace amid a flurry of legal problems.
Related:
Slow Saturday Special: Professor Wilkerson Cuts Her Own Class
Marzilli Down the Memory Hole
Cambridge's Conquering Hero
Republicans are outnumbered 36 to 4 in the Massachusetts Senate.
Brewer told reporters that a one-year ban is “the industry standard.’’ Five years, he said, was “an arbitrary number.’’ A casino bill passed by the House does not contain similar language; a conference committee would eventually have to reconcile the two bills.
After the vote, Murray defended her decision to usher her members into closed session to work out their differences. She said the same arguments the public heard on the floor were the arguments repeated in the private discussion.
Then why, she was asked, shouldn’t the public see that debate?
“I think they had a very hearty debate on the floor,’’ she said.
Following the vote, casino opponents were mum on what happened in the caucus. Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Boston Democrat and casino critic, said that she and several other senators made themselves available for interviews to account for their votes. “I think it’s a stretch to say this was done in secret,’’ she said.
Eldridge, the senator who started the whole debate, called the one-year ban progress.
He declined to say how his colleagues persuaded him to give up on the tougher language. “That’s part of the caucus process that is private,’’ he said.
And you wonder why I have lost faith in Democrats?
--more--"
"Politicians could leave to go work at casinos; Gambling bill has no waiting period for Beacon Hill" by Noah Bierman Globe Staff / September 29, 2011
Governor Deval Patrick does not appear willing to insist on a stricter measure to prohibit lawmakers from joining casino companies directly upon, or just shortly after, leaving office.
After questions from the Globe yesterday, his spokesman, Alex Goldstein, offered a noncommittal response.
“As this bill continues to evolve throughout the legislative process, Governor Patrick is supportive of measures that are in line with the landmark ethics reform bill that he signed last term,’’ Goldstein said in an e-mail message.
The ethics reform bill signed by Patrick has a one-year cooling-off period before former lawmakers can lobby the Legislature.
That bill also extended to the Executive Branch.
But the prohibition applies only to lobbying. It does not ban outgoing lawmakers from taking jobs with casinos or other industries, regardless of whether they are regulated by the state.
On Tuesday, the Senate declined to impose a five-year cooling off period for lawmakers, instead agreeing on an amendment to its casino bill that would allow senators and representatives to work for casinos one year after leaving office. The House has no cooling-off period in its version of the casino bill, passed earlier this month.
The two sides will have to negotiate their differences before approving a final casino compromise.
If the House prevails in negotiations, lawmakers will be allowed under the expanded gambling law to resign from the House or Senate and immediately work for the casino industry, which would be dependent on Beacon Hill for its existence, its tax rate, and its regulations.
The Senate provision would delay that for a year.
The revolving door between lawmakers and the businesses they regulate has often been the subject of public criticism.
Patrick’s former chief of staff, Doug Rubin, has drawn criticism on the matter.
Since leaving the administration to become a lobbyist and private political consultant, he has been representing GTech Corp., a casino equipment manufacturer.
Rubin’s representation of GTech has also become an issue in the current US Senate election.
Rubin is working as the top political strategist for Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren, who has campaigned against the outsized influence of corporations in politics.
Warren is a gamble I guess.
Nonetheless, his GTech work has not violated state ethics rules or laws.
Just because the state says it isn't a conflict-of-interest.... pffffft!
--more--"
Now who in Washington could set a good example?
"Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts pledged yesterday to give up tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions he received from board members of an online poker company accused by US prosecutors this week of running an international Ponzi scheme."
Also see: Arts groups wage effort to ease impact of new venues
I fold, readers.
