By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions
State Rep. Charles Murphy, D-Burlington, one of several House members identified by the Herald the other day as having flipped from pro- to anti-casino after being awarded leadership positions by House Speaker Sal DiMasi, provides some details over at Blue Mass. Group.
Murphy says casino opponents plied him with information. “Like most of my colleagues, I read it all,” he writes. The fiends!
In today’s Boston Herald, Casey Ross shows how hard House Speaker Sal DiMasi went at casino-gambling supporters — to the point of awarding lucrative leadership positions to six legislators who had supported expanded gambling in the past. Four voted “no” last week, and the other two missed the vote.
Naturally, those who were interviewed by Ross deny there was any quid pro quo. But let’s say there was an understanding. It would be too cavalier to dismiss it with a “so what?” But this is the way the legislative game has been played for so long that I can only be amused at the outrage over DiMasi’s use of strong-arm tactics to stop something that would be of incalculable harm to the state.
The danger now is that some of these same legislators seem to think they’ll get their way in pushing through slot machines at the state’s race tracks. Let’s hope not. For now, though, I think DiMasi deserves credit for using his muscle for the greater good.
WBZ-TV (Channel 4) political analyst Jon Keller on Gov. Deval Patrick, House Speaker Sal DiMasi and the casino vote:
The governor and other casino advocates lobbied hard for their position, using the same bag of tricks available to the speaker, everything from one-on-one meetings between legislators and a governor who could, if he chose, make their lives miserable back in their districts, to the profane strong-arm tactics of organized labor, who openly threatened to try to unseat legislators who didn’t toe their line. Nothing wrong with any of the above, that’s how it’s done. DiMasi and company just did a better job of it than Patrick et al.
No kidding. The anti-casino forces won this fight fair and square.
A Globe editorial today is really unfair in the way it portrays House Speaker Sal DiMasi’s “lobbying tactics” in defeating Gov. Deval Patrick’s casino proposal. The editorial says of DiMasi:
He does not support the introduction of slot machines at the racetracks — a wise decision, because the model has more negatives and doesn’t generate the kind of jobs and revenues associated with destination casinos. Yet while lobbying House members to kill the casino bill, he promised at least three legislators that he would not block their attempts to bring a racetrack slots bill to the House floor. And this from the leader who predicted Tuesday that casinos would “cause human damage on a grand scale.”
How obtuse can you be? DiMasi allowed the casino bill to come to the floor, where it died a natural death, assisted by DiMasi and state Rep. Dan Bosley, D-North Adams, a recognized expert on the false promises and social ills of casino gambling.
Now certain legislators want a “racino” bill to come to the floor so they can go on record as voting for it, thus pleasing racetrack operators in their districts. That’s fine. As the editorial points out, DiMasi opposes slot machines at casinos, and we can be reasonably sure that a bill allowing them won’t pass.
What’s laughable about the editorial is the inconsistency. DiMasi gets criticized for using his influence to defeat a casino bill that he had allowed to come to the floor. And then he’s criticized for supposed hypocrisy over racinos because — you guessed it — he’s going to allow a bill to come to the floor.
Sounds to me like DiMasi is being perfectly consistent. House members get to vote on controversial legislation. And DiMasi, as speaker, gets to let his members know where he stands. It’s called democracy.
Whether it was 106-48, as Casey Ross reports in the Herald, or 108-46, as Matt Viser and Andrew Ryan write in the Globe, the House defeated Gov. Deval Patrick’s three-casino proposal by an overwhelming margin today. Technically, the bill was sent to a study committee, but we all know what that means.
Ross’ is by far the more colorful of the two accounts, as he describes angry losers jeering and booing as the proposal went down to defeat. It is true that the casino opponents, led by House Speaker Sal DiMasi, had an unfair advantage — they had the facts on their side, as well as the moral high ground. All that and arm-twisting, too.
In retrospect, it seems clear that DiMasi knew he was going to win all along, and that whatever pressure he put on lawmakers was designed to run up the score in order to make sure that Patrick doesn’t try this again. Patrick can still be a successful governor. But he’s got to walk away from this terrible mistake.
The good news is that Gov. Deval Patrick’s proposal to build three casinos in Massachusetts will be defeated later today (Globe story here; Herald story here). What matters now is that any plans to bring casinos here remain properly dead and buried.
Which brings me to this story in yesterday’s Brockton Enterprise. Alice Elwell reports that the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe continues with its efforts to bring the world’s largest casino to Middleborough, unveiling plans for a gambling emporium of three or four floors and an adjacent hotel that could be as high as 18 stories. And get this: Apparently that’s not as bad as had been expected.
The Mashpee can’t go ahead with a casino — or, at the very least, will face daunting obstacles — unless the state legalizes what’s called Class III gambling. So the House’s pending vote against Patrick’s proposal is key. Without Class III gambling, the Mashpee could only build a glorified bingo hall. And, as the Cape Cod Times has reported, the feds seem determined to scale back such operations, as video bingo has morphed into just another form of slot machines.
What could change all that is if the House, having taken a principled stand against the governor, now turns around and allows the state’s financially ailing racetracks to install slot machines. Elected officials are reportedly under a lot of pressure to allow “racinos,” as they would be known.
There are two problems. First, racinos are just a bad idea, bringing with them the same social ills as casino gambling, if on a smaller scale. Second, they would require state approval of Class III gambling, thus opening the door to Native American casinos such as the one proposed for Middleborough.
Not that there’s much likelihood of a casino’s ever being built in Middleborough. Federal approval could take years, and there were so many problems with the miserable way that the selectmen’s deal with the Mashpee was approved that opponents should be able to keep it tied up for a long, long time.
But the right answer to expanded gambling is “no,” and it’s important that state officials keep that in mind. House Speaker Sal DiMasi deserves our gratitude for using his muscle for the good of the commonwealth. Now’s not the time to go all flabby.
Finally, let me venture into the treacherous “what’s my solution?” debate. It’s a phony construct, but it’s one Patrick himself keeps bringing up. I’m not going to talk specifics. I’ll only point out that the state and local tax burden in Massachusetts is ranked 28th nationally — about average. It’s neither outrageously high nor dangerously low.
Given that, a reasonable person might think that any budget shortfall we face could be solved with spending cuts, perhaps a modest tax increase and a determination to live within our means. Not very sexy, and nothing for huge new spending programs. But there you have it.
A group of Deval Patrick supporters, on the day of a House hearing on the matter, is circulating an open letter denouncing the governor’s proposal to build three casinos in Massachusetts. Only a few names are attached at the moment, but as you can see from the comments at Blue Mass. Group, there’s a lot of interest starting to build. Here’s a highlight from the letter:
Resort casinos are a mechanism for transferring money from poor and middle class people to wealthy corporations. Any revenue that leaks out to the state via taxation along the way is far short of the amount necessary to ameliorate the social and economic damage that the industry causes.
Resort casino gambling would involve our state government in condoning and encouraging behavior that has led in far too many cases to personal financial ruin, the breakup of families, domestic violence, and child neglect. In addition to these social costs, resort casinos draw money away from local restaurants, stores, and farms, compounding the injury. So presenting resort casino gambling as a source of revenue that would benefit our communities is misleading. The academically documented experiences of other states suggest that resort casinos damage, rather than boost, local economies.
Gee, sounds exactly like House Speaker Sal DiMasi, who denounced casinos in his strongest language yet this morning in a speech before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. Unlike DiMasi, the Patrick supporters can’t be characterized as basing their opposition on personal animus toward the governor.
Also at Blue Mass. Group, Ryan Adams posts new polling data showing that two-thirds of respondents are opposed to seeing a casino built in their community. No surprise. As readers of this blog know, residents at the Middleborough town meeting last summer voted overwhelmingly against an advisory question asking whether they wanted to see a casino built. Unfortunately, most of the attention was given to town meeting’s approval of a deal the town had reached with the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe in case a casino is built despite that opposition.
Finally, Matt Viser reports in today’s Globe what casino opponents have been saying all along — that there is nothing inevitable about the Mashpee Wampanoags building a casino in Middleborough or anywhere else.
I had been looking for this, but somehow I missed it — until now. Several days ago, Cape Cod Times reporter George Brennan wrote an excellent article on Middleborough selectman Adam Bond’s bizarre and offensive blog post that casino opponents remind him of Nazis. Not to be missed. Yes, he took it down. But it lives on.
*Godwin’s Law explained.
The Outraged Liberal, who gets up even earlier than Media Nation (can that 5:27 a.m. time stamp be correct?), says everything I was going to say about the state of the casino-gambling fight. I wouldn’t spin it quite the same way, though. Mr. Liberal takes House Speaker Sal DiMasi to task for his “increasingly strident and personal approach to the issue.”
Well, yes, today’s Globe coverage makes it quite clear that DiMasi is taking it personally. But just because he’s getting personal doesn’t mean he isn’t right. From Matt Viser’s story:
One representative who met with the speaker yesterday said DiMasi “made clear that he wants to win this thing.”
“It’s trying to convince you, ‘I’m right, the governor’s wrong, and we really want your vote,’ ” said the representative, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private. “I thought it was going to be on substance, talk about the pros and cons. But it’s been made pretty clear that it’s more than that.”
Now, this particular legislator apparently thinks DiMasi’s approach is light on substance. But it’s also clear that DiMasi is taking a principled position — “I’m right, the governor’s wrong.” And, in fact, DiMasi’s right and the governor’s wrong. Am I missing something here? Let’s not forget that the speaker is relying in part on data generated by state Rep. Dan Bosley, who’s been studying this issue for years.
Then, too, Gov. Deval Patrick himself appears to be getting personal as well. According to Globe columnist Joan Vennochi (don’t take the buyout, Joan!), DiMasi is getting his back up because he believes Patrick and his minions have been sliming him in the press. Not all that competently, either — DiMasi may be golfing with casino backers, but he’s also telling them “no,” while Patrick has rolled over for them.
Mr. Liberal has come around to the anti-casino position, but he still wants more data and for “cooler heads to prevail.” I’m not sure why. Patrick’s three-casino proposal is the most damaging idea any governor has come up with in a long time. What’s needed is to defeat it — soundly, and by a wide enough margin that he doesn’t try again.
There are so many reasons that we’re going to miss Globe columnist Steve Bailey. Among those reasons is his staunch, principled, fact-based opposition to casino gambling. Bailey’s got a good one today, poking holes in the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce study — not that it already didn’t pretty much look like Swiss cheese.
Something I had missed, but that Bailey picks up on right away: the very title is “Casino Gaming in Massachusetts,” thus relying on the preferred PR term for gambling rather than the English language. His description of so-called revenues as gambling losses is dead-on. And he wonders how long it will be before Donald Trump starts seeking a tax cut.
Bailey’s column comes on the same day that the Globe’s Sean Murphy reports that slot-machine revenues are plunging in Connecticut and Rhode Island, showing that oversaturation is already taking a toll. People only have so much money they can lose, apparently. The Patrick administration says it sees no need to revise its numbers, which makes sense once you understand they’re based on nothing but wishful thinking in the first place. (Plus whatever Clyde Barrow jotted down while hanging out in parking lots.)
In today’s Herald, Scott Van Voorhis offers some horrifying tales of gambling addiction, but says advocates are neutral on Gov. Patrick’s three-casino plan because of the money he would include for treatment. The advocates seem not to understand that there will be a lot more gambling, and a lot more addiction, if people don’t have to drive all the way to Foxwoods.
Not to mention that treatment money can always be cut. Especially if it’s needed to give a tax break to Donald Trump.