Casino Proponents Misleading Public

OPPONENTS: BACKERS MISLEADING ON INDIAN CASINOS



Supporters of expanded gambling bills are misleading the public by suggesting they need to put in place a regulatory structure to prepare for the advent of casinos run by Native American tribes, according to opponents of casinos.

Citing repeated claims by lead Senate gambling bill conferee Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, casino opponents on Tuesday said there as no possibility of tribal casinos in Massachusetts unless the Legislature and Gov. Deval Patrick agree to legalize slot parlors and casinos.

"Legislators keep saying they are working to control a flood of tribal casinos but what they don't acknowledge or, worse, don't realize is that they are the ones poised to open up the floodgates," Scott Harshbarger, the former state attorney general, said in a statement. Harshbarger has been leading opposition to expanded gambling as part of the group United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts.

The group says that under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the state is not required to allow tribal casinos if expanded gambling has not been legalized in Massachusetts. The argument was used two years ago as part of a multi-pronged offense by casino opponents that helped killed Patrick's three-casino proposal in 2008.

Democratic legislative leaders are meeting privately [BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!] this week to try to agree on a consensus bill allowing expanded gambling in Massachusetts.