The Fleecing of the Massachusetts Taxpayer

Opponents bash casino plan as insider deal
By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff

Former state Senator Susan Tucker speaks against casino gambling during a rally today outside the State House.

As Massachusetts House Democrats met privately in a windowless conference room to hash out details of a casino gambling bill this morning, opponents stood outside the State House complaining that it was an inside deal.

“I have a title for the bill,” said Susan Tucker, a recently retired state senator and leading anti-gambling crusader. “It’s called the fleecing of the Massachusetts taxpayers.”

Tucker said the bill takes from the poor and returns profits to out-of-state billionaires. She warned fellow lawmakers that voters who say in polls that they support gambling would immediately become opponents if a casino decides to locate near their homes.

“It can be a career-ending vote,” she said. “It’s easier to site a landfill than it is a casino.”

The press conference attracted dozens of opponents from church, civic, and professional groups and was one of the largest anti-gambling demonstrations since a casino bill was introduced last month.

In a twist, the casino opponents shared their platform with a group who believes the true cause of the 9/11 terrorist attack hasn’t been revealed. They had previously scheduled a protest for the same time.

The opponents said any promised economic benefit to the state from casinos would be outweighed by the costs of increased crime and addiction and that the state’s historic character would be transformed.

“People come from around the world to visit our great commonwealth,” said the Reverend Laura Everett, associate director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches. “They don’t come to sit in a windowless slot barn with no clocks and oxygen pumped in that could be anywhere in the world.”

The House is scheduled to debate the bill, authorizing three casinos and one slot machine parlor, tomorrow, and possibly Thursday. It has support form legislative leaders and Governor Deval Patrick, who say it will bring jobs and help the state’s budget with hundreds of millions of dollars in casino taxes.

House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, following the caucus of House Democrats, said he feels strongly about bringing casinos to the state because he has spoken with unemployed workers at union halls and wants to get them back to work.

“They want jobs,” he said. “People are really hurting out there, folks.”

Democrats discussed a host of issues during the closed-door caucus, including more than 150 amendments proposed last week, according to DeLeo and others in attendance.


And the majority of Democrats have continued to ignore the vote by their own party:
Massachusetts Democratic Party Resolution Opposing Predatory Gambling

DeLeo and other leading Democrats would not say whether they support a Republican amendment that would require casino operators to verify the immigration status of their employees using the federal E-Verify system, a contentious issue that has come up often in the Legislature, outside the context of the casino debate .

The provision in the bill that gives the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe an advantage in negotiating for the right to open a casino in Southeastern Massachusetts drew the most questions, DeLeo and others said. [Hopefully, you folks discussed Genting and that it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.]

Legislators also discussed numerous amendments that dealt with doling out money to help communities impacted directly by nearby casinos. [In other words, they were carefully scripting what will pass and what will satisfy the Gambling Industry.]

Several speakers at this morning’s press conference led groups formed in cities and towns near proposed casinos. They said the impacts on quality of life could not be fixed by money set aside in the bill.

“East Boston, Revere, and Winthrop, you have a target on your back,” said John Ribeiro, founder of Neighbors of Suffolk Downs. “This is just another back-room deal that represents the special interests and not the people’s interest.”

Democratic House members, who hold a large majority in the House and Senate, traditionally meet behind closed doors before public debates on major issues.

The casino bill was also drafted following closed negotiations among DeLeo, Senate President Therese Murray, and Governor Deval Patrick, all Democrats who support expanded gambling. DeLeo defended that process today, saying voters have had the opportunity to express their opinions during years of debate and that they also have representation through their legislators.

But opponents said many lawmakers’ arms have been twisted, pointing out that support for gambling in the House increased dramatically when DeLeo replaced Salvatore F. DiMasi, a gambling opponent, as speaker.

DeLeo suggested today that many lawmakers changed their positions on their own.

“I disagree with that very strongly. I think we’ve made the case over the years,” he said. “Maybe I didn’t have to convince as many people as people would like to think in terms of changing their votes.”

Tom Larkin, president of United to Stop Slots, said he believes casino backers have the votes to pass a bill, but “we’re not going to go gently. We’re going to fight it.”

He said he was hoping opponents could persuade Patrick to change his mind. He said Patrick, who wrote about social justice in his memoir, is showing inconsistency by supporting casinos and slots. “So we’re going to come down hard on him,” he said.

House Majority Leader Ronald Mariano said he had no idea how the House would vote on the casino bill.

“If I could predict that I’d be making money somewhere else,” he said.

At a casino?

“I wouldn’t do that,” he said. “I know the odds.”