Massachusetts: Senate keeps slots in casino bill

Senate keeps slots in casino bill
By Kyle Cheney
State House News Service


BOSTON — The Senate on Thursday rejected an effort to strip a slot machine facility out of an expanded gambling bill, but the proposal garnered enough support to raise the prospect that the branch could sustain a potential veto of the slot machine provision.

While Gov. Deval Patrick has said he’d support a competitively bid slot parlor to achieve a long-thwarted deal to bring casino gambling to Massachusetts, he has long asserted that a slots-only gambling facility amounts to “convenience gambling” and previously argued that such facilities feature “more downside than upside, more human cost and impact than there is benefit on the jobs and revenue side.”

Twelve members of the Senate voted to strip the slot parlor, and although the effort was easily defeated, the absence of Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, a gambling opponent, and the imminent departure of Sen. Steven Tolman (D-Boston), an expanded gambling proponent, raises the prospect that members against the slot parlor could muster the 13 votes necessary to uphold a veto, even though one appears unlikely right now.

Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton), who sponsored the amendment to kill the slot parlor, reminded colleagues that only a year ago they had endorsed a gambling bill that included no slots-only facilities. She argued that those facilities devastate the poor and thrive on addiction, comparing them to tobacco companies.

“These people need our help, and instead we’re throwing them to the wolves,” she said. “What we are doing today is shifting money. We’re actually taking money from those that can least afford it and putting it in the hands of the wealthy. We’ve talked on this floor before about what’s happening in this country, about how the middle class isn’t going to be a middle class and how there may just be two classes and how we are continually taking from the poor to give to the rich. This is not economic development to have a slot parlor.”

Backers of a slot parlor argue that it can be up and running more rapidly than casinos, creating an instant infusion of jobs and revenue for the state.

“We’re going to see revenue that is now spent in Connecticut and Rhode Island and all the other states in and around our region where people make their own choice to go and play slots,” said Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton). “They will finally be able to come back here to Massachusetts and participate if they choose to do so with their recreational dollar. We’re going to create over 15,000 jobs with this bill. That’s positive economic development.”
[Where is that guarantee, Senator? That's an overzealous figure that's been repeatedly disproven by comparison with other states.]

Sen. Karen Spilka (D-Ashland), who co-chairs the committee that released the first version of expanded gambling legislation that included a slot machine parlor, voted to strike slots from the bill.

Asked why she hadn’t expressed her opposition to the slot parlor when the bill emerged from committee, Spilka said, “This is the time for me to be voting and taking a stand on certain issues. I figure that’s just the beginning of a process. There was consensus.”

Spilka did not rule out supporting a final bill that includes a slot facility, stating, “I need to look at the bill in its entirety to see.”

Sens. Creem, Spilka Kenneth Donnelly, Ben Downing, James Eldridge, Susan Fargo, Barry Finegold, Robert Hedlund, Patricia Jehlen, John Keenan, Mark Montigny and Daniel Wolf voted to eliminate the slots facilities.

During debate on the gambling bill, senators defeated an effort by Republicans to use gambling revenue to return the state sales tax to 5 percent, its level before an increase in 2009 to 6.25 percent.

Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stephen Brewer ripped the proposal as a detriment to the state’s fiscal health, and he said it might cause Massachusetts to “catch up with Greece” in its bond rating. The amendment failed 9-27, with some Democrats, including Sens. Steven Baddour, Eileen Donoghue, Michael Moore and James Timilty, joining their GOP counterparts in support.

Another Republican amendment to require that the first five years worth of gambling revenue be placed in the state’s rainy day account was defeated 4-32, a strictly party-line vote.

Brewer argued that the state wanted to use the revenue to support priorities like transportation, education, local aid and economic development. Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr countered that the proposal would allow the state to continue to enjoy “natural growth” in the economy while shoring up savings for any future economic turmoil.

Senators also defeated an amendment to reduce the number of casinos in the bill from three to two, an effort that Keenan said would bring greater economic gain and less negative impact from the gambling industry. No one spoke against the amendment.

The session ended when Baddour moved to print the amendments in the Senate calendar, a procedural move that exhausted gaming opponents’ remaining delay options.

The Senate is due to resume its debate Tuesday. Senate President Therese Murray told reporters that it may still be a long slog to complete the bill.

“We still have a long way to go,” she said, estimating that debate would continue through next Thursday.