Flawed casino bill leaves public interest too vulnerable

Flawed casino bill leaves public interest too vulnerable

FOUR YEARS ago, when Governor Patrick resurrected the idea of legalizing casinos in Massachusetts, it seemed conceivable that doing so could work out to the state’s advantage. For most Bay State residents who visit Connecticut from time to time to play roulette and see a favorite comedian, gambling is harmless entertainment and nothing more. For that reason, authorizing Foxwoods-style destination casinos looked like an easy way to recapture hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues and satisfy public needs from transportation to local aid - and generate thousands of new jobs to boot.

The key question, though, was whether the governor and state lawmakers could expand gambling in a manner that maximizes the economic benefits for the state and minimizes the potential for political intrigue. While a Beacon Hill conference committee is still reconciling the measures that passed the House and Senate this fall, it’s become quite clear that the political system in Massachusetts isn’t well-equipped to withstand the intense pressure that legalized gambling will place upon it.

The public interest is highly vulnerable on some of the nitty-gritty issues now before House and Senate negotiators. For instance, under which circumstances will voters in the state’s largest cities get a vote on a proposed gambling facility in their communities? For how long should lawmakers be prohibited from working for gambling companies after they leave office? On both issues, the Senate bill is better than the House bill - which would deny most Bostonians a vote on a casino in the city and provides no cooling-off period before a lawmaker could take a job with a gambling operator. But neither bill’s provisions are adequate.

Still more telling are key issues that are no longer on the table. While Patrick’s original vision was for three destination casinos, House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who has long shown a special interest in Suffolk Downs, wanted to let the state’s ailing racetracks have slot machines. Last year’s negotiations stalled on the issue. This year, Patrick, DeLeo, and Senate President Therese Murray agreed on a plan to license three casinos and a slots parlor - and to set aside some of the proceeds to prop up the racing industry. At this point, writing this kind of favoritism into law isn’t even up for debate, and there are ample grounds for public cynicism. Is there much doubt that Suffolk Downs will come away with either a casino or a slots license, no matter what?

Sadly, there’s little evidence that Beacon Hill has taken recent scandals to heart. When former state senator Dianne Wilkerson pleaded guilty in a bribery scheme over a liquor license, it foreshadowed the danger of corruption on casino licensing decisions, where exponentially more money is at stake. When former House Speaker Sal DiMasi was convicted of taking kickbacks to fix a multimillion-dollar insurance contract, it highlighted how even a seasoned lawmaker could view self-dealing as part of how things are done on Beacon Hill.

Yet at the point in the legislative process when the public most needs reassurance, the signs are particularly grim. Recently the lead House negotiator, Representative Joseph Wagner, maintained that denying politicians the ability to be hired right out of the Legislature and into casino jobs would “preclude the best and brightest’’ from working in the industry. Meanwhile, the Globe recently reported that a key Patrick aide on the gambling issue, economic-development chief Greg Bialecki, owned $17,000 in stocks in companies that hope to build casinos in the state. Most people on Beacon Hill barely shrugged.

When Patrick offered a casino plan four years ago, he did so cautiously, and the bill as it now stands is still farther from his ideals. Yes, the conference committee can and should strengthen ethics protections and local-control provisions in the bill. Yet unless the basic outlines are changed to conform to Patrick’s initial vision, it simply shouldn’t pass, and Patrick should veto it if it does. If Massachusetts marries the casino industry on these terms, it will be stuck with the consequences forever.