Casino vote big win for democracy
Newspapers comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, according to Finley Peter Dunne’s fictional bartender Mr. Dooley.
Except when it comes to the unfashionable, like those pesky signature gatherers who stand outside strip malls in the rain, sleet and snow trying to make democracy more small “d” democratic.
Going back to Howard Jarvis’ property tax-cutting Proposition 13 in 1978, the press has portrayed people who dare to try their hands at direct democracy as tacky, uncouth, unwashed.
The irony is that initiative petitions — by which ordinary citizens propose laws and constitutional amendments for consideration by voters without going through the legislature — are a product of the Progressive Era. Yet “progressive” reporters typically take the side of the status quo against them.
As is the case in Massachusetts, where by some sleight of hand the corporate Goliaths pushing gambling have been cast as the good guys, while the Davids trying to repeal the 2011 law that authorized a gaming commission to issue casino licenses are the bad guys.
The right to petition government is part of the First Amendment, the one the media depends on for its livelihood. You would think they’d at least be impartial, if not sympathetic to the plight of petitioners.
But no. Down on Morrissey Boulevard the Globe put the efforts of gambling interests on Page 1, above the fold, Monday and portrayed their efforts to keep the people from voting on repeal of the 2011 gaming law as some sort of noble crusade.
There is “growing concern” among casino operators, says the Globe. There would be “risks” for the state in accepting their nonrefundable fees. There is a “cloud of uncertainty” over “the state’s casino industry” — which doesn’t even exist yet.
Talk about misplaced sympathies.
Even if casino opponents win the court case for the right to put repeal on the ballot, the other side will get a chance to persuade the voters that gambling makes sense statewide. That’s exactly what the original progressives had in mind when they first proposed initiative petitions as a way to counter the power big businesses had over state legislatures. Take it to the people, and let them decide.
Gambling is the ultimate NIMBY — not in my backyard — issue. Those who support casinos in general become opposed when asked how they would feel about high-rollers coming into their own community, or one next to it. Unfortunately, abutters don’t get to vote in neighboring towns’ referendums.
But everyone would get a vote if casino opponents are allowed to put the question on the ballot.
That would be the progressive thing to do.
Cornelius Chapman is a freelance writer and the author of the proposed casino repeal bill.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment