Meetings & Information




*****************************
****************************************************
MUST READ:
GET THE FACTS!






Showing posts with label gambling industry lobbyists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gambling industry lobbyists. Show all posts

Monday, July 6, 2015

Gaming Commission playing games with open meeting rules






Herald: Gaming Commission meets behind close doors regularly
The Boston Herald reports the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has spent more than 100 hours in meetings that were kept from the public. "A Herald review of more than 1,000 pages of the commissioners' individual public calendars dating back to 2012 uncovered questionable ways the commission has been able to meet in full, despite the strict requirements of the state's Open Meeting Law preventing 'deliberation' in private," writes Chris Cassidy of the Boston Herald. Some of that time is spent at weekly "commissioners' lunches" where no records are kept on the topics.
http://bit.ly/1RfHS2g


Gaming Commission playing games with open meeting rules





Photo by: 

Ted Fitzgerald
PRIVATE EYES: Gaming commissioner Bruce Stebbins had a calendar entry suggesting some ‘deliberation’ was done in private.





By:


The state’s Gaming Commission has spent more than 100 hours in secret meetings that were off-limits to the public — including “agenda-planning” sessions, weekly “commissioners’ lunches,” and at least one 90-minute conference with the gambling industry’s former top lobbyist, a Herald record review found.
A Herald review of more than 1,000 pages of the commissioners’ individual public calendars dating back to 2012 uncovered questionable ways the commission has been able to meet in full, despite the strict requirements of the state’s Open Meeting Law preventing “deliberation” in private.
Weekly “commissioners’ lunches” inside the body’s downtown Boston office — lasting between one and two hours — began in July 2013 and are still held each Wednesday. No records are kept on the topics, and the lunches are closed to the public, according to spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll.
“Commissioners discuss social matters, organizational structure and morale,” Driscoll said. “The commissioners do not discuss any matter that constitutes public business within the jurisdiction of the commission.”
But former Inspector General Greg Sullivan of the Pioneer Institute said he found that hard to believe.
“You can only talk about Tom Brady and ‘Deflategate’ for so long,” Sullivan told the Herald. “Eventually, the conversation probably drifts around to the subject of Massachusetts gaming.”
At least one commissioners’ lunch even featured a special guest — Frank Fahrenkopf, who had stepped down as president of the American Gaming Association one year before he met for 90 minutes with the MGC on Oct. 22, 2014.
Asked why that meeting had to be conducted in private, Driscoll said it was a “training session,” which is allowed under the Open Meeting Law, “to provide his perspective ... on the overall international status of the gaming and racing industry.”
The MGC also holds private “agenda-planning meetings” for up to two hours every other Wednesday.
They often immediately follow the lunches, putting the commission in combined private meetings together for nearly four hours at a time.
Driscoll said commissioners don’t deliberate during the “agenda-planning meetings,” which are also attended by director-level staffers, but “discuss the upcoming public meeting agenda” and materials needed for commissioners’ packets before the public meeting the following week.
Driscoll provided the Herald with a sample “draft agenda” and a “to-do list” that helps staff compile the agenda.
While the commission insists deliberations are conducted and decisions are made only in public meetings, Commissioner Bruce Stebbins had a one-hour entry on his calendar on Sept. 17, 2014 — the day after the Commission awarded a casino license to Wynn Resorts — with the subject line “Conference Call — MGC.”
“I was hoping we could strategize and discuss some critical topics in light of yesterday’s license decision,” Stebbins’ entry stated.
Driscoll told the Herald: “Commissioner Stebbins cannot recall if that conference call actually happened.”
She said “his intent was to have an agenda-setting conversation” with staff and “possibly” Commissioner Gayle Cameron about the future of racing and the employees at losing bidder Suffolk Downs.
The MGC also held a few “commissioner dinners” in late 2012 and early 2013, the calendars show.
Sullivan told the Herald the Gaming Commission’s structure — where the commissioners all work out of the same office — is a problem.
“It’s vulnerable to violations of the Open Meeting Law because of the design of the agency and the decisions the Legislature made,” said Sullivan. “It’s an inherently problematic situation because of the extremely unusual arrangement whereby the commissioners are full-time employees that work in the same building.”
Some of the datebook information the Herald requested could not be produced.
Stebbins’ calendar from March 2012 through the end of 2013 was “unavailable due to technical issues caused by his BlackBerry,” the MGC told the Herald.
Driscoll insisted the commission has acted within the law and has held 156 public meetings since 2012 — all of which require prep work.
“The commissioners never discuss or deliberate on any matter of public business which is, has or could be before the commission,” Driscoll said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/07/gaming_commission_playing_games_with_open_meeting_rules



Monday, September 29, 2014

Did the Gambling Industry Lose a BET in Florida.....?



It's difficult to know how to label BUYING PREDATORY GAMBLING SUPPORT with Campaign Contributions....Florida seems EASY and CHEAP!

VOTE BEWARE!

When a candidate you might vote for has GOBS OF CASH, you might just want to question where it came from!







Wondering what Genting, Las Vegas Sands and the Rooneys think about Rick Scott now that they know he was gonna screw them?

By on September 29, 2014
 
 
Gambling interests have donated more than $3.4 million to Florida lawmakers, mostly Republicans, since 2012.

Much of this money has come from gaming companies who would like to see full-blown casinos permitted in the state, specifically destination resort casinos in South Florida. Genting, Las Vegas Sands, and several other companies have spent millions on campaign contributions and lobbyists with this goal in mind. Since last year, Genting companies have donated more than $1.1 million to Florida politicians, according to state filings. Sheldon Adelson, whose Las Vegas Sands is the world’s largest casino operator, donated $250,000 to Rick Scott’s campaign in 2012 — that year’s biggest gift.

Despite this largesse, gambling interests have little to show for their investment in the political process.

The Legislature in 2012 rejected a Genting-backed proposal that would have allowed the Kuala Lumpur-based company to build a $3.8 billion casino resort. During the last two legislative sessions, efforts to expand gambling have not got out the gate.

Supposedly it has been the conservative Republicans who have been the obstacle to expanded gaming. However, a new report from the Associated Press suggests it’s not just GOP lawmakers in the way of Genting, Sands, et al. blocking gambling expansion, it’s Governor Rick Scott as well.

Scott’s staff nearly reached a multi-billion dollar deal with the Seminole Indian tribe that would have allowed it to add roulette and craps at its South Florida casinos.

The deal, which was scuttled last spring amid resistance from state legislators, also would have opened the door for the Seminoles to build a casino in the Fort Pierce area and would likely have blocked construction of any Las Vegas-style casinos in Miami for the next seven years.

The documents released by the Scott administration four months after the AP first requested them show that the incumbent governor is open to shifting his stance on gambling. Scott previously has been viewed as quiet supporter of opening major casinos in South Florida.

Lobbyists for these interests say that the AP report is “old news” and that if this deal had been presented to the Legislature, it would have either been amended to allow for destination resorts in South Florida or scuttled altogether.

That assessment may be true. Or it could be revisionist history. Or, as in the case of allowing the Seminoles to build a casino in Fort Pierce, it could be a surprise to most everyone (the powerful Rooney family, which owns the Palm Beach Kennel Club, must have looovvveeeddd the idea of new competition just an hour away).

But what this now-dead deal really looks like is an another attempt by Republican leadership to string along Genting, Sands, and other gambling interests in order to raise money from them during a crucial election cycle. Not that any of these interests would have not contributed to Republican legislative candidates, but I wonder if one of them — knowing then what is known today — would have hedged their bets and broken away from Scott or even for Charlie Crist? Probably not.

What the AP story also makes clear is that how to regulate gaming in Florida will be one of the dominant issues during the 2015 legislative session. Or for however long Republican leaders can string along the well-healed gaming interests.




http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/161057

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Genting Buys Support!







Questions surround Greenwood Lake mayor's affiliation with Tuxedo casino project

 
TUXEDO — On a warm evening in late July, Greenwood Lake Mayor Jesse Dwyer stood with young men and women welcoming people to a public hearing on the environmental review process for Sterling Forest Resort, the casino proposed by Genting Americas.
 
The group handed out stickers supporting the project. The men and women, several of whom were from Greenwood Lake, later spoke up at the hearing.
 
As mayor, Dwyer’s show of support was a given; elected officials in Tuxedo and the neighboring areas support the project. But his presence raised some eyebrows, because Dwyer’s public relations firm, Red Pillar Consulting, has been hired by Genting.
 
“We know that Greenwood Lake Mayor Jesse Dwyer has been retained by Genting for public relations,” said Rodger Friedman, co-chair of Sterling Forest Partnership and a critic of the casino project, who was responding by email to an article in the Record about the public hearing. “Therefore we suspect that the GWL contingent may have been purchased, although the article represents them as concerned citizens.”
 
Dwyer disclosed his association with Genting soon after his firm was hired in the spring, and has recused himself from any vote relating to the casino. Greenwood Lake has strong ties with neighboring Tuxedo but is not an approving authority for the project.
 
Dwyer dismissed suggestions that support from his village had been purchased by Genting.
 
“There is a natural enthusiasm for this project in Greenwood Lake, with or without my help,” he said, noting that residents were excited about the prospect of jobs, economic development and the construction of Exit 15B on the Thruway.
 
Russ Haven, a legislative counsel at the New York Public Interest Research Group, described the criticism of Dwyer as “rumor or innuendo.”
 
Haven suggested that Dwyer reach out to an ethics commission in the area for suggestions on how he might avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest if some people were concerned.

 
 
 
 
 
 
The Ultra-Orthodox community is frequently disappointing in their positions!

Ultra-Orthodox leaders reject anti-casino stand

Rabbi Caller doesn't 'represent our communities'
 
THOMPSON — Ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders in Sullivan County have renounced a letter from another member of that community opposing a proposed casino. The move comes after Town of Thompson Supervisor Bill Rieber called on those leaders to repudiate Rabbi Nachman Caller's letter to the state and support casinos.
 
Last month, Caller blasted the proposed Empire Resorts/EPR Properties casino at the old Concord resort in a letter to the board that will choose up to two casinos in the Hudson Valley/Catskills. He told the Gaming Facility Location Board that he represents more than 400,000 summer visitors.
 
"Such a casino would be an affront to our communities' sensitivities, and devastate the environment for our communities, summer camps and children, most of which are located within the immediate vicinity of the Concord," Caller wrote.
 
That brought an immediate response from Rieber, who called on the rest of the county's Orthodox summer leaders to counter Caller's letter, or else.
 
"The gloves are off," he wrote. "Anything less than a strong and very public statement from the Orthodox community leaders denouncing this unorthodox letter will be construed by us as total support of the content and Rabbi himself. Twenty-years plus of relationship building will be for naught. Game over."
 
The leaders of the community didn't exactly come out and endorse casinos, as Rieber wanted.
 
"We are not religiously permitted to support (casinos)," seven leaders wrote. "(But) we are not fighting such activities."
 
They did repudiate Caller.
 
"Mr. Nachman Caller is not an attorney or spokesman for our community." they wrote. "He does not work for us, nor does he speak or write on our behalf. He does not represent our communities."
 
 
 
 
 

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Don't Bet the House: Online Gaming Ban Faces Uncertain Future



Don't Bet the House: Online Gaming Ban Faces Uncertain Future

 

Currently, it's up to the states to decide whether to allow casinos, lotteries or other forms of gambling, including the online variety. Already facing new competition from the ever-expanding number of bricks-and-mortar betting facilities on Indian reservations and in states that have only recently allowed gaming (Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland, to name a few), some of the old Vegas guard are attempting to fight further encroachment by pushing a federal ban on online gaming. The prohibition would shut down Internet gaming in the U.S. wherever it already exists (three states) and prevent any new states from entering the market.
But not everyone in Vegas (or Atlantic City) takes that view. Some major casino companies are betting they can extend their brand from the Strip to the Web and make money online. And it's not just a fight between casino magnates: Indian tribes, racetracks, online game makers, states that run lotteries and financial institutions all want a say in the matter.

Splitting the Strip

The driving force behind the effort to ban online gaming nationally is Sheldon Adelson, billionaire owner of the Venetian casino. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, spent at least $92 million in 2012 supporting his favorite conservative candidates by giving to outside spending groups -- including $15 million to a super PAC supporting former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich's bid for the White House and $30 million to the one backing GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. (That's why possible Republican 2016 presidential hopefuls were practically tripping over themselves to speak at his confab, dubbed "the Sheldon primary," earlier this year.)
At the time, Adelson's main interest appeared to be electing a GOP president who would be strongly pro-Israel, although he's said to be concerned as well about a federal investigation into whether anyone connected with his company, Las Vegas Sands, bribed foreign officals; Las Vegas Sands is the world's largest casino company, and its operations in Macau account for much of its revenue.

Now, though, Adelson has taken on what he says he views as a moral issue, telling Bloomberg News -- in one of many interviews he's done on the subject in recent weeks -- that Internet gambling is "a train wreck, it's a toxicity, it's a cancer waiting to happen."

At the end of March, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in the Senate and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) in the House introduced the Restoration of America's Wire Act, which would mandate the reversal of a 2011 decision by the Department of Justice to allow online gambling except when it came to sports betting. Graham has picked up two co-sponsors, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Adelson strongly supports the bill. And as it happens, in the first half of the 2014 cycle alone, Graham received $10,400 from the Adelsons and $20,600 from employees of Las Vegas Sands. Adelson, in fact, threw a fundraiser for the South Carolina lawmaker in 2013 at the Venetian. None of the co-sponsors appear to have received any money from Adelson.
And Adelson picked up an industry ally earlier this year when Steve Wynn, the owner of Wynn Resorts, flipped to support a ban on online gaming.

Wynn's political contributions show that he, like Adelson, is a reliable Republican booster. According to an OpenSecrets Blog analysis, Wynn and his current wife, Andrea, have given more than $1.1 million overall since 1990, of which $949,000 has gone to Republican candidates, PACs or party committees.

So far in this cycle, the couple has written multiple five-figure checks to three big Republican national party committees. Otherwise, they've donated only to Nevada lawmakers -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, and Republican Rep. Joe Heck. The Wynn Resorts corporate PAC has only given out $2,500 so far this cycle to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). In past cycles, the PAC has given exclusively to Republicans.

But Wynn's comments about Internet gaming seem focused on the fact that he sees little in it for him, rather than any principled desire to see online gambling banned. His company did report lobbying on online gaming in the first quarter of 2014, but it spent just $30,000.
Lining up on the other side of the issue -- and for the most part, the political aisle -- are the two names that control just about every other iconic casino on the Las Vegas strip.

MGM Resorts, which owns the MGM, the Bellagio, the Luxor, CityCenter and the Mirage, to name a few, has publicly backed an expansion of online gaming. MGM also a history of political donations on the other end of the political spectrum from Adelson and Wynn. The company's corporate PAC and employees have favored Democrats since 2010, but the company has also made donations to outside groups. In 2010, MGM gave $300,000 to Patriot Majority, a liberal super PAC closely affiliated with Harry Reid. In more recent cycles, Patriot Majority has changed its status and become a politically active "social welfare" nonprofit that does not disclose its donors, but rails against conservative megadonors and outside spending.

Joining MGM in backing legalized online gambling is Caesar's Entertainment, which owns not only Caesar's Palace, but Harrah's and numerous other casinos across the country. Caesar's corporate PAC also leans Democratic, though less so than MGM's.

Not only do both companies publicly oppose a federal ban on gambling, but both have casinos that have been licensed in New Jersey to run online gaming operations.

Adelson's Sands Corp., in contrast, has only one non-Vegas casino, in Pennsylvania. Still, that state is considering legalizing online gambling, meaning that Adelson could yet be poised to reap the rewards of the "toxicity," if he so chooses.

A representative for the Sands would only confirm the company's support for a ban on online gaming and declined to elaborate.

The Sands has beefed up its lobbying operation, however. In the first quarter of 2014, the company reported spending $170,000 on lobbying -- more than half of what the company spent in all of 2013. All four lobbying disclosures filed by firms representing the casino listed Internet gambling as an issue. The firms representing the Sands include powerhouse K Street names like Patton Boggs and Steptoe & Johnson. The Sands also added former senator-turned-lobbyist Blanche Lincoln, the Lincoln Policy Group, and her firm to its roster of lobbyists.

Each side has formed an alliance to get its message out. Those sharing Adelson's point of view put together the Coalition to Stop Online Gambling. In response, the casinos on the other side created the Coalition for Consumer and Online Protection, which told OpenSecrets Blog that federal ban on lobbying would interfere with what are properly state-level decisions.

"With the proposed Adelson bill banning all Internet gaming, Congress would block important consumer protections, threaten state and individual rights and stifle innovation -- all in one legislative action," said that group's spokesperson Kristen Hawn.

Deal them in

Outside of the major casino interests, a diverse array of groups has tried to chime in on the subject: Indian tribes, gaming tech companies, banks, law enforcement and even Zynga, the company that makes Farmville and other games for Facebook.

One lobbyist representing several groups that oppose the ban said that many in the industry simply "want the issue to go away," maintaining that Adelson was solely responsible for the push. The rest of the industry, even those who might be disadvantaged by online gambling, is happy to have the issue decided at the state level, the lobbyist told OpenSecrets Blog.

Among Indian tribes, there's no broad consensus on the question, said Larry Rosenthal, a lobbyist with Ietan Consulting. Rosenthal represents the National Indian Gaming Association as well as 10 individual tribes -- including ones with major gaming operations like the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation.

"Everyone is all over the map," Rosenthal told OpenSecrets Blog. "You have some tribes who want online gaming, and some who want to protect their bricks-and-mortar operations. There is no monolithic position."

"Some of the more rural tribes are worried -- they're not going to compete on the level of Las Vegas, so some folks would probably support Adelson," Rosenthal said. Still, he noted, some tribes feel they have the resources to compete and have been meeting with technology companies to try and set up online gaming operations.

Given the huge range of resources and pre-existing operations, the only consensus position on any action by federal government is that it must not step on existing tribal rights, Rosenthal said.

"Many tribes are saying that if something is going to happen, they want to be protected -- they want to make sure Indian Country is protected," he said. "If there is legislation it should respect tribal sovereignty."

States, too, are eyeing federal legislation warily -- though their lobbying records so far this year show little activity on this front. But the Democratic Governor's Association has issued a strong condemnation of Graham's legislation, citing two main concerns similar to those raised by tribal leaders: Decisions over regulating gambling traditionally have been ceded to the states, and a proposed ban on Internet gambling could hurt existing operations, in this case state lotteries; 10 states have online lotteries and more are considering it.
The concern about the impact on lotteries, though, cuts two ways. One of the few non-casino groups to sign on with Adelson is the National Association of Convenience Stores. The trade organization's first quarter 2014 lobbying reports show an interest in the issue, and the group's website points out how meaningful in-store (not online) lottery sales are to its members: In 95 percent of visits by lottery customers, they bought merchandise in addition to tickets, the group claims.

The Republican Governor's Association hasn't followed the DGA's lead with a similar declaration against the ban -- which has some observers wondering if the slew of sitting Republican governors with presidential aspirations, and so possibly a desire for Adelson's millions, might be a factor. At least four Republican governors who fall into that category -- South Carolina's Nikki Haley, Texas' Rick Perry, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Indiana's Mike Pence -- have all recently issued statements of support for restricting online gambling, which have been trumpeted by the coalition supporting the ban.

But even if some governors are calling for the ban, they're facing pressure from groups of their own public employees. For example, law enforcement, which is not generally known as a friend of gambling, has expressed some opposition to Graham's legislation. The National Fraternal Order of Police, one of the leading police unions which has spent $55,000 lobbying this year on a variety of issues including online gaming, released a statement of its own criticizing the proposed ban. The union's opposition was two-fold -- concern that without regulated online gaming, "black market" online gaming happens anyway, and, the loss of revenue for law enforcement agencies.


The legislation is pending in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. As the fight heats up, visit our new Issue Profile on Online Gaming.

Images: This Nov. 29, 2013 photo shows a losing game of Internet blackjack on a computer screen in Atlantic City NJ. (AP Photo/Wayne Parry)



http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/05/dont-bet-the-house-online-gaming-ban-faces-uncertain-future.html

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Massachusetts is BUSINESS FRIENDLY! We can't be BOUGHT!


Promoters of Predatory Gambling in Massachusetts wrongly claim REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL would send a signal that Massachusetts is not BUSINESS FRIENDLY....They're WRONG!







"On the contrary. Repealing the law sends the message that deep-pocketed corporations can't come to Massachusetts; hire influential lobbyists to persuade politicians to change our laws; do it against the will of the people; and expect to get away with it."


Massachusetts voters are SAVVY and don't believe the propaganda.

Please join and support REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL!

Let's work together to protect ALL Massachusetts communities.


Please share your thoughts and comments.