Column: On casinos and politics

Get the FACTS and join with others to protect ALL communities:

REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL


Column: On casinos and politics

By Rick Holmes
MassPoliticalNews.com Posted Jul. 3, 2014 @ 9:37 am

BROOKLINE


A campaign that had been looking for a theme found one last week, with a little help from the Supreme Judicial Court. Now casinos will be on the ballot, and on them minds of voters, as commercials pro and con crowd out candidate pitches in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

The political establishment had hoped it wouldn’t come to this. After years of intense lobbying, the Legislature three years ago agreed, by large, bipartisan majorities, on a modest plan for up to three resort-style casinos and one slots parlor, with voters given a veto of any casino proposed for their community. Licenses have already been granted for a casino in Springfield and a slots operation in Plainville.

Whether Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office tried to keep the casino repeal initiative off the ballot for legitimate legal or purely political reasons no longer matters. The SJC wasn’t buying the constitutional arguments. Coakley is embarrassed either way, and the one thing all candidates for governor seem to agree on is that the voters should have a say.

But which voters? As is often the case in public policy, the question comes down to, "Who decides?" Does the elected state Legislature get to decide how to legalize and regulate casino gambling? Should the voters get to reverse course three years into the process? Do the elected officials and voters of Springfield get to decide whether MGM’s casino proposal fits into their community, or should voters in Hopkinton and Williamstown and Boston’s Back Bay be able to veto that plan?

The difference between policy and politics is that the emotion behind issues like gambling can drown out all nuance, scramble partisan alignments and shape attitudes about candidates in unpredictable ways.

Gambling is a rare issue that pulls from both extremes. Cultural conservatives and nanny state liberals may use different language, but they agree gambling is so bad for people that the government is justified in limiting it.

Then there are the moderates. They may be concerned about the downside of gambling, but they’ve been to a casino or two without being transformed into slot machine zombies. They may not want a casino down the street, but they aren’t offended by one in Springfield, Everett or New Bedford.

Moderates care about economic development as well, and they’ll welcome whatever jobs three casinos and a slots parlor create. Polls show support for casinos on economic grounds has weakened as the economy has improved. Tell that to Springfield, which has an unemployment rate of 8.4 percent, compared to 5.6 percent for the state as a whole. There, MGM’s $800 million investment in a struggling downtown is seen as an opportunity, not a curse.

The casino question is already fueling primary battles in both parties. Democratic governor candidate Don Berwick is appealing to eat-your-vegetable liberals with his strong opposition to casinos in any form, while opponents Coakley and Steve Grossman oppose repeal, though without enthusiasm.

Republican Charlie Baker also says he’ll vote against repeal, though he’s happy to see it on the ballot. His nuanced position — he’d prefer one casino to three — won’t spur enthusiasm in the anti-gambling crowd. Mark Fisher, Baker’s tea party challenger, supports repeal, but on practical, not ideological grounds. He says private casinos will undermine the state’s own highly profitable Lottery operations.


Three independents running for governor are also split, with Evan Falchuk opposing repeal, Jeff McCormick favoring repeal on economic grounds, and Scott Lively opposed to all gambling on moral grounds.

In a hotly contested Democratic race for attorney general, Maura Healey is staunchly in favor of repeal, while Warren Tolman, with strong labor backing, shows more enthusiasm for casinos than any other candidate.

There’s no federal issue involved here, but that won’t stop Republican Brian Herr, who is challenging Sen. Ed Markey, from bringing it up. As chairman of the Hopkinton Board of Selectmen, Herr led efforts to stop a casino just over the town line in Milford.

How this will play out in individual races is anyone’s guess. The anti-casino crowd is louder than it is large. The moderates are O.K. with casinos, but not enthusiastic about them. The safest prediction comes from Secretary of State William Galvin, who said last week the ballot question should inspire "a very intensive turnout," — and a lot of money spent by companies that have already invested big bucks trying to bring casinos to Massachusetts.

Rick Holmes writes for MassPoliticalNews.com and the MetroWest Daily News. He can be reached at rholmes@wickedlocal.com. Visit MPN online or follow@masspolinews.

http://brookline.wickedlocal.com/article/20140703/OPINION/140708844#140708844/?Start=2&_suid=1404478159298036535225898877244

Casino decision could impact political landscape

By Frank Phillips

| Globe Staff June 27, 2014

When the state’s highest court this week cleared the way for voters to decide the fate of casinos, the Massachusetts political world scrambled to find some clarity about what impact it would have on the 2014 campaign.

The possibilities are intriguing. A boost for Don Berwick? A setback for other ballot questions? And will any other campaign have a chance of gaining the public’s attention now that the battle over slots has begun?

 

 

Here are some theories that are making the rounds in savvy political circles:

Related

• More from the Capital section

• Attorney General Martha Coakley, front-runner in the gubernatorial polls, takes an obvious hit for making a legal decision on the casino question — ruling it ineligible for the ballot — that was soundly rejected in a unanimous decision by the Supreme Judicial Court. It plays into critics’ questions about her competency. But Coakley can also use it to her advantage — driving home to organized labor and big casino proponents that she is their strongest ally among the Democratic gubernatorial candidates.

Moving too far in that direction however could be dicey for Coakley, too, threatening to alienate another important building block for her in a possible general election campaign, college-educated women. They are far less supportive of casinos than the general voting population. (Republican Charlie Baker’s position of advocating just one casino could be more attractive to that group.)

• Berwick, the only Democratic gubernatorial candidate who is flat out against legalized gambling, could leverage that position to reinforce his progressive credentials, boost his fund-raising, and also gain some attention for him among the blocs of not-so-liberal anticasino voters. Liberal activists, already drawn to his support for a single-payer health system, are also a big bloc in the Democratic primary. Stuck in single digits in recent polls of Democratic primary voters and lagging in resources, Berwick faces an uphill battle but has wasted no time in challenging his two Democratic rivals to a debate on the issue.

• State Treasurer Steve Grossman, who has tepidly said he would vote against the referendum, could try to maneuver to the other side and use the issue against Coakley in the primary. But it would be delicate surgery. He could get caught trying to play both sides — not a good image for a politician.

 

 

• The downside for Baker, the presumptive Republican nominee for governor, is that the passions for the casino issue, both pro and con, should boost turnout in Democratic communities — Boston, Springfield, Revere, and Everett. As a Republican nominee in 2010, he saw first-hand how the huge margins that Deval Patrick built up in those areas gave the governor his reelection. Baker, an opponent of casinos in his 2010 run for governor, now says he has misgivings about the casino law, but is ready to accept one gambling facility for the state. That could be the one already licensed in Springfield, according to a top adviser.

• Baker still faces a primary opponent, Mark Fisher, who is a critic of legalizing casino gambling and will vote to repeal the law. But it is not clear that he is in a position to pressure Baker in the GOP contest. Fisher’s candidacy has yet to gain much traction. In fact, earlier this month, his committee made a partial repayment — $30,000 — of his loans to the campaign. That is not a sign of a candidate who is in for the long haul. It left his account with a paltry balance of $4,264. Baker has over $881,000. Fisher insists he still plans to press Baker on issues like casinos, convinced he can pull off a Tea Party upset much like the one that dumped US House majority leader Eric Cantor earlier this month. Fisher said that by Monday he will put $20,000 back into his account.

• In the Democratic primary for attorney general, Maura Healey, a former assistant attorney general under Coakley, has drawn a sharp distinction between herself and her opponent, former state senator Warren Tolman, over the issue of casinos. She is voting for the repeal petition (setting herself apart from her former boss) and constantly points to Tolman’s former financial interest in an online gaming company and his support of casinos. She has already made inroads among the liberal enclaves and this issue will give that effort a boost. But Tolman also has strong ties with the progressive wing of the party, many of whom may oppose gambling but won’t hold it against him. He will also get money and support from the pro-casino labor unions, including the state AFL-CIO, which has endorsed him.

• The heavily funded casino debate will add to an already bulging menu of political television advertising this fall. Available air time was a huge issue even before the court put the casino on the ballot. Federal races, which include the New Hampshire US Senate race and Republican Richard Tisei’s challenge to US Representative John Tierney, have priority and are guaranteed the lowest rate. That will bump up the prices for all of the statewide candidates and referendum initiatives.

It also means that the party nominees for governor will struggle all the more to break through the cacophony of ads that is blasting at voters. And it will all but drown out the battles for the other statewide offices.

A half-dozen ballot questions, ranging from expanding the bottle depository bill to rolling back the automatic gas tax hikes, will be in play in next fall’s election.

But the casino issue is sure to draw the most attention — and probably the most money.

“Nobody will be discussing the bottle bill expansion around the water cooler,’’ said Joseph Ricca, a veteran Democratic strategist. “The casino issue is another matter.”

More Capital coverage:

• An Olympic-sized split over bringing games to Boston
• Casino decision could impact political landscape
• In race for AG, a focus on experience, retail politicking
• Capital Source: Warren adviser departs, the coup that didn’t happen, and more
• Capital: The week in politics and issues

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/26/casino-decision-could-have-many-impacts-political-landscape/fUpcr2JBiT47cTPk9PLiHN/story.html?p1=Article_InThisSection_Bottom