http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/10/25/ap_enterprise_gambling_industry_keeps_close_eye_on_massachusetts/
October 25, 2005
BOSTON (AP) -- Slot machine makers and casino operators are keeping their eye on Massachusetts -- and funneling cash to Beacon Hill lawmakers weighing whether to expand gaming here.
Article Tools
The Senate has already approved a bill that would allow each of the state's four dog and horse tracks to install slot machines, which are currently banned in the state. Its prospects in the House are unclear, and Gov. Mitt Romney has said he would oppose any major expansion of gambling in Massachusetts.
But that's done little to discourage gaming supporters -- from track owners to American Indian tribes -- who see the Senate vote as the strongest sign yet that Massachusetts will join the states that allow casino-style gambling.
"It's something that certainly gets your attention," said Robert Vincent, a spokesman for Rhode Island-based GTECH Corp., one of the biggest manufacturers of lottery equipment and slot machines.
If Massachusetts legalizes slots this year, GTECH wants to make sure it gets a piece of the action. The company has hired lobbyists to monitor developments on Beacon Hill.
"There have been perennial discussions in Massachusetts about gaming, so I don't know how to handicap it," Vincent said. "But clearly it's passed one hurdle."
In the first six months of the year, lobbyists working for firms representing a wide range of gaming interests donated more than $106,000 to lawmakers, according to an Associated Press review of lobbyist records.
That's about one out of every six dollars that lobbyists contributed to the campaign accounts of all state officials during that time period. The total amount donated by lobbyists during the first half of the year was $604,422.
Of course, many lobbying firms represent multiple clients, not just gaming interests. Lobbyists will often give up to the $200 annual maximum to dozens of lawmakers to help make sure their message is heard.
It's also not just a one-year push. During the first six months of 2004, an election year, lobbyists working for gaming interests donated more than $115,000.
Groups that have hired lobbyists include: the state's four racetracks; two national casino companies; three groups associated with local American Indian tribes; and four slot machine or lottery manufacturers.
Nevada-based International Gaming Technology, the nation's largest maker of slot machines, is also eager to see if Massachusetts opens its doors. The company has an entire department dedicated to monitoring legislation at the state level.
"Every new jurisdiction is on our radar screen," said company spokesman Ed Rogich. "It's something we're always looking at."
The industry's largesse has been aimed at rank-and-file lawmakers, candidates and legislative leaders.
Sen. Michael Morrissey, D-Quincy, one of the main backers of the gambling bill in the Senate, got at least $2,100 this year from lobbyists representing gaming interests. Other legislative leaders have gotten similar amounts. A call to Morrissey was not immediately returned.
Senate President Robert Travaglini said there's no connection between donations from lobbyists and the Senate's decision to approve the slot machines bill. Travaglini has two of the state's racetracks in his Senate district.
"I find that so offensive to suggest somehow that when some interest ... gives $100 to a candidate or an elected official, all of a sudden their whole view of the world is altered," Travaglini said.
Under the bill, each of the four tracks -- Suffolk Downs in Boston, Wonderland Greyhound Park in Revere, Plainridge Racecourse in Plainville, and Raynham-Taunton track in Raynham -- could add up to 2,000 slot machines each.
A five-year license would cost each track $25 million, and the state would own the slot machines. The state would also take in 60 percent of the revenues from the slots -- an estimated $350 million each year -- although the tracks' lobbyists have already begun pushing to increase their share.
It is the tracks themselves that have been the most ardent supporters of the Senate plan. Without slots, they say, they'll eventually be forced to close, putting thousands out of work.
But gambling opponents said the level of lobbying by the industry shows just how much money is at stake.
"These out-of-state gambling interests stand to make millions of dollars if this passes," said state Sen. Susan Tucker, D-Andover.
The lure of easy money for the state doesn't make up for the serious social costs associated with compulsive gambling, she said. Other states have tried gambling and found it wasn't the solution they'd envisioned, Tucker added.
"It's low-income people and senior citizens who spend the highest proportion of their income on gambling," she said. "Anyone who suggests the government should raise revenues on the backs of low-income people and senior citizens should have their priorities re-examined."
October 25, 2005
BOSTON (AP) -- Slot machine makers and casino operators are keeping their eye on Massachusetts -- and funneling cash to Beacon Hill lawmakers weighing whether to expand gaming here.
Article Tools
The Senate has already approved a bill that would allow each of the state's four dog and horse tracks to install slot machines, which are currently banned in the state. Its prospects in the House are unclear, and Gov. Mitt Romney has said he would oppose any major expansion of gambling in Massachusetts.
But that's done little to discourage gaming supporters -- from track owners to American Indian tribes -- who see the Senate vote as the strongest sign yet that Massachusetts will join the states that allow casino-style gambling.
"It's something that certainly gets your attention," said Robert Vincent, a spokesman for Rhode Island-based GTECH Corp., one of the biggest manufacturers of lottery equipment and slot machines.
If Massachusetts legalizes slots this year, GTECH wants to make sure it gets a piece of the action. The company has hired lobbyists to monitor developments on Beacon Hill.
"There have been perennial discussions in Massachusetts about gaming, so I don't know how to handicap it," Vincent said. "But clearly it's passed one hurdle."
In the first six months of the year, lobbyists working for firms representing a wide range of gaming interests donated more than $106,000 to lawmakers, according to an Associated Press review of lobbyist records.
That's about one out of every six dollars that lobbyists contributed to the campaign accounts of all state officials during that time period. The total amount donated by lobbyists during the first half of the year was $604,422.
Of course, many lobbying firms represent multiple clients, not just gaming interests. Lobbyists will often give up to the $200 annual maximum to dozens of lawmakers to help make sure their message is heard.
It's also not just a one-year push. During the first six months of 2004, an election year, lobbyists working for gaming interests donated more than $115,000.
Groups that have hired lobbyists include: the state's four racetracks; two national casino companies; three groups associated with local American Indian tribes; and four slot machine or lottery manufacturers.
Nevada-based International Gaming Technology, the nation's largest maker of slot machines, is also eager to see if Massachusetts opens its doors. The company has an entire department dedicated to monitoring legislation at the state level.
"Every new jurisdiction is on our radar screen," said company spokesman Ed Rogich. "It's something we're always looking at."
The industry's largesse has been aimed at rank-and-file lawmakers, candidates and legislative leaders.
Sen. Michael Morrissey, D-Quincy, one of the main backers of the gambling bill in the Senate, got at least $2,100 this year from lobbyists representing gaming interests. Other legislative leaders have gotten similar amounts. A call to Morrissey was not immediately returned.
Senate President Robert Travaglini said there's no connection between donations from lobbyists and the Senate's decision to approve the slot machines bill. Travaglini has two of the state's racetracks in his Senate district.
"I find that so offensive to suggest somehow that when some interest ... gives $100 to a candidate or an elected official, all of a sudden their whole view of the world is altered," Travaglini said.
Under the bill, each of the four tracks -- Suffolk Downs in Boston, Wonderland Greyhound Park in Revere, Plainridge Racecourse in Plainville, and Raynham-Taunton track in Raynham -- could add up to 2,000 slot machines each.
A five-year license would cost each track $25 million, and the state would own the slot machines. The state would also take in 60 percent of the revenues from the slots -- an estimated $350 million each year -- although the tracks' lobbyists have already begun pushing to increase their share.
It is the tracks themselves that have been the most ardent supporters of the Senate plan. Without slots, they say, they'll eventually be forced to close, putting thousands out of work.
But gambling opponents said the level of lobbying by the industry shows just how much money is at stake.
"These out-of-state gambling interests stand to make millions of dollars if this passes," said state Sen. Susan Tucker, D-Andover.
The lure of easy money for the state doesn't make up for the serious social costs associated with compulsive gambling, she said. Other states have tried gambling and found it wasn't the solution they'd envisioned, Tucker added.
"It's low-income people and senior citizens who spend the highest proportion of their income on gambling," she said. "Anyone who suggests the government should raise revenues on the backs of low-income people and senior citizens should have their priorities re-examined."
