As you may recall, a week or so ago the Globe asked the candidates for Governor and Attorney General where they stood on the possibility of a ballot question to undo the casino law – both whether they thought such a question should appear on the ballot, and also, if the SJC allows it, how they would vote. I found the results quite interesting. So I thought it would be useful to find out where some of our other statewide candidates stand.
I asked the three Democratic candidates for Treasurer – Tom Conroy, Deb Goldberg, and Barry Finegold – where they stand on the same two questions. The results are in, and they are unanimous: all three told me that they believe the SJC should allow the question on the ballot, and all three would vote “yes” to roll back the casino law.
Finegold noted that “I have voted against the gaming bill in both the House and Senate” – as a useful data point, Conroy also voted against casinos in the House. Finegold also made the following general statement:
As someone who believes in the importance of prioritizing community well-being, I oppose the expansion of casinos in our Commonwealth. I am especially concerned that the expansion of casinos will invariably cannibalize the lottery and therefore reduce the amount of local aid we give back to cities and towns.
Thanks to all the candidates for their responses! And kudos to all of them for their straightforward answers, in contrast to some of their up-ticket colleagues. A post on the Lieutenant Governor candidates is forthcoming … teaser: they’re not unanimous.
A race in which the challenge is choosing the very best candidate. Each brings experiences and skills that are solid but also different. Makes for a refreshing, interesting and difficult choice.
I appreciate all three candidates for their service to date and their desire to be a thoughtful, solid progressive Treasurer who puts policy and effective processes in place – over politics.
And good to see.
That’s where I’ve narrowed it down. Deb Goldberg just didn’t impress me that much as an LG candidate. Finegold seems to be the front runner and has actually had a fairly progressive voting record for his district-unfortunately, he is a big charter fan and I’m not sure if I can get passed that. Conroy seems less certain about the role he envisions for the office than Finegold, but is slightly better on the issues. Would love to get more in depth interviews from the candidates and they should come on here. Ditto LG.
she seems very passionate and clear about what the Treasurer’s role is and can be. The other two (Conroy and Feingold) are talking more like gubernatorial candidates. I also like that Goldberg has experience in the private sector as well as the public sector. The Mass Retirees have endorsed her because they have seen her standing up for workers rights throughout her carreer.
I just haven’t heard much from her on here or during this race.
I might add Finegold and Conroy also have private as well as public sector experience. Though all three ran for other, radically different offices before (LG, Senator, and Congress) and it’s safe to assume they will be moving on at some point if they win this race. So I am interested in issues beyond the scope of the Treasurer’s office since they would be on deck so to speak for future offices.
I hope we elect a Treasurer this time that really wants the job. The past 4 spent their time running for governor. That’s not paying attention to the job you were elected to do.
I don’t think you can fairly accuse Grossman of not paying attention to his current office. Shannon O’Brien if anything seemed to have the opposite problem. I got the sense that she ran for Governor mostly because people were telling her she should, but then campaigned basically by making a great case for her re-election as TRG without broadening to what she wanted to do as Governor.
While the sentiment of these candidates w.r.t. casinos is heart warming, what are they willing to do?
* Are they willing to roll back Keno, specifically eliminating it in bars and restaurants that have liquor licenses, since gambling and casinos don’t mix well?
* Are they willing to eliminate lotto ticket vending machines in all places that allow any persons under 21, much like we’ve done with cigarette vending machines?
* Are they willing to move more of the advertising dollars for Lotto to Massachusetts based companies with Massachusetts employees?
* Are they willing to stop using scratch-off marketing that is particularly appealing to kids, such as tickets associated with Massachusetts-based sports franchises?
* Are they willing to promise to keep all state-run gambling off the internet?
* Are they willing to increase the funding & effort associated with gambling anonymous and other social programs associated with gambling addiction?
* No lotto tickets that cost more than the minimum wage.
These (and the subsequent ideas in your next post) are all good ones. But they are certainly “weak tea” ideas that pick around the edges.
If I were Dictator, I wouldn’t eliminate the lottery altogether (prohibition doesn’t work) but I’d try at least some of these more radical ideas to reduce the number of people who play and the average amount spent on the lottery:
1) Eliminate all television, radio and other advertising supporting the lottery. Cut the lottery’s advertising budget dramatically (90% sounds like a good start) allowing them only to “market” their games in-store.
2) Significantly increase the advertising budget for the Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling, allowing them to run regular TV and radio ads. Their advertising should focus on compulsive gamblers but should also include “Truth Squad” advertising explaining the poor odds of winning and why playing the lottery is such a bad “investment.”
3) Eliminate almost all scratch tickets, leaving only a couple $1, $2, and $5 tickets. No $10 or $20 or $30 (the newest) tickets. Remaining scratch tickets would have simple, easy to calculate odds of winning and “game play”. Scratch one panel and it says “Win” or “Lose” and the amount you’ve won or lost. No more “confusing” games that are designed explicitly to mask the absurdly poor odds.
but we’ve got to nibble around the edges unless we’re simultaneously willing to raise taxes substantially to cover the loss in revenue to the state (then passed to the municipalities).
I’d gladly take a walk back on some of the worst practices of the lottery.
It seems at least some of this requires an act of the General Court rather than fiat from the TRG. Plus, the TRG is the steward of our state’s finances and has a fiduciary responsibility to enhance revenue for the state. As long as we have the lottery, etc. I actually see it as the TRG’s job NOT to choke it off as a source of revenue.
Also, don’t your first and second ideas above basically eliminate everywhere? Maybe that’s your point – kind of like abortion clinic trap laws some states have enacted. Where besides places that serve alcohol don’t allow people under 21 to enter?
pretty much runs the lottery, and AFAIK, aside from changing funding levels, much of what stomv suggests could be done without legislative authorization. When we’re talking lottery and the Treasurer, the old “gosh, isn’t it all up to the legislature” dodge, very popular these days for some reason, is especially unconvincing.