As I mentioned elsewhere, I lived in a town where BFI was seeking to reopen a landfill. They spent lavishly on promises, propaganda, and pressure. But I tells ya, BFI’s got nothing on Harrah’s.
I’ve never seen a campaign where one side had five generations of lawn signs. But the pro-casino side has them. The anti-casino side is on its second generation. I’m not sure what the law is, but rare is the sign that denotes who paid for its printing. I would say that I’ve seen more pro-casino signs around town, but they tend to be put two or three on one piece of property. I’d say about 60% of the properties with signs are hosting pro-casino signs.
I’ve received four different pieces of literature from the pro- side. Two of them were stuffed in my mailbox without a stamp (tsk, tsk…rookie mistake). I have received no anti-casino literature.
The Board of Selectman voted 5-0 to endorse the contract. The no side had a rally with about 120 attendees tonight.
The big issue right now is “if no, then what?” I will do something rare here — give props to The Enterprise. It’s not too often the Enterprise gets something right (fired off a LTE to them today), and rarer still that it responds to events in the community, but they did so here.
Hanging around the townie joints, the latest tale is that the “Indians” are going to build the casino one way or the other, so we should vote yes to at least get some scratch from the deal. The Enterprise front-paged a story partially refuting that. Of course, the tribe needs state and federal permission to open a casino up anywhere, and going against local feel may not be the best way to get that.
I’m not sure if I’m naive to hope that the state government would not greenlight a massive project within a town where the residents offered a resounding “no”, but I’d hope that a “no” on Saturday will end the debate in this town at least. New Bedford and Boston would looooove a casino. Wouldn’t you rather work with people who want you?
Estimates vary wildly about attendance at Saturday’s outdoor meeting. Shuttles will run from all over town for the 2,000 or 3,000 or possibly 10,000 who show up. We’re up to a guaranteed five questions on either side before Abraham Simpson the moderator will consider a call of the question.
has invalidated the law that says that political communications must carry a “paid for by”.
…and this is the first practical application of the new policy. How can you tell WHO really put that brochure in the mailbox in order to complain to postal authorities? Or if the anti’s put out a pseudo-pro piece which is offensive or false? Or the pro’s put out a REAL offensive/false piece, and CLAIM it was the anti’s?
<
p>
Next year’s elections are going to be a MESS.
but printing a name on the leaflet still doesn’t defend against what amounts to a joe job.
<
p>
Even with a name on the flier, you still don’t know WHO put the flier in your mailbox, etc.
Does anybody have a link handy for that decision and/or a newspaper article about it? Just want to read up on it. Thanks!
that said that anonymous political speech is constitutionally protected.
<
p>
Link.
enforcing the decison. The FEC requires all political paraphanelia to have paid for by in an easily readable box.
First, a state Supreme Court ruling cannot override a federal regulation. So the SJC has nothing to say about what the FEC can and cannot do.
<
p>
Second, the McIntyre case (to which I linked) is about an individual who chooses to remain anonymous. My guess is that the FEC regulation you’re talking about (and a link would be helpful) only governs entities already regulated by the FEC, either because they’re candidates or PACs or something. Once you’ve voluntarily put yourself within the FEC’s purview, they can enforce rules against you that they might not be able to enforce on the general public.
<
p>
In other words, if John Q. Public wants to leaflet his town about some political issue and doesn’t want to sign his name to the leaflets, there ain’t a thing that the FEC or any state can do about it.
advocacy groups lobbying town meeting need to file campaign finance reports.
Local news last night stated that Patrick will have the lege vote on this as it is the right thing to do. Building a casino in tribal land does not require the legislature to vote it just needs the governor. But Patrick is not going that route, they also mention that it make sense because of the impact of adding slot machines at race tracks and having non-tribal casinos. If it passes then it’s an across the board passage.
<
p>
But is there a chance in hell that it’s going to pass if it’s voted on in the House and Senate?
<
p>
Side note: my brother in-law lives in Middleboro and he and his wife are saying the same thing, if they don’t vote for it then it will pass anyway and the lose out on money for the town. That must be what supporters in town are pushing to get people to vote to pass.
<
p>
I’m ambivalent on building a casino, but I’m thinking that it’s not going to happen no matter what the results are on the Middleboro vote.
That I saw last night here. The discussion on going through the house and senate at the end of the segment.
<
p>
Note, my rep Betty Porrier (R) is in the story as an avid supporter. Wonder what the her anti-choice church groups think of that position?
This may explain the affinity for the RC church and bingo….
Far be it from me to tell another town how to respond to such an enormity. But if the concern is getting the best deal possible out of a casino that can’t be stopped anyway (questionable, but likely to sway some votes)–if that is the goal, the town would lose whatever leverage it has by passing this thing now.
<
p>
Voting to refer the plan back to the Selectmen or other committee with instructions to strike a better deal would strengthen the Town’s bargaining position the most.
<
p>
At some point, when and if this thing has critical mass at the state and federal level, the Town should retain a really good negotiating team. It’s no criticism of Middleborough’s leadership to say that it lacks the chops to do a deal like this without professional help.
<
p>
Of course, if the concern is stopping the casino, it’s a whole different ball game.
This is the second deal they’ve struck and I think this one was done with the assitance of professional negotiator types.
<
p>
Besides that, the tribe does have other options, as noted.
<
p>
Frankly, I think New Bedford is a better spot for the casino. Better for the tribe, better for the host city, better for the region, better for the state and better for visitors.
It doesn’t seem as though they got very good advice.
The anti-casino folks called me and questioned my knowledge of the casino. I could tell from the way the guy was talking that he was shocked that a 20 year old had any semblance of a clue as to what was going on.
<
p>
Sabutai, What time is the meeting? I know it’s at the high school but I’m not positive as to the exact time and online articles aren’t helping.
You should have gotten something in the mail today. I normally believe in spreading democracy and helping people vote, but you’re a pro-casino voter. I’ll split the difference and tell you the info can be found on http://www.middlebor…
Ass of you and me.
I thought I remembered you saying something advocating for a casino in another thread. I may have mixed you up with the 3 pro-casino instaposters who’ve since disappeared. Mea culpa.
First, this thing is moving way too fast. The 45 page document of what I’m assuming is very complicated for people who aren’t trained in the law was just posted online one week ago. There has been no time to vet the thing and see whether or not it makes fiscal sense. The town Finance Committee studied it and, in a 5-2 vote, decided it didn’t make sense.
<
p>
Secondly, the Womponoags fudged the numbers. In the town’s second agreement with the tribe, the agreement they’ll be voting on tomorrow, they were promised 11 million a year – 4 million from a hotel tax. However, they exaggerated the 4 million figure, so the town is only likely to get around 1-2.3 million instead of the 4.
<
p>
I agree with the premise that, whether you’d accept a casino or not, your leverage over the situation only increases if you vote no tomorrow. Furthermore, by voting no, the town of Middleborough will get enough time to propery vet this… so people won’t hear the crazy line “they’ll pass it anyway,” when nothing can be further from the truth. Seriously, who started that rumor and why hasn’t the town addressed it?
It was started by the Harrah’s lobby, and it isn’t being addressed by “the town” because town government is overwhelmingly in favor of the agreement.
<
p>
That doesn’t even get into the new talking point that voting against the casino is racist against Native Americans.