There are three questions for the people of Massachusetts:
1) How well is Governor Patrick’s push for ethics reform likely to succeed if Beacon Hill is awash in the same kind of gambling money as Pennsylvania?
2) Wouldn’t this be a good time for Common Cause or another group committed to good government in Mass to explore the contributions and expenditures by the slot machine advocates and casino tycoons who are working over the legislators on Beacon Hill?
3) Is there a relationship between the weakening of the governor’s proposed ethics reforms (including enhanced powers of enforcement) and the oceans of casino cash that have put a small army of former Democratic operatives on retainer to gambling interests?
All of this comes one day after the Twin Rivers racetrack and slot parlors in Rhode Island, just to our south, collapsed under $500 million in debt and declared bankruptcy, which has pushed the governor of Rhode Island to spend $11 million in tax payer to keep the slot open 24/7 in order to preserve the state’s revenues. More on this later….
I realize that this site is in full campaign mode right now, but I would personally be interested in question 4, since speculation is all the rage:
<
p>4) Is there a relationship between the governor’s strident support for any and all gambling in Massachusetts, and the lobbying money floating toward politicians considering allowing gambling?
<
p>I mean, this insistence that only the Legislature is capable of fecklessness is cute, but misguided.
<
p>As you well know, that is not the Gov’s position. He’s favored resort casinos; not so much Cahill-esque “slot parlors” or DeLeo’s favored racinos. As you also know, the Gov’s pro-casino stance has not been exactly popular on BMG.
We all get over-excited sometimes.
Deval only favors the most expansive forms of gambling.
Got anything NEW? I really think we should remember that Twin River just declared Ch. 11. I like to gamble a few bucks myself. But I’m too busy trying to eat.
Individuals can only contribute $500 per candidate per cycle. Given the limitations at both state and federal levels I’ve never quite understood how we get to say, “X industry gave politician Y contributions equalling Z million.” Corporations are barred from giving; PACs consist of voluntary contributions; individuals can give as they like; both PAC and individual contributions are limited by law. Sometimes I think we should emphatically NOT ask contributers to disclose their employer and occupation; that way, the elected official won’t have that reference and temptation to show favoritism.
It’s real. It consists of people asking friends to give, like a house party (relatively innocent) or companies hitting up everyone they know who has business with an official. That’s called “access money.” And then there are incumbents with no opponents hitting up people for their war chests, to scare away the opposition. I like BMG David’s suggestion to reduce or eliminate carry-over chests, which he termed the “THISBITES” proposal.