I can’t express how disappointed I am in these two votes, in particular. Long time opponents of casinos have said that they were only switching their votes because they thought by doing so they could make it better, through amendments, when they thought it’d pass anyway. That just didn’t pass the sniff test then, and it especially doesn’t now with so many Representatives not only switching their votes, but voting against amendments meant to protect even the most basic aspects of human decency, such as allowing people to know what they’re getting into beforehand.
Here’s the real justification behind these switched votes.
APRIL 14, 2010 — As the House moved Tuesday toward passing legislation sanctioning two casinos and four racetrack slot machine facilities, likely with a veto-proof majority, one member of Speaker Robert DeLeo’s leadership team said the prospect of losing influence in the House prompted her to give up her longstanding opposition to expanded gambling and predicted “consequences” for opponents of the bill.
“After 17 years of being on the outside, I finally have a seat at the table,” said Rep. Ellen Story, one of DeLeo’s four division leaders. “I’m part of the group of eight people that meets with him two hours every week, and this bill was going to pass. And for me to vote a symbolic and meaningless ‘no’ seemed like a foolish thing to do on my part. I think I bring something to the table in these small meetings, and there are other issues besides gambling that I care very much about.”
Story said, “Since the speaker has been here, there have been no consequences for anybody who did not vote with the speaker. My sense is that this is the bill he has cared about more than any other bill. My sense is that there may well be consequences for people voting against this bill, particularly people in his inner circle.”
This has not been a profile in courage by our representation at the state house, including many of the strong progressives people from around the state have spent countless hours fighting to get into office. We’ve had a few heroes of the movement stand up for what’s right, but far too many have not only decided to represent the Speaker instead of their constituents on the bill itself, but also the most basic amendments of common sense and human dignity. Beacon Hill passed a few ethics laws and thought it was problem solved, but their constituents know better. So long as the Speaker, special interests and closed-door meetings are what really moves votes, and not constituents, there has been no ethics reform on Beacon Hill. Lida Harkins learned that just yesterday, I think we could have dozens more learn that lesson in November.
Ryan, thank you for identifying the outrageous votes taken on these amendments. This truly shows that money wins over ideals.
<
p>While I am not a progressive, more libertarian, I watch as many who voted against the amendments you highlighted tout themselves as not only progressive, but more progressive than most. With this in mind, they need to answer how on earth did that vote “NO” for posting odds on slot machines!
<
p>These are the very machines that are being “given” to the tracks without any competitive bidding. Certainly no connection there.
<
p>I ask – what harm is there putting the odds on the machine so players can read them? The only thing that I can come up with is they are afraid that people might not play if they knew the odds. If so, I say good.
<
p>The votes on these and other gaming amendments need to be questions asked at each and every candidate’s forum and debate. They need to be reminded of how they sold out the Commonwealth this week.
Did I really read correctly that casinos are going to advertise precisely to the list of people whom they know have no business being anywhere near a casino? What a slap in the face to those who are trying to help themselves by instituting a self-imposed ban.
<
p>Posting the odds is one of the ameliorating factors I’ve proposed so at least informed decisions can be made. Voting against this is mind-boggling.
<
p>I’m not sure why wanting to make it better through amendments requires voting in favor. Usually amendments come up first and you vote to try to improve the legislation. THEN once amendments are acted upon you decide whether there have been enough improvements to justify your affirmative vote.
<
p>Rep. Story’s defense doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. She comes out and admits that there have not been consequences in the past for not voting with the Speaker, but now all of a sudden she’s afraid of the consequences? If she’s correct that something like this is more important to the Speaker than a whole host of other things, that is a rather, shall we say, interesting insight into the Speaker’s priorities. Of course, the Speaker shouldn’t have the institutional power he has on principle, but I digress.
<
p>I know I’ve been a thorn in the side of the anti-casino crowd here, but on this particular bill, given both substantive concerns and a questionable process as discussed here, I strongly suspect that if I were in the House I would vote in the negative.
It’s honestly an argument I’ve tried to make at several points. This legislation will not and would never be passed on the merits. That’s not how the special interests behind the industry work. In Pennsylvania, it passed on a surprise vote, behind closed doors on the 4th of July. It’s not looking to be much better here. That were not even going to get the odds on the machines is real, real shameful.
Copy/pasted from my site today:
<
p>