As promised, here’s where the Democratic candidates for Lieutenant Governor come down on the two questions I asked them: (1) should the “repeal the casino deal” question be on the ballot this fall, and (2) if it is, how will you vote? (Reminder: a “yes” vote is to undo the casino law; a “no” vote is a vote to keep things where they are now.)
Unlike the candidates for Treasurer, this one’s a split decision (as it was with the candidates for Governor and Attorney General). Here are the results:
| Candidate | Question should be on the ballot? | How would you vote? |
| James Arena-DeRosa | Yes | Yes |
| Leland Cheung | Yes | Yes |
| Steve Kerrigan | No | No |
| Mike Lake | Yes | Yes |
The candidates offered some additional comments, which are on the flip.
Arena-DeRosa: per his press person, Arena-DeRosa “doesn’t have a visceral opposition to casinos, but he thinks the law itself and the implementation have been problematic.”
Kerrigan: on the first question, “the Attorney General’s Office made the right call based on the constitution.” On the second question, “I don’t think we should be so quick to roll back a law studied and approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor before it is even implemented.”
Lake: on the first question, “I would support placing this question on the ballot this fall—studies show that the impacts of gaming stretch far further than just the community in which the casino is located. I believe that because these impacts ultimately affect all Massachusetts taxpayers, they should have a voice in this option.” On the second question, “I am proud to say that when I ran for State Auditor in 2010, I was the only statewide democratic candidate to be opposed to casinos and I continue to stand against these harmful institutions. I believe that casinos are the wrong choice for Massachusetts and are just a short-term fix that creates long term problems. We need a plan that will create good sustainable jobs for Massachusetts that pay a livable wage – like those created through investments in clean energy technologies, the life sciences, manufacturing and the like – instead of plans that bring casinos to the Commonwealth and the negative social burdens that come with them for too many of our families and children.”
Cheung (going out of alphabetical order, because his comments were the longest): on the first question:
I firmly believe in giving residents a voice and vote on issues that have the potential to impact them. If a group is able to gather the signatures necessary and follow the legal procedures required by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, then they have a right to place a question on the ballot. So yes. The only concern I’d raise is that while people are concerned about the impacts of Citizens United, the ability for special interests to spend unlimited amounts of money on ballot initiatives can have far greater impacts than affecting one individual candidate’s election can.
On the second question:
I have four concerns:
First, I don’t believe the revenue anticipated will be realized. We need only look to recent news to realize other states are already lining up to compete with MA proposals:o “Increased competition is making it more difficult for casinos to keep locals employed and pass along hefty payments to host states—which are the two biggest selling points for allowing gambling in the first place.”
o “Millennium [Gaming, of New Hampshire] has emphasized that point with lawmakers, telling them it intends to draw 60 percent of its customer base from Massachusetts. And while it will have live horse racing, a hotel, restaurant and small entertainment area, spokesman Rich Killion said Millennium isn’t looking to compete with New Hampshire businesses.”
o “Hicks and several other industry specialists said the increased competition from other states will certainly pressure the Massachusetts casinos, but stressed that the overall success of any one facility is highly dependent on its location – its proximity to a large population center and to other casinos.”
o “Morowitz also believes the Northeast gambling market is on the verge of becoming oversaturated. The addition of resort-style casinos in Massachusetts and New York, expected to happen in the next few years, will be the tipping point, he predicted.
“When New York and Massachusetts come online, that will bring us to the term ‘hypercompetitive conditions,’” Morowitz said. “All of this additional gaming capacity is getting to the point where supply is outstripping demand. We’re getting to that.”Second, none of the proposed casinos are locally owned by Massachusetts based firms, which means the profits are not staying in Massachusetts. Some may say that wouldn’t apply to the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe’s possible bid. Well a recent Supreme Court ruling suggests that a repeal in the state can’t block them anyways:
o “A divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Michigan can’t block the opening of an off-reservation American Indian casino because the state’s legal challenge is barred by tribal sovereign immunity. “
Third, proponents have cited the need to create jobs in the state. Whether we’re talking construction jobs, management jobs, you name it – there are plenty of things for us to form private-public partnerships around that would not only put people to work, but invest in their skillsets, the infrastructure they use to travel around the state, and the communities in which they live. Right now Massachusetts has more opportunities to invest in itself than it can possibly take advantage of; casinos are a distraction from giving people the training, support, infrastructure, and opportunities they need to not just have jobs, but careers.
Fourth, as the only minority in any race for statewide office, and as the first Asian-American to be running for statewide office in Massachusetts, I have to point out that Asian Americans and recent immigrants are the most at risk for high-risk gambling addiction. We cannot build an economy of tomorrow if we’re focused on taking advantage of those who have the least to give:
o “Massachusetts Asians are significantly less likely to gamble in comparison to the general population. However, among those who do, they are significantly more likely to be Probable Pathological gamblers* in comparison to the state average. […]Recent immigrants are at especially high-risk for gambling addiction. Facing language barriers and limited social venues, many turn to gambling to cope with stress or to seek excitement.”
o “Experts agree that Asian Americans love to gamble. Casinos know this and offer all sorts of advertisements and incentives to bring in their business. The industry says it’s good marketing. But activists argue that casinos disproportionately target Asian-American communities without providing enough support to individuals who suffer from gambling addiction.”
For those reasons, I’d be voting yes on repeal.
I’m not a fan of ballot questions in general, but based on my understanding I think it at least passes constitutional muster to be placed. I may even wind up voting yes based on the implementation concerns alluded to, though like him as people here are probably aware I do not have a visceral opposition to casinos.
They were concise and to the point. I appreciate Lake’s more since he goes the distance and explains why he is against them economically, and shows that he held this stance back when it was not expected of progressive candidates in his 2010 race for Auditor.
Kerrigan is clearly wrong, on both counts in my opinion, and while Cheung has the right answer it certainly will elicit plenty of ‘TLDR’s’. He will need to work on brevity and keeping his points concise when answering fairly basic policy questions. I know he just graduated from the Kennedy School, but not every question merits a policy memo for an answer. The content of his answer was excellent though, and perhaps he understood his audience here would appreciate a detailed response.
Sorry, can’t translate the acronym – please advise.
Too long, didn’t read.
For the Twitter Nation.
While I disagree with Leland Cheung on the repeal issue, I am impressed with him as a candidate. Twice elected to the Cambridge City Council (where voters tend to expect detailed policy positions) he brings practical experience dealing with the issues facing Massachusetts. Unlike most of the other candidates, Leland Cheung has an actual voting record as a City Councilor (and god knows the Cambridge City Council deals with more than local issues). Voters can see his votes on immigrant issues, workers rights, economic development, transparentcy, income equality and much more.
And an expert on municipal broadband access, an underrated social justice issue. His answer is great for BMG but wouldn’t play well in a public forum, debate or tv appearance .
Like having too much money and not knowing what to do with it? I’m sorry. Cambridge City Council is not preparation for real elected office. Cambridge has been extremely well-run for decades. By the City Manager. The Council’s job is to look pretty and not get in the Manager’s way. It’s like claiming you’re an “entrepreneur” bc grandma and grandpa put some of your trust fund money into the family conglomerate when you were born.
Clearly his experience at the municipal level gives him better command of the issues. He posted a response twice as long as all of the other respondents combined. The only with quotes and citation. Agree with the positions or disagree (and I am wrestling with where I stand on this issue myself) but I respect a real answer and he gave one. Lake kinda did, the other two have sound bites.
I simply asked the two questions. I didn’t ask for extended commentary – they offered that on their own. I’m happy to post what they send me, but I don’t think we should read too much into who did or did not write long-form answers.
My point on the comprehensiveness of the Cheung answer was that it showed that his city council experience gives him command of issues. Rebutting Seamus’s point.
I definitely get that there was no requirement to give in depth answers. However I think Kerrigan and DeRosa’s answers are the bare minimum.
Why not ask some follow-ups?
And I appreciate the detailed responses of Lake and Cheung. Research is always appreciated, particularly on this issue where so many of the policy makers have clearly done none beyond the talking points.
We Asians are too diverse to generalize. Iraqi-Americans were open-minded to disciplining Hussein until they objected to the execution of Shock-and-Awe. There are more West Asians, which would make Khazei an American with Italian-Asian heritage. There are South Asians, who, when not gambling, can pursue their conflict-seeking behavior by challenging a town’s caucus, and there is the East Asian heritage, which may be drawn to include the Councilor and me. East Asians gamble. Stanley Ho put up a big casino in Macau. It is good for Vegas to attract East Asians, Filipinos, to watch our Manny Pacquiao box in its resorts.
We East Asians, in fact, love gambling even without the prospect of retiring with a game’s winnings. My dorm room-mate played cards until he secured enough money to buy a boat ticket to go home to his island province. I was the only member of the University of the Philippines Philosophical Society who spent more of my father’s and my own wage money on books rather than on small-bet card gaming.
Incidentally, I can see how special interests could establish in our state a continuous exercise of spending big always so as to try stuff our Massachusetts ballot with questions as the California ballot is riddled. (Lawrence O’Donnell had shown the CA ballot.)
Tom Conroy came out earlier (2011) with his study that casino revenue will neither impress nor sustain us.
I don’t post bets in New Hampshire, not even for Shaheen. Its up to her to be a strong U.S. Senator and not be referred to as a Wall Street or Third Way politician.
Years ago, Conroy had already explained that continuously paying construction workers to improve our school buildings would prove better than betting on casinos.
Cheung and Morowitz are right to worry of our Northeast supplying too many casinos than could all be filled with patrons.
According to today’s Times-MS (a state MA should never emulate) is losing one of its big ones.