The days of being able to stop gambling growth outright in a state are long gone, experts said
BY JIM MILLER
SACRAMENTO BUREAU
The Riverside Press Enterprise
Published: 15 November 2011 09:08 PM
SACRAMENTO — Legalizing some form of Internet gambling in California depends on prominent gaming tribes, the horse-racing industry, key lawmakers and other moneyed interests being able to come to terms.
The outcome does not hinge on what people like the Rev. James Butler have to say.
Butler, executive director of the California Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, is a leading critic of the idea of opening cyberspace to legal gambling. Compulsive gambling already ruins the lives of thousands, he and others contend, and letting people bet without ever leaving the house would make the problem worse.
But as lawmakers weigh the largest expansion of legalized gambling in state history, a once-influential coalition of gambling critics is overshadowed by competing gambling interests or otherwise missing in action.
The focus seems to be on how — not if — government should allow online gambling and derive revenue from it.
“There is still an organized opposition but it gets overshadowed by businesses competing for the dollar,” said professor I. Nelson Rose, an expert in gambling law who has studied the success of anti-gambling activists and voter attitudes around the country. “The reason we can even talk about Internet gambling is that there is so much legal gambling in the state and country already.”
Harvey Chin, a retired pastor, helped lead opposition to the 1984 initiative that created the California Lottery. He also opposed efforts in the 1990s to allow casinos on tribal land.
Today, potential revenue for ailing general funds trumps everything, he said.
Former Inland lawmaker Robert Presley signed the ballot argument against the lottery initiative. He still thinks the lottery was a bad idea but said public sentiment toward gambling has changed from a generation ago, when it was confined to horse tracks and card rooms.
A September Field Poll found that 53 percent of California voters support legalizing online poker to make money for the state.
“I think people have become more tolerant of gambling over the years,” Presley said.
Supporters of legalizing online gambling say people already bet billions on unregulated sites that are based in other countries. The government loses out on that revenue.
State Sen. Rod Wright, the author of a legalization bill, acknowledged that licensing online gambling could increase the number of problem gamblers. But government cannot protect people from every bad decision, Wright, D-Los Angeles, said at a March hearing.
“I’ll bet that there is a percentage of people who get killed in traffic accidents who were drinking beer or another alcohol. I’m certain that I could look at the number of obese kids and trace it back to McDonald’s,” Wright said. “I mean, at some point, I’m not sure where we go with our ability to inhibit behavior that people say that they enjoy.”
Two bills have been introduced to license online gambling in California.
Wright’s measure would license poker as well as other games.
The Morongo Band of Mission Indians near Banning and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians near San Bernardino belong to a 60-member group of tribes and card clubs called the California Online Poker Association, which backs a bill to legalize only online poker.
In Congress, meanwhile, several measures would reverse a federal prohibition on online gambling. Some believe the ban allows California and other states to create their own systems, although others question that interpretation.
There has been speculation that revenue from legalized online poker will be part of a package put forward by Congress’s deficit-reduction “super committee” later this month.
In Sacramento, there has been one hearing, in March, to hear from Butler and other critics of expanded gambling. Most of the sessions have been dominated by various gaming interests.
Some tribes, such as the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians near Temecula, oppose legalizing online gambling because they contend it would violate casino agreements.
Proposals to expand gambling used to be nonstarters. But by 1996, voters were approving casino initiatives and other gambling measures despite strong opposition campaigns.
In last year’s election, gambling measures in liberal and conservative areas alike succeeded at the polls.
California reflects the trend. In 1984, former Gov. George Deukmejian and then-Attorney General John Van
De Kamp opposed the lottery measure, as did Presley and many other lawmakers, particularly Republicans.
In the 1990’s, former Gov. Pete Wilson and former Attorney General Dan Lungren opposed expanding gambling, particularly on tribal lands.
Today, anti-gambling California lawmakers are rare and silent.
Tribes with casinos are among the biggest political spenders in the state.
Gov. Jerry Brown, whose grandfather was a bookie, received campaign support from tribal casinos and other gambling interests in the 2010 election. He has not taken a position on online gambling.
Opposition from religious groups also seems to have ebbed. In the mid-1990s, the influential Traditional Values Coalition, led by the Rev. Lou Sheldon, chastised Republican lawmakers who supported gambling on tribal land. Sheldon’s organization has been absent in the online gambling discussions; the coalition did not return recent calls.
Nevada casinos once helped to bankroll opposition to allowing tribal casinos, said Thomas Gray, a senior consultant to Stop Predatory Gambling, a group based in Washington, D.C.
Now Nevada casino interests, such as billionaire Steve Wynn, are among those who want Congress to license online poker. “The point is, millions of people are playing poker and they are going to continue to play poker legally or illegally,” Wynn recently told Fortune magazine.
Gambling critics say they can match the clout of gambling interests on local casino initiatives. And at the statewide level, Rose says, they can shape gambling proposals, such as by demanding more money for treatment programs.
But the days of being able to stop gambling growth outright in a state are long gone, experts said.
“For most people, gambling is just another part of society,” Rose said.
The outcome does not hinge on what people like the Rev. James Butler have to say.
Butler, executive director of the California Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, is a leading critic of the idea of opening cyberspace to legal gambling. Compulsive gambling already ruins the lives of thousands, he and others contend, and letting people bet without ever leaving the house would make the problem worse.
But as lawmakers weigh the largest expansion of legalized gambling in state history, a once-influential coalition of gambling critics is overshadowed by competing gambling interests or otherwise missing in action.
The focus seems to be on how — not if — government should allow online gambling and derive revenue from it.
“There is still an organized opposition but it gets overshadowed by businesses competing for the dollar,” said professor I. Nelson Rose, an expert in gambling law who has studied the success of anti-gambling activists and voter attitudes around the country. “The reason we can even talk about Internet gambling is that there is so much legal gambling in the state and country already.”
Harvey Chin, a retired pastor, helped lead opposition to the 1984 initiative that created the California Lottery. He also opposed efforts in the 1990s to allow casinos on tribal land.
Today, potential revenue for ailing general funds trumps everything, he said.
Former Inland lawmaker Robert Presley signed the ballot argument against the lottery initiative. He still thinks the lottery was a bad idea but said public sentiment toward gambling has changed from a generation ago, when it was confined to horse tracks and card rooms.
A September Field Poll found that 53 percent of California voters support legalizing online poker to make money for the state.
“I think people have become more tolerant of gambling over the years,” Presley said.
Supporters of legalizing online gambling say people already bet billions on unregulated sites that are based in other countries. The government loses out on that revenue.
State Sen. Rod Wright, the author of a legalization bill, acknowledged that licensing online gambling could increase the number of problem gamblers. But government cannot protect people from every bad decision, Wright, D-Los Angeles, said at a March hearing.
“I’ll bet that there is a percentage of people who get killed in traffic accidents who were drinking beer or another alcohol. I’m certain that I could look at the number of obese kids and trace it back to McDonald’s,” Wright said. “I mean, at some point, I’m not sure where we go with our ability to inhibit behavior that people say that they enjoy.”
Two bills have been introduced to license online gambling in California.
Wright’s measure would license poker as well as other games.
COMPETING BILLS
The Morongo Band of Mission Indians near Banning and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians near San Bernardino belong to a 60-member group of tribes and card clubs called the California Online Poker Association, which backs a bill to legalize only online poker.
In Congress, meanwhile, several measures would reverse a federal prohibition on online gambling. Some believe the ban allows California and other states to create their own systems, although others question that interpretation.
There has been speculation that revenue from legalized online poker will be part of a package put forward by Congress’s deficit-reduction “super committee” later this month.
In Sacramento, there has been one hearing, in March, to hear from Butler and other critics of expanded gambling. Most of the sessions have been dominated by various gaming interests.
Some tribes, such as the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians near Temecula, oppose legalizing online gambling because they contend it would violate casino agreements.
Proposals to expand gambling used to be nonstarters. But by 1996, voters were approving casino initiatives and other gambling measures despite strong opposition campaigns.
In last year’s election, gambling measures in liberal and conservative areas alike succeeded at the polls.
California reflects the trend. In 1984, former Gov. George Deukmejian and then-Attorney General John Van
De Kamp opposed the lottery measure, as did Presley and many other lawmakers, particularly Republicans.
In the 1990’s, former Gov. Pete Wilson and former Attorney General Dan Lungren opposed expanding gambling, particularly on tribal lands.
MUM’S THE WORD
Today, anti-gambling California lawmakers are rare and silent.
Tribes with casinos are among the biggest political spenders in the state.
Gov. Jerry Brown, whose grandfather was a bookie, received campaign support from tribal casinos and other gambling interests in the 2010 election. He has not taken a position on online gambling.
Opposition from religious groups also seems to have ebbed. In the mid-1990s, the influential Traditional Values Coalition, led by the Rev. Lou Sheldon, chastised Republican lawmakers who supported gambling on tribal land. Sheldon’s organization has been absent in the online gambling discussions; the coalition did not return recent calls.
Nevada casinos once helped to bankroll opposition to allowing tribal casinos, said Thomas Gray, a senior consultant to Stop Predatory Gambling, a group based in Washington, D.C.
Now Nevada casino interests, such as billionaire Steve Wynn, are among those who want Congress to license online poker. “The point is, millions of people are playing poker and they are going to continue to play poker legally or illegally,” Wynn recently told Fortune magazine.
Gambling critics say they can match the clout of gambling interests on local casino initiatives. And at the statewide level, Rose says, they can shape gambling proposals, such as by demanding more money for treatment programs.
But the days of being able to stop gambling growth outright in a state are long gone, experts said.
“For most people, gambling is just another part of society,” Rose said.
No comments:
Post a Comment