DOA - Why Governor Patrick’s Casino Bill Failed

The Legislature will hold public hearings on the casino bill submitted by Governor Patrick October 11, 2007 and others related to gambling this week. The DOA reality of the casino bill was obscured by months of media coverage of the endorsements of some unions, mayors and business associations. The suspense and drama of the casino proposal was fueled by the emerging dynamics between the Speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi (D-Boston) and Governor Patrick. Regional groups of municipal leaders formed coalitions to map their concerns about the bill and statewide anti-casino groups cobbled together what has now become a strong movement to stop class III casinos in Massachusetts.

The bill was DOA because the Administration submitted a shoddy piece of legislation that lacked transparency, accountability and most importantly from the playbook, Politics 101, lacked inclusion of stakeholders. The people who live and work in the regions that would be impacted are the real stakeholders, not Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump, Mohegan investors, or even union officials or mayors from distant cities. It was a big mistake on the part of the Administration to not do what they had done successfully as candidates, which was to connect with people, especially their base. Had they done so, they would have learned that time and energy placed in the direction of bringing class III casinos to Massachusetts would be wasted.

The bill was DOA because the numbers don’t work. The collapse of the Administration and AFL-CIO president Bob Haynes’ claims of 30,000 construction jobs was a stake in the coffin of the decomposing casino bill. The Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation’s report squarely refuted the Administration’s revenue projections and the venerable Boston Business Journal slammed the economic argument for casinos highlighting the negative impacts on local businesses. Local and regional task forces in the southeastern and western/central parts of the state near Middleborough and Palmer/Warren met to study the casino bill and found numerous problems with the language, proposed mitigation, structure and oversight of the Gaming Control Authority and the revenues.

The bill was DOA because Speaker DiMasi, Rep. Dan Bosley (D-North Adams) and the Economic Development and Emerging Technologies Committee majority know the numbers don’t work. They are a rather serious bunch whose job is to study economic proposals and they are more seasoned with the Legislative process than the Administration.

The majority of the citizens of the Commonwealth are not casino gamblers. However, numerous polls have shown support for casinos provided they are not located near one’s community. With the national build-out of casinos reaching saturation, the insatiable casino industry has spent millions of dollars to get Massachusetts into the stable of states to offer 24/7 exploitive slot-based gambling. Despite the lobbying money and attempts to influence power by the casino corporate complex, an interesting phenomenon occurred. Citizens of Massachusetts are well educated and have a strong sense of civic engagement. We also recognize the unique history and character of the Commonwealth. We participated in forums, debates, blogs, research and discovery on the casino issue. We found like the Legislators who have actually read and vetted the casino bill, that it is a bad idea.

It was DOA because it is wrong for Massachusetts. People have done their homework to see past the promises of temporary economic boost to the net negative impacts to families, society, environment, infrastructure and the costs of mitigation. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts offers innovation, history, education and natural beauty in a dynamic and interesting mix. Mutual prosperity has and will be found in growing and preserving those unique and precious traits.


Kathleen Conley Norbut, Selectman
Chair, Local Casino Study Committee
Member, Western MA Casino Task Force