BOSTON — With the state Senate appearing on the verge of approving legislation to open the state to casino gambling, the shrinking number of opponents in the Senate yesterday made a final pitch to stop the bill, saying casinos would be a menace to seniors, a cancer on the state’s economy and “a tax on the poor.”
Six members of the Senate took turns laying out their concerns at the Statehouse Tuesday, led by Sen. Susan C. Tucker, D-Andover, who said the legislation, slated for debate today, will promote the most predatory forms of gambling.
She said the Senate legislation aims to maximize profits for the state and casino owners, without regard to other economic and human costs.
Proponents of the three-casino plan have pointed to an $80,000 Senate-funded study by the Innovation Group that estimated three casinos would produce up to $460 million in annual state revenues and create more than 9,645 permanent casino jobs.
Ms. Tucker said that study was prepared by a firm with ties to the gambling industry and was used to justify parts of the bill that would waive the state’s workplace smoking ban for casinos; allow identification and tracking of potential gambling addicts for free promotions; allow free alcohol; and extend credit to those who lose all their money. She said job estimates do not count jobs at restaurants and other businesses competing with casino resorts that would be killed by gambling.
“We are here to question whether the role of state government is to encourage our citizens to gamble and gamble more,” Ms. Tucker said. She said she fully expects whatever safeguards are put in place now will be lifted by the state at the behest of influential casino operators once casinos are established.
“This is a bad deal for the commonwealth,” said Sen. James B. Eldridge, D-Acton. He also complained that the Senate study was tainted by ties to the industry, and said relying on that study to design casino law was like having foxes design the security system for a henhouse.
“The study is based on the idea that our only goal is to maximize jobs and revenue for the commonwealth, which apparently to them means first maximizing profits for casinos,” Mr. Eldridge said. “We should care about common-sense protections to prevent people from spending their life savings, retirement and Social Security checks,” he argued, instead of trying to maximize losses by casino customers.
Mr. Eldridge said the human costs will be high. “Every region where a casino has been legalized in the country there is an increased rate of domestic violence, divorce and crime and of assaults,” he said. He and other opponents complained that there has been no study on the social and economic costs of the Senate plan.
Sen. Patricia D. Jehlen, D-Somerville, who is chairwoman of the Elderly Affairs Committee, said casinos would have a major economic impact on the elderly. Even without casinos in the state, she said, gambling, including bingo, has displaced lunch with friends, movies and golf as a favorite leisure activity of seniors, even though four out of five people over 65 years old are not financially secure.
“When gambling is more available it becomes even more of a source of enjoyment and pleasure and financial ruin,” she said. Ms. Jehlen said seniors will get their money to gamble from reduced spending on consumer goods and from their savings, which she said, “will mean they have a less secure retirement.”
Sen. Susan C. Fargo, D-Lincoln, described casinos as “a cancer” on the state that would hurt other tourism. She said the state should not put profits over the health of the public by allowing smoking in casinos.
Sen. Sonia Chang Diaz, D-Boston, cited a study that showed lower-income working families will lose a larger percentage of their incomes to gaming, and the casino profits will be fueled by the paychecks of working men and women.
“The fundamental truth about this bill … is that it is a tax on the poor,” Ms. Diaz said. “We have the resources and the brainpower in Massachusetts to do better.”
Casinos will damage Cape Cod’s tourism brand, and that of the rest of the state over time, said Sen. Robert A. O’Leary, D-Barnstable.
The debate takes place as the state is scrambling to fill a potential $600 million hole in the budget for fiscal 2011 that begins July 1, a shortfall caused by congressional inaction on additional Medicaid funding for the state. Two days have been set aside for the debate, which will include action on 164 amendments.
The House has approved a bill for three casinos and racinos at each of the state’s four racetracks. Senate passage would set up a six-member joint House-Senate committee to work out a compromise bill.
Gov. Deval L. Patrick yesterday said he wants and expects to see a casino bill on his desk by the end of the month.
By Matt Murphy, mmurphy@lowellsun.comUpdated: 06/22/2010
BOSTON — Two local lawmakers are spearheading an effort on Beacon Hill to “blunt the impact” of the Supreme Court decision that opened the door to unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns.
Sen. Jamie Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, introduced legislation yesterday co-written with Rep. Cory Atkins, D-Concord, that would impose a series of public-disclosure requirements on corporations that spend money for advertising to influence elections.
The bill is a direct response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision in January that struck down prohibitions against corporate spending on campaigns.
The 5-4 ruling essentially found that corporations are entitled to the same First Amendment rights as ordinary citizens.
“The bill is about protecting the integrity of our democratic system from the corrosive influence of profit-driven political spending,” Eldridge said at a Statehouse press conference.
Eldridge worked on the bill with Atkins and Rep. William Straus, D-Mattapoiset.
Atkins did not attend the announcement after being hospitalized Sunday night with pneumonia, according a member of her staff. She was being treated at Emerson Hospital in Concord.
The bill, titled the Massachusetts Corporate Political Accountability Act, would require the CEO of any company to appear personally in ads paid for by his company to state that he “approved this message,” similar to requirements for candidates.
The legislation also requires the top five contributors to an organization making an independent political expenditure to identify themselves, and requires the majority of the board of directors or shareholders in a public company to approve political spending.
Lastly, the bill bans foreign companies from trying to influence Massachusetts elections with independent spending, and prohibits state contractors or prospective state contractors from making campaign contributions or funding advertisements on behalf of a candidate for public office.
Crafted primarily to increasing transparency around corporate spending in campaigns, Eldridge and other supporters acknowledged that their bill could do little to curb the potential for large amounts of corporate dollars to be spent in upcoming elections. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be necessary to reverse the Supreme Court decision.
“It’s just a first step,” said Eldridge, who is hopeful he can persuade his colleagues to pass the bill before the Legislative session ends July 31.
Advocates said they were concerned the court decision would not only impact high-profile congressional and state races, but trickle down to local elections as well.
“We fear this will unleash a flood of corporate money into our election,” said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts.
Eldridge envisioned a scenario in which deep-pocketed developers would begin to run advertisements to try to influence local races for boards of selectmen and zoning boards to curry favor for their projects.
There are four bills pending in Congress that take similar steps to curb corporate political influence at the federal level.
Eldridge, Atkins and other lawmakers plan to call for a resolution to be passed by the Legislature urging Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution to overturn the high court ruling.
Earlier today I was proud to file legislation to respond to the Supreme Court’s reckless decision in Citizens United v. FEC. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve been working on this bill along with Representative Cory Atkins, Representative William Straus, Common Cause, Mass Vote, Mass PIRG and Free Speech for People for some time. Today we filed the bill, the Massachusetts Corporate Political Accountability Act.
Read the bill summary Read the bill You can also listen to an interview I did with Radio Boston on WBUR this afternoon.
Last January, on a 5-4 vote, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court struck down bipartisan legislation that had limited corporations from spending their general treasury funds on political advertisements during the months preceding an election. The Court overruled two of its own precedents and reversed law that had stood for decades. The decision also invalidated similar provisions of state law across the country, including a provision of Massachusetts law that had been in place since the beginning of the last century.
Now, for-profit corporations may spend unlimited amounts to influence elections at all levels of government.
The danger is real: if ExxonMobil had spent just 2 percent of its 2008 profits in the last presidential election, it would have outspent McCain and Obama combined.
And the danger of undue corporate influence isn’t only for national elections. Indeed, the biggest danger to our democracy might be at the local level. A large developer seeking a change in a local zoning law, for example, could spend tens of thousands of dollars to influence a board of selectman race - small change to the company, perhaps, but a substantial amount of money for a local race. A selectman who opposed the company could never compete financially with the flood of advertising.
Corporate lobbyists and other powerful special interests will be able to threaten public officials at all levels with the possibility of unending negative campaign ads if their agendas are not supported — and the voices of ordinary citizens could be drowned out of the electoral process.
As President Obama noted in his State of the Union Address, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC could “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”
Today we filed the Massachusetts Corporate Political Accountability Act, by far the strongest and most comprehensive legislative response to the Citizens United decision put forward anywhere in the country. This bill is about protecting the integrity of our democratic system from the corrosive influence of profit driven electioneering.
If passed, this legislation will:
In addition, we also filed a resolution calling on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overrule the Citizens United decision and protect free speech for people. You can learn more about that effort here.
It’s clear we need action on the national level to deal with this far-reaching Supreme Court decision, and we need it quickly.
But regardless of what happens at the national level, we also need to take action here in Massachusetts to protect the integrity of our elections. By enacting these reforms we can get closer to ensuring that elections are truly decided by “we the people,” and not corporate special interests.
BOSTON-State lawmakers filed legislation today intended to counter a Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations and unions to pour unlimited amounts of money directly into political advertisements. Senator Jamie Eldridge, Representative Cory Atkins and Representative William Straus filed the Massachusetts Corporate Political Accountability Act to address the problems created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC.
“If left unchallenged, the Supreme Court’s reckless decision will allow corporate lobbyists and other powerful special interests to dominate the electoral process with unending negative campaign ads. As a result, the voices of ordinary citizens could be drowned out,” said Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton). “The legislation we’re filing today is about protecting the integrity of our democratic system from the corrosive influence of profit-driven political spending.”
This past January, on a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down bipartisan legislation that had limited corporations from spending their general treasury funds on political expenditures. In March, the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance ruled that the decision invalidated similar prohibitions in Massachusetts General Law.
The legislation filed today would require new levels of disclosure and transparency for corporate political spending, eliminating “pay-to-play” opportunities for state contractors, enshrining new protections for employees, shareholders and investors, and prohibiting foreign corporations from influencing elections in Massachusetts.
The legislation has also won the early support of Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin. “This legislation is a step closer toward ensuring that the public can know which corporations are spending what to influence elections and public policy and I wholeheartedly support this effort,” said Secretary Galvin.
“The Constitution begins, ‘We the people,’ not ‘we the corporations,’” said Representative Cory Atkins (D-Concord). “The Supreme Court made a terrible mistake by giving corporations unlimited power to influence elections. We demand that this ill-conceived notion be corrected as soon as possible. If passed, this legislation will help ensure that people, not companies, decide who wins elections.”
While several other states have passed smaller measures aimed at responding to the Citizens United decision, the legislation being put forward in Massachusetts is by far the strongest and most comprehensive. The legislation would require CEOs to appear in person in the ads that their companies pay for to take responsibility for the ad and inform the public that they “approve this message,” and require shareholder and director approval for corporate political spending.
The law would also require the top five contributors to the cost of ads covered under the new rules to be listed to prevent corporations from hiding their political contributions behind dummy organizations.
“This important legislation is needed to solidify our campaign finance laws,” said Representative William Straus (D-Mattapoisett). “Without its passage, future campaigns could be drastically altered, so much that foreign corporations could jump into state and municipal elections with their outside money and change the result.”
The state legislation comes just days after Congress was widely criticized by good government watchdogs for watering down the federal response to the ruling.
“Massachusetts should join a growing number of states and the federal government in addressing a potential tsunami of corporate political spending unleashed by the Citizens United case,” said Pam Wilmot, Executive Director of Common Cause Massachusetts. “This unfortunate decision essentially overturned laws across the country, like ours in Massachusetts that were passed 100 years ago. The Massachusetts Corporate Political Accountability Act cannot reverse the decision, but it can ensure that citizens have the facts in a timely manner and can ensure that shareholders have a say in whether such expenditures get made in the first place.”
The lawmakers also filed a nonbinding resolution calling on Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that corporations do not have the same rights as citizens.
“The American people have used the Constitutional amendment process over and over again to make our democracy work for everyone, and to correct the Court when its missteps threaten the American promise of self-government,” said Jeffrey Clements, general counsel of Free Speech for People, a national Constitutional amendment campaign launched in response to the Citizens United ruling. “The ruling in Citizens United that corporations have the same speech rights as people and can pour billions of dollars into our elections at every level is deeply wrong and threatens our democracy. Americans across the country now are working for a 28th Amendment to restore free speech and fair elections to the people. We are grateful for the leadership of Sen. Eldridge, Rep. Atkins and Rep. Straus in this effort, and proud that Massachusetts once again is taking a leading role to ensure government of, for, and by the people.”
LISTEN NOW
As Massachusetts’ campaign season gets underway, three legislators are trying, preemptively, to reign in corporate spending on elections. The move comes in the wake of last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United v. FEC, which gave corporations and special-interest groups broad leeway to participate in political speech.
The bill, called the Massachusetts Corporate Political Accountability Act, would place restrictions on corporations and other special-interest groups that choose to participate in political advertising, as well as ban certain state contractors from making campaign contributions.
As similar federal legislation struggles in Congress, we talk about how the Massachusetts election season will be affected by the Supreme Court ruling and what the proposed legislation would change.
Guests:
BOSTON - Massachusetts legislators are introducing a bill to offset changes in campaign finance laws.
The moves comes after the Supreme Court struck down legislation in January that limited corporate spending on election campaigns. In that case, Citizen United v. the Federal Election Commission, the court held that independent political broadcasts during elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment.
Massachusetts state Sen. Jamie Elridge will introduce legislation Monday that would require corporations to disclose what, how much and to whom they are giving their money.
“There is the chance that corporations can spend millions of dollars this fall to influence elections,” Eldridge said. “And we want to at least to have that be disclosed to the public so that the public knows where all this money is being spent and how it might influence elections.”
The proposed legislation would require a vote of corporate boards before money could be given to a candidate, ban foreign companies from giving and disclose what ads are paid for by which companies.
ACTON- Friday, June 18, 2010 - As part of the Patrick-Murray Administration’s Massachusetts Works program promoting job growth long-term economic recovery, Lieutenant Governor Timothy Murray and and State Senator Jamie Eldridge today announced funding to design a major expansion of the popular Bruce Freeman Rail Trail through Westford, Carlisle, Acton and Concord.
The $931,500 in capital funds will design the next two phases of the Freeman Rail Trail, the first of which will extend the trail south by an additional nearly five miles.
“This strategic investment in designing the expansion of the Freeman Trail will enhance the transportation and recreational infrastructure in the region, providing long term healthy transportation benefits to the residents of Acton, Westford, Carlisle and the many people in the surrounding communities who use and enjoy the Trail,” said Governor Deval Patrick.
“As part of our administration’s transportation reform we have committed to improve service within all transportation systems in the Commonwealth,” said Lieutenant Governor Timothy Murray. “Today’s announced design funding for the expansion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail is another example of infrastructure improvements that will offer our residents increased recreational and healthy transportation opportunities in the region.”
“As we continue under Governor Patrick’s leadership to make improvements to bicycle and pedestrian access, recreational trails such as the Freeman are an important part of our investment strategy to support healthy transportation options,” said MassDOT Secretary & CEO Jeffrey Mullan.
“The Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, the product of many years of work of local municipal staff, elected officials, and of course the Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, has been a popular destination for bikers and pedestrians alike, providing a scenic and safe alternate transit option for local residents. The additional funding announced today will help us take the next step forward in extending this project into Acton, Carlisle, Concord, and Westford, making it accessible for many more biking enthusiasts. In making this grant, the Patrick-Murray Administration continues to show its strong support for alternative transportation programs that increase the quality of living in all of our communities,” said State Senator Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton.
“This event marks over two decades of citizen and government partnership, hard work, and devotion to a trail that will help protect our environment from harmful emissions, encourage healthy lifestyles, and knit our communities together. What a proud day this is for us to share,” said State Representative Cory Atkins.
“This addition to the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail expands transportation and recreation opportunities for families in Acton and will benefit the community for generations to come,” said State Representative Jennifer Benson.
The funds will design the next two phases of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail from the end of the current trail through Westford and Lowell south through Westford, Carlisle, Acton and Concord, including construction of a 10-12 foot paved asphalt multi-use trail, construction of a pedestrian bridge over Route 2A/119, and rehabilitation of six existing rail bridges along the Trail. A segment of the trail crossing Route 2 will be designed with the Concord Rotary Project. In October 2009, the Patrick Administration awarded an additional $500,000 in “Transportation Enhancements” funding to support final design of phase 2A of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail.
The estimated construction cost of the first phase of Trail expansion through Acton, Westford, and Carlisle is $7.7 million.
Together, investment in roads and bridges has grown from $515 million in FY 2007 to a projected $1.1 billion in FY 2010. The road and bridge construction program will support more than 10,000 jobs on 385 separate projects across the Commonwealth. Additionally, MassDOT has reduced the time from construction contract advertisement to construction start from 218 days in 2008 to 124 days in 2009 - a more than 43 percent drop in wait time. For ARRA projects, the timeline from construction contract advertisement to notice to proceed was reduced to 48 days, allowing MassDOT to put people to work on construction projects faster than ever before.
To learn more about Massachusetts Works, visit www.mass.gov/governor/massworks. For additional information on how the Patrick-Murray Administration’s agenda has led Massachusetts out of a global recession faster and stronger than the rest of the nation, visit www.mass.gov/governor/agenda.
MassDOT is the new, unified transportation organization created in 2009 under the historic reform legislation passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Governor Patrick. MassDOT’s four divisions are focused on delivering safe and efficient transportation services across the Commonwealth. For transportation news and updates, visit the MassDOT website at www.mass.gov/massdot, the MassDOT blog at www.mass.gov/blog/transportation or follow MassDOT on twitter at www.twitter.com/massdot.
By Matt Murphy
06/15/2010 BOSTON — Four times in the history of the United States — most recently, George W. Bush in 2000 — a president has been elected without winning the national popular vote.
A growing number of states, however, are moving to redraw the electoral map with a changed system that would hand over the keys to the White House to the winner of the national popular vote.
“Instead of those red and blue maps, you’d have a ticker counting votes, and Massachusetts voters would be courted and driven to the polls,” said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, who is spearheading the effort. “The winner would be the candidate who got the most votes like every other election in this country.”
The state Senate is scheduled to take up the proposal next week after the House passed the bill earlier this month by an overwhelming 113-35 majority.
A poll conducted in late May showed that 72 percent of Massachusetts voters support the idea of using the popular vote to elect the president.
The bill would enter Massachusetts into a compact with other states that have agreed to pledge their Electoral College electors to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner in each state.
The law would only take effect once enough states have passed the legislation to control a majority of Electoral College votes — 270.
The bill was scheduled to get a vote in the Senate last week, but Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei, R-Wakefield, tabled the bill questioning why lawmakers were wasting their time debating it with two years until the next presidential election.
He said lawmakers’ time would be better spent considering bills aimed at getting the economy moving and spurring economic development.
A total of 30 legislative chambers in 19 states have passed the national popular-vote bill, though it has only been signed into law in five of those states — Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey.
Those five states control 61 electoral votes, 169 short of the 270 needed to guarantee the election of the popular-vote winner.
Massachusetts currently controls 12 Electoral College votes, though that number could decrease to 11 before the next presidential election should the state lose a seat in Congress based on the 2010 Census.
State Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, co-sponsored the legislation in the Senate this year.
“At the end of the day, we want to make sure every American, every voter has the same influence with his or her vote,” Eldridge said. “The current system of winner-take-all gives certain key, smaller states and swing states more influence over the election.”
A switch to a national popular-vote system would force presidential candidates to campaign more in places like Massachusetts, where more than 4 million people are eligible to vote, Eldridge said.
Though the legislation would essentially allow states to circumvent the Electoral College, proponents say it is not an end-run around the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution explicitly gives states the right to determine how its electors are selected.
Forty-eight states use a winner-take-all approach in choosing their electors, but Maine and Nebraska still apportion their electors based on congressional districts.
Critics contend that Massachusetts would be forfeiting its say in the election by pledging its electoral votes to a candidate who voters here might not have supported.
Supporters, however, point out that Massachusetts voters would gain clout because their votes would be just as important as those of people in Ohio, Florida or Pennsylvania.
The national popular-vote bill actually passed in both the state House and Senate in 2009, but died as the clock ran out on the legislative session before the Senate could enact the bill.
The late-night push to get the bill approved was complicated by threats from Republicans to filibuster and jeopardize other pending legislation.
“We have five weeks left this time, and it could still be tight depending on how obstructionist our opponents want to be,” Wilmot said.
Eldridge said he finds it troubling that one Republican senator had blocked an up-or-down vote on a simple piece of legislation that has been debated for years.
“This is a bill that a lot of people care about and, with all due respect to Sen. Tisei, I find it ironic that we have one senator blocking a bill that would allow the majority of Americans to decide who is the next president,” he said.
A packed house filled the Gardner Auditorium in the State House today for a public hearing on the proposed Senate gambling bill.
I’ve been a long-time opponent of expanded gambling in our state, and I was there, with several of my colleagues and many citizen activists, to express my opposition to the bill.
Here is the testimony I delivered at the hearing today:
I have been, and remain, opposed to bringing casinos and slot machines to our state because of the negative, costly impacts I think it will have on small businesses and local communities.
I also believe that expanding gambling is a short-sighted and ineffective economic development strategy. It drains money from local economies, hurting local businesses. Quite simply , we can do better: there are better strategies for creating jobs and promoting economic growth in the Commonwealth that don’t come with the significant downsides that casinos bring.
These downsides and costs to local communities include:
o Increase crime rates and public safety costs. Crime, including embezzlement, robbery, DUIs, aggravated assaults and domestic violence rates, increases 8 - 10% right after casino is built, and continues to increase after that — and local communities have to pick up the tab.[1] Local governments also bear the costs of significant increases in emergency service calls and casino-related traffic problems requiring police oversight.[2]
o Impact on local restaurants, hotels and arts and entertainment businesses. Money that would otherwise be spent at locally-owned small businesses will instead be spent at casinos owned by out-of-state corporations, and little of that money is being reinvested in the local community. Our downtowns will suffer as a result.
o Impact on small businesses up to 30 miles away. When discretionary income is spent on gambling, local businesses suffer. Consumers have less money to spend on clothing, electronics, furniture, automobiles, or any other locally-sold product. A study on the costs and benefits of casinos found that for every $1000 in increased casino revenue, businesses up to 30 miles away lost $243. [3]
o Development-related problems: Our state has been a leader on Smart Growth initiatives, but whether it’s traffic, infrastructure costs or environmental impact, resort casinos are often in direct opposition to those goals.
Local communities will feel the impact of increased traffic and gridlock, and mitigation for highway and local roadway traffic impacts within and beyond the host community will be necessary. Ledyard, CT saw a 245% increase in traffic in the years after a casino came to town.
There will certainly be an impact on the local natural environment as well, including the loss of open space and stormwater management issues across municipal borders.
And there will be various infrastructure costs required to support a proposed development, such as road/bridge improvements, utilities, upgrades to water/sewer facilities, water quality/quantity issues, etc.
o Social costs: Problem gambling leads to distressed families, child neglect, suicide and bankruptcy. Domestic violence rates go up, as do foreclosures.[4] Local communities will need support and additional funding for social services to deal with all of these negative social problems caused or exacerbated by expanded gambling.
The effect of casinos is regional, not just on host community: It’s also important to remember that it isn’t just the host community that bears the burden - all of the above mentioned costs and impacts will be felt by the bordering communities and beyond.
In my opinion, any benefits we may get from casinos are not worth the costs - the loss, including jobs lost, for small businesses, the negative effects and costs it will impose on local communities, and the harm it will cause to tens of thousands of Massachusetts families.
That said, if the Senate DOES decide to go forward with proposals to expand gambling, I want to strongly urge that all of these costs are taken into account, and that an effort is made to:
o Give local communities the ability to “opt out” of having a casino in their area
o Mitigate the costs to local communities as much as possible and
o Require the industry that is causing the problems (i.e. the casino industry) picks up the tab for these costs.
Some specific proposals would be:
o Regional Referendum: Before a casino is sited in a community, a regional referendum should be held, giving the local communities - host community AS WELL as abutting communities - the opportunity to “opt out” of having a casino in their backyard.
o Cost Mitigation: A Community Mitigation fund must be set up to help local communities - both host and abutting communities - cover the costs caused by the casinos, including the ongoing impacts on the environment, transportation, municipal services, social services, and public safety. We must make sure that we dedicate enough money to this fund to adequately cover all of these costs. Local communities should NOT be left on the hook.
o Requiring casinos to cover the TRUE costs their product has on local communities. At the end of the day, if we expand gambling in this state, the casino industry will make billions in profit off of Massachusetts residents, sucking money away from local businesses while increasing costs for local communities and harming many local families.
And although many of the costs, particularly the human costs, can NEVER be “mitigated” by money alone, we can at the very least require casinos to cover those costs that can be quantified. I would urge the Committee to look at tax rates and fees that are adequate for covering those costs.
Let me be clear: I think no matter what we do, expanding gambling in our state will be a bad deal for Massachusetts.
But if we’re going to do it, let’s at least ensure that the people of Massachusetts are getting the “least bad” deal possible.
[2] Baxandall, Phineas and Bruce Sacerdote. “Betting on the Future: The Economic Impact of Legalized Gambling. ” Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, Dartmouth College. Policy Briefs, January 13, 2005
[3] Grinols, Earl L. Gambling in America Costs & Benefits. Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pg. 77.
[4] National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report, commissioned by the United States Congress.1999
5/29/2010 By Charles Breitrose
Opponents liken the state Senate measure to prevent illegal immigrants from tapping in to state services to the harsh law adopted recently in Arizona, but supporters insist it’s necessary to save money by stopping abuse of the system.
Republicans sponsored the budget amendment, titled Fair Employment and Security, which the Senate approved 28-10. The measure must still be worked out in conference committee with the House.
State Sen. Richard Moore, D-Uxbridge, who voted for the measure, said yesterday the amendment addresses concerns about undocumented residents getting state assistance.
“Anywhere where people seek government services, it will simply require them to be able to require legal identification to show they are here legally,” Moore said. “Anyone who is going to receive a benefit or driver’s license has to be in compliance with what the law requires.”
The amendment includes steps barring contractors from public projects if they violate federal law on employing illegal immigrants, requires state contractors to verify employee citizenship status, creates new penalties for falsifying state IDs and driver’s licenses, and prevents those legally eligible for public housing from being displaced by illegal residents.
The amendment also bans access to lower in-state tuition rates at state colleges for illegal immigrants.
Don Siriani, chief of staff for state Sen. Susan Fargo, D-Lincoln, said the poor economy means the state should watch how every dollar is spent. Fargo voted for the measure.
“(The amendment) has everything to do with making certain that the very limited state resources the taxpayers give for the operation of the state, that they are spent wisely,” Siriani said.
The amendment will actually increase expenses to state and local agencies, argues Sen. James Eldridge, D-Acton, who voted against the bill.
“We are cutting services now, cutting for education, protecting the environment and health care,” Eldridge said. “Yet we just passed language that will increase costs for agencies like the Division of Unemployment, Division of Transitional Services and public housing authorities across the commonwealth.”
Eva Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, said she thinks the amendment mostly mirrors federal statutes, and worries it will have more effect on immigrants who are here legally.
“Though it as portrayed as going after undocumented residents our concern is this will affect those who are eligible for benefits,” Millona said. “It makes it harder for naturalized citizens to get benefits because undocumented residents are already barred.”
She anticipates the requirement to present proof of residency will increase costs to state agencies. Currently, people need to have just a valid Social Security number, which is checked on a federal database, Millona said.
“This will set up a costly bureaucratic system where (agencies) have to physically view, physically capture and physically store proof of citizenship,” Millona said. “Instead of having an automated system, they will have to open more than one office and hire a lot of staff.”
Eldridge said the proposals in the amendment were too close for comfort to the law recently passed in Arizona. Arizona’s law - which allows local police to ask for identification from anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant - has drawn loud protests from immigration rights groups and others around the country.
“I was very surprised and disappointed at how the amendment we passed (Thursday) was approaching what passed in Arizona,” Eldridge said.
The Massachusetts measure is different, Moore said, but it stems from the same frustrations.
“I don’t think it’s quite the same,” Moore said. “In Arizona, they are doing the same thing. They want the laws enforced in the absence of federal action, enforcement of both federal and state law. They are a border state and probably have more immigrants to deal with. I think they feel frustrated as well.”
The Massachusetts Legislature had to weigh in on the immigration issue because Congress has not, Moore said.
“The federal government has ultimate authority,” Moore said. “They need to meet their responsibility, address the issue on illegal immigration at the federal level. They haven’t done anything that is helpful.”
Many parts of the amendment bother Millona, but she pointed to one that she believes threatens personal privacy.
“One is the part of the bill that provides for a 1-800 number (to report illegal immigrants). This bill, erodes privacy and civil liberties for all,” Millona said. “Anyone from anywhere can report a person is undocumented and automatically an investigation begins about you, your immigration status. It gives people with a personal score a means to target people.”
The steps proposed in the amendment will not take effect until the Senate and House can agree on a single bill. A similar proposal lost in the House last month.
House and Senate leaders will try to hash out an agreement before the July 1 deadline.
Gov. Deval Patrick has not taken a firm stance on the amendment, though he said through press secretary Juan Martinez yesterday that the ban on in-state tuition for longtime state residents who are not in the country legally is unfair.
Patrick will wait and see what happens with the bill in conference committee before making a judgment, Martinez said.
Campaign Constituent
Congratulations to Marlborough residents on an historic week commemorating city's 350th Anniversary - looking forward to Labor Day parade #
