JC / Railbird - Mass. Senate Votes on Slots

Mass. Senate Votes on Slots

Update: The bill passed the Senate by 26-9 (Boston Globe). That’s two to three votes more than internal polling in the State House suggested last week and enough to override a likely veto by the governor (two senators have recused themselves from considering any slots legislation because of potential conflicts of interest, bringing the 2/3 majority required from 27 to 26 votes). Before going to the House for the a vote, the bill will be debated at a committee hearing on October 18.
—
The Massachusetts State Senate is set to vote on a combination slots and simulcasting bill today (Boston Herald). The proposal, which would allow each of the state’s four racetracks to install 2,000 slot machines, was introduced by Senate president Robert Travaglini yesterday. There are enough votes in the Senate to pass the bill, but getting it past the House and the governor will be tougher. Travaglini, whose district includes the Suffolk Downs and Wonderland tracks, is ready to deal with the opposition:

Travaglini said he is prepared to “compromise” and negotiate with House lawmakers in what he acknowledged could amount to some dealmaking. As far as [governor Mitt] Romney goes, Travaglini questioned how staunch the governor’s current anti-gambling sentiments are. Romney, during the recent state budget crisis, floated his own gambling plan. “The governor has changed his mind on that. Maybe he will do it again,” Travaglini said.

That’s a big maybe — Romney was quite clear a couple of weeks ago in saying that he’d veto any expanded gaming legislation. And representative Dan Bosley, a staunch gambling foe and co-chair of a pivotal committee, is speaking out strongly against Travaglini’s move:

Bosley, a top lieutenant of Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi and the House’s most outspoken critic of expanded gambling, said the House would strip the gambling provision out of the simulcasting bill, setting up a showdown with the Senate. “We’re not bluffing,” Bosley said. ”Unfortunately, people have been sold a bill of goods on gambling. I hope the Senate does not have the votes to pass this, and I think the racing industry is playing a dangerous game here, because they’re putting all their eggs in one basket and it’s a basket the House will not pick up” (Boston Globe).

—
I’m not so much disturbed by the anti-slots position of this Cambridge Chronicle editorial as I am by its view of the sport:

Horse racing — along with its poor cousin, dog racing — are decades past their prime. The days when an underdog horse like Seabiscuit could capture the country’s imagination are history. For all its tradition, the Kentucky Derby is a once-a-year TV show. The sport of kings still has its charms and its fans, but they are growing older and fewer by the year.

If that’s your context, then yes, the slots bill looks like a handout and a bad idea. Why prop up an archaism? But I can’t fault the writer — it’s racing that’s fallen down in its marketing responsibilities. The industry-wide push for slots sometimes seems to have crowded out other initiatives that might attract people to racing, or removed the incentives tracks have to entice customers. Why revamp facilities or get creative with promotions or wagering options if slots are the magic answer to all problems? I do sometimes fear that if slots spread this attitude will only grow worse. Every racetrack will become a casino first, with the horses tucked away in the back, watched by a tiny crowd, present only as a technicality.

Posted by JC in State Issues on 10/06/2005 @ 10:00 am / Follow @railbird on Twitter