Search Salon

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently in Salon News

After the flood
Hog farmers slug it out with environmentalists as North Carolina toughens regulations.
By Fetzer Mills Jr.
[10/26/99]

Let the slugfest begin
GOP rivals race to accuse one another of the sin of "going negative."
By Anthony York
[10/26/99]

Brains for hire
William Bennett offers unofficial counsel to a number of Republican presidential wannabes.
By Jake Tapper
[10/26/99]

"Gay panic"
In an effort to keep their client from the death penalty, defense lawyers in the Matthew Shepard murder trial evoke a strange "gay panic" defense.
By Dave Cullen
[10/26/99]

Mountain road
When J.H. Hatfield fled New York's media frenzy last week, he made his way back home to the Ozarks, where a man's mistakes are his own damn business.
By Suzi Parker
[10/25/99]

Complete archives for News

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

While an immediate rollback of gambling legalization is unlikely, a change in public sentiment could force presidential candidates to take a stand on gambling. Both parties, however, are drenched in gambling money.

Common Cause reports that Democrats have received $8,526,711 in PAC and soft money from gambling interests over the past decade, while Republicans have pulled in $8,011,333. The largest donor, the Hotel and Restaurant Employees International Union, which represents 75,000 casino workers, gave a total $2,120,657 in PAC and soft money since 1989, 81 percent to Democrats.

Timothy O'Brien, a New York Times reporter and author of the book "Bad Bet," said the industry put at least $4.5 million into national campaigns between 1992 and 1996, making gambling "a political force at the federal level on a par with the National Rifle Association and the United Automobile Workers."

Mother Jones magazine, meanwhile, found that the industry gave more than $100 million in donations and lobbying fees to state legislators between 1992 and 1996.

Politicians don't like talking much about gambling, especially in this era of public expressions of piety. A politician may boast of a personal relationship with the Creator, but if he's known to be funded by Las Vegas, with its innumerable hookers, pastie-twirlers and hustlers, the effect is somewhat diminished. (One exception to the piety promoters is Donald Trump, now considering a run for the Reform Party nomination, who owns casinos and whose gambling empire donated a total of $427,000 to both parties between 1989 and 1998.)

The flashpoint for Republicans should come during the South Carolina primary. "When Republicans come to South Carolina, they're going to have to say where they stand on gambling," says Grey. "It's all people are talking about down there. Steve Forbes" -- who has the luxury of not having to depend on party money -- "has spoken against video poker ... Bush spoke out against casino gambling while he was governor of Texas, but when he was in South Carolina a while back, he took a pass on video gambling. He said it was a states' rights issue. McCain has said a few things against gambling, but not much."

McCain may be talked out for now, and for good reason. McCain has raised more money from gambling interests than all the other presidential candidates combined, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. During the first six months of 1999, McCain reportedly took in $51,663, perhaps because of his support of 1995 pro-gambling legislation and his strong backing of Indian casinos. American Gaming Association chief Frank Fahrenkopf Jr. adds that McCain "never misses a championship fight in Las Vegas."

On the Democratic side, the issue is bubbling in New Hampshire. Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen supports a "slots for tots" initiative to put video gambling machines at four racetracks to raise money for education. Video gambling, she says, is the "least onerous way to address that revenue shortfall."

It happens that her husband, Bob, is Al Gore's state campaign chairman, which may partly explain why Bill Bradley has shown interest in the issue. "If I were governor, I wouldn't go this route," he said during a visit. (Bradley opposed a statewide gambling initiative in his own state, New Jersey, in 1974, though casino gambling was approved two years later). Bradley sounded a bit like an Alabama Baptist: "You walk into these places and the people who are there are people who really can't afford to gamble."

Which, of course, raises the question of where a prominent Tennessee Baptist stands on the issue. "It's a perfect set-up for Bradley," says Grey. "He can ask Gore, who is the beneficiary of gambling money, why we should work so hard to get people off welfare and back to work, only to have casinos move in and take their paychecks. It also gives him a perfect segue into campaign-finance reform, where Gore is also vulnerable." Gore may be about to learn an often-overlooked lesson, he concludes: "Gambling will get you money, but it won't get you votes."
salon.com | Oct. 27, 1999

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

  Get a printer-friendly version

  E-mail a friend about this article

  Backflip this article to find it again

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Search Salon