Next week, Massachusetts voters will have the historic opportunity to push back against the cynicism that has kept the prospect of casino gaming alive here for more than two decades. By voting yes on Question 3, a plurality of voters can put the casino genie back in its bottle … for a while, anyway.
That even a convincing victory by the Repeal the Casino Deal campaign could stop casinos and their supporters from setting up shop in Massachusetts seems as unlikely as the underfunded grassroots repeal movement winning a convincing victory. For more than 20 years, the casino industry and its champions in the public sector have shown a resolute unwillingness to take no for an answer—and with seemingly unlimited resources to keep selling a superficially appealing but highly questionable development scheme, why would they?
Over the last two decades, few other issues in Massachusetts have received as much attention or been a greater source of intrigue. Casino gambling has been a deeply divisive issue, causing lasting rifts within communities and fracturing longstanding political alliances on Beacon Hill. The push for casinos has continued through the tenures of six governors, failing repeatedly under Republicans and only gaining strong support in the Democrat-controlled Legislature after a Democrat took over the corner office.
The casino movement seemed to peter out about a decade ago, but when Deval Patrick became governor in 2007, he re-energized the idea of “expanded gaming” as sensible public policy. The ostensibly progressive Patrick, with Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo, both Democrats, led the charge to license three resort casinos, promising to create lots of jobs, reap millions in fees and taxes and mitigate the downside risks associated with gambling. To craft the enabling legislation and get rank and file members in line, the new casino alliance on Beacon Hill turned to casino opponent turned proponent Sen. Stan Rosenberg, the Amherst Democrat now poised to become the next senate president.
As adept at selling the plan inside the Legislature as he turned out to be, Rosenberg’s case for casinos didn’t change a lot of minds in the polity. The arguments for and against casinos haven’t changed over the years. Casinos promise jobs and tax revenues; opponents predict that any gains will be wiped out by increased government costs due to gambling addiction and economic losses due to the cannibalizing effects of casinos.
A jump ball? Hardly. Case studies abound. In my view, it’s the biggest problem proponents have faced in Massachusetts: the real-world experiences in casino states around the country have never matched the rosy picture gaming advocates have tried to sell here.
For me and, I suspect, many others, it hasn’t been easy to oppose something as colorful and fun-filled as casinos. In fact, I’m not against gambling, not against gamblers, not against the casino industry, not against the union laborers who want to build the casinos or the service workers who want to staff them. I’ve focused nearly all of my criticism on the politicians who have promoted casino gambling as a potential economic boon for the state. In my view, the casino deal offers little benefit to the vast majority of residents while enriching only a few.
I believe that’s why the casino movement has been stymied again and again for more than 20 years, failing until 2011 to secure necessary legislative support and finding, to this day, a robust grassroots opposition willing to fight on tirelessly with only a tiny fraction of the resources proponents enjoy.
I have yet to find a betting site taking action on the outcome of Question 3 (I did find sites with odds for the 2016 presidential race, including one with Deval Patrick at 50 to 1), but if you buy what passes for tout sheets in politics—opinion polls—the odds don’t look good for casino opponents.
Tracking polls show about a 14-point margin opposed to the repeal effort. As expected, the casino industry has outspent its opponents by a 15:1 ratio. Wynn Resorts, Penn Gaming and MGM have dropped nearly $5 million on TV advertising in the month of October alone, while the Repeal the Casino Deal group hasn’t reached $1 million in spending for the year yet. Pro casino spots have aired thousands of times since Labor Day. The first anti-casino TV spot didn’t air until Oct. 24.
How was this David ever going to beat this Goliath? I’ve been asking myself that question for more than 20 years. I don’t know the answer, but here’s something to remember next Tuesday: Goliath hasn’t won anything yet.•
