 |
Support lacking for casino question
DiMasi plan stirs very little interest
So far, the only person backing House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi's plan for a nonbinding ballot question on casino gambling is DiMasi, the state's most powerful critic of expanded gambling in Massachusetts.
No casino supporters emerged yesterday to champion the idea, which DiMasi raised Wednesday and would, if it catches on, reignite the state's debate over developing resort casinos.
Suffolk Downs, which wants to build a casino on its East Boston site, is withholding its support. Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, the two large Connecticut casinos, are also noncommittal.
Governor Deval Patrick, whose plan to license three casinos in Massachusetts was defeated by DiMasi in March, is opposed and has no appetite to revive the debate this year. Even diehard supporters in the Legislature say the casino debate is too complex to summarize in a single ballot question and that any results would be inconclusive and of little use to policy makers.
"I don't think it makes a bit of difference," said Representative Martin J. Walsh, a Dorchester Democrat and a chief casino supporter.
Casino opponents, meanwhile, fear they would be outspent by wealthy casino developers in a ballot fight leading up to a Nov. 4 vote, so they are opposed, too.
DiMasi himself declined to discuss the issue of his nonbinding referendum yesterday, but through a spokesman said he still planned to pursue the idea and could bring it up Tuesday with Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray during a weekly leadership meeting.
While withholding support, Murray said this week she is open to debating the idea, as long as DiMasi initiates the proposal with a bill in the House.
"He's not closing the door to it, but obviously he can't do it alone," said DiMasi's spokesman, David Guarino. "He's going to talk to the Senate president, to his members, and see what the appetite is for it."
Guarino said no language had been drafted for the ballot question, but it would probably entail specifically asking voters whether they support the governor's plan for three resort casinos.
"His intention would be to have a very straightforward question to get an honest read on where voters stand on this proposal," Guarino said. "The only thing that's before us is the governor's proposal."
DiMasi's surprise proposal kept lawmakers, lobbyists, and State House observers guessing yesterday as to his motivation and strategy. Is he trying to switch positions? Does he think the referendum would fail under well-financed opposition from Connecticut tribes trying to protect their profits? Is he trying to distract from recent accusations about ethics violations?
"I have no idea," said Representative Brian Wallace, a South Boston Democrat and a casino supporter.
"It's a mystery to me," said Representative David Flynn, a Bridgewater Democrat who is close to the speaker.
Flynn, who is pushing legislation to allow slot machines at the state's four racetracks, says he has assurances from DiMasi that his slots legislation will come to the House floor by next month.
DiMasi released his 124-word statement proposing the referendum just before the Senate began debate on the state budget Wednesday. He said he was deeply concerned that a procasino amendment sponsored by Senate Republicans would be approved as part of Senate budget deliberations.
But there had been no indications that the Senate was poised to adopt the amendment, and it failed on a 29-to-9 vote later in the day.
Some political observers suggested yesterday that DiMasi was signaling a willingness to become more open to casino gambling. If a referendum was approved by voters, as opinion polls indicate it would be, then DiMasi could use that to switch his position.
"He could argue that, despite his own individual opposition there is a public mandate to move on this issue," said Paul Watanabe, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts. "If he has to give surrender to somebody, I think he'd prefer to surrender to the public, instead of surrender to the governor."
Casino opponents, meanwhile, worry that they would be outspent and outmobilized.
"I'm all for people being allowed to vote for things," said Diane L. Jeffery, president of the League of Women Voters, which opposes casinos. "But it's all nonprofit groups that are against casinos. The casino groups are just flush with cash."
Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
