David Guarino
Slowly, sometimes quietly, the flips are being executed. Some of them are being done with simple directness; some are being done with downright aplomb. Few, so far, are attaching flops to their flips.
And this, if you are a member of the state Legislature hoping to keep your job, is a good thing.
Welcome to the next step toward the birth of casino gambling here, coming soon to an over-hyped media landscape near you. The folks at the epicenter are the 108 members of the House of Representatives who voted against a legalized casino the last time it came up, on March 20, 2008, and who are now very much thinking of voting for it.
Conventional wisdom says the flips are because of a change of leadership in the House. Speaker DiMasi, opponent, is gone and replaced by Speaker DeLeo, supporter. (Full disclosure before someone complains: I was a senior adviser to DiMasi at the time of the last vote.)
The dial-back, which will quickly escalate after DeLeo’s casino roll-out today, began with House Ways and Means Chairman Charley Murphy. In a column for his local paper last month, picked up by the State House News Service, Murphy laid cover for other Reps – it’s the economy, times have changed, we need jobs.
Today, DeLeo announced that his plan would feature two casinos and slots at all four Bay State tracks. That’s good news for the Reps flipping under the guise that fewer casinos are better than the three Governor Patrick proposed.
No less than four state reps told The Telegram & Gazette the single biggest problem with the Governor’s bill was it had too many casinos – all saying they would vote for a bill that had some number less than three casinos. Is there a big difference between two and three? If you are changing your vote, you betcha.
Rep. Lida Harkins, D-Needham, who is running for the Senate, told The Needham Times she is against casinos – in the reporter’s paraphrase – “in theory.” Harkins signaled support under the right circumstances, particularly if revenues are tied to aid to cities and towns.
Executing a position change on a topic as widely covered and widely dissected as casino gambling will be difficult, particularly in an election year. The period we are now in – between when nomination papers to run are available and when they are due back – is the time incumbent legislators are most risk averse.
This can’t be an easy dance.
“You can’t say that the economy has grown worse because even the Speaker agrees that we will not place any gaming revenue in the budget this year,” argued one seasoned legislator. “So why switch except the Speaker’s position has changed?”
There are those who say the House will flip just at the heels of the Speaker or that Reps are scared of angry voters. But those are easy storylines that miss a more nuanced, difficult to define political reality:
- One, the Governor would have had a far easier time in the House in 2008 if he had proposed slots at the tracks – pulling with him natural constituencies of track towns. DeLeo gets that math.
- Two, the Governor would have won more votes if he had, early in the process, cut the number of casinos to get things started.
- Three, the Governor might have even won in the House if he had done steps one and two and tied revenues directly to a cause – like aid to schools. Winning casino arguments work better when it’s not “slots for Grandma” but “better classrooms for kids.” DeLeo gets this, too – hence the community college and blue collar job tie to his plan.
DeLeo is well-positioned, though he’ll have to fill in the blanks on the jobs and revenue questions he left unanswered so far. But, for now, he can let the pot simmer and help more of his members lay the groundwork for a difficult policy flip. He needs at least 35 votes, and the clock is ticking.
——————-
David Guarino is vice president and director of public affairs at MS&L Boston, a strategic communications and public affairs firm. He is formerly a spokesman for the Speaker of the House, the Attorney General and, for 12 years, a Massachusetts political reporter.
He will be a regular contributor to MassBeacon.com.
wait, how about
4. the Governor would have succeeded if Guarino’s boss wasn’t in the hip pocket of Foxwoods, a “fact” everyone in the building knows and no one can prove.
Thanks for this article, and there is a lot here.
David is doing his own dance here by suggesting that DiMasi could have allowed passage of a different version of Deval Patrick proposal in 2008.
That is 100% disingenuous.
This author knows it too. There is no way Speaker DiMasi was going to lose to Gov. Patrick, on this issue. (Threats, arm-twisting, etc.) Facts support my position.
The House Reps who supported slots or Racinos all voted yes in 2008, so point #1 is completely wrong. East to prove. Do you think we don’t have access to google?
#2, Again, nonsense. The vote the House took in 2008 was to send the Gov’s casino bill to a study. If Reps wanted two casinos, they could have rejected the study and amended the bill. Again, this suggestion is false.
#3. The Gov’s bill put some casino money into the FY09 budget. Remember how in FY09 there was a 10% cut to local aid, once there was no revenue from casinos? Also money was set aside for transportation improvements and for property tax relief. So again David’s point is misleading and incorrect.
Just be honest. This was an ego thing for DiMasi and there was no way he was going to lose. House Reps do have problems now trying to flip from a casino bill with no racinos to a racino bill.
But I hope you will be honest in your future posts here.
Here are some articles to back up my information
http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/59491-dimasis-sheep/
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1082009
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/10/11/in_bill_patrick_controls_casino_panel/
I’m going to have to agree with Vic here.
How about Exhibit #1: Bob DeLeo himself. This supposed stalwart supporter of casinos AND racinos voted against the bill in 2008. He represents one of these “track towns.” There’s really no explanation for his pattern other than knuckling under the pressure of leadership.
Vic, thanks for the thoughtful response.
I have long ago given up trying to convince people that DiMasi didn’t twist 108 arms to win this vote. That was certainly the story at the time and, with any powerful Speaker, it is almost impossible to refute. I was there and what I saw was that many in the House opposed this plan before he even starting asking. He did work hard to win the vote – but just as hard as the Governor and casino supporters worked on the other side. That’s what happens in a legislative body. He was very clear about his opposition and won the day.
A couple of specific responses to your points:
* On racino votes, I guess I could be mis-remembering, but I don’t think the bill that hit the House floor had racinos in it. I just meant that if it did include slots at the tracks, I think opponents would have had a harder time winning over people like DeLeo and Flynn. The bill didn’t have slots and the Reps from track districts all voted yes, to kill the bill, I believe.
* On #2, I said the Gov would have won more votes if he’d dropped the number of casinos early in the process. You are right that by the time it hit the floor, it was too late for that.
* And on the last bullet, I meant he could tie it to something real from the start. I felt like the efforts to tie it to local aid, transportation and property tax relief were not as clear a message as other states have done – like 100 percent of state revenues go to schools, or something. That’s the point I was trying to make.
Again, these are just my opinions, certainly others are out there. Vic has some, welcome others.
Thanks for reading and commenting. This is what politics is about. Ideally it’s not angry or personal (and is done in a transparent way, ‘Vic’) but I can take that too.
Best,
dave
Again, “Ed,” I’m pretty sure the bill that hit the floor of the House in March 2008 did not have slots in it and the Governor had said he would veto a bill that included slots at the tracks. That led, I think, Reps from track towns to oppose the Governor’s bill.
Here’s a Globe story looking at how the tracks felt about the casino bill:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/05/04/track_owner_emerges_in_casino_debate/
Here’s the rollcall for anyone who didn’t Google it:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/03/20/roll_call_vote_on_gov_deval_patricks_casino_bill/
Thanks again for the comments.
Dave
Seethruit, I remember the ‘DiMasi in tank for Connecticut casinos’ was a storyline I’d heard some were pushing with reporters when I was at the Speaker’s office. My personal favorite rumor was that he was doing it for North End bookies because they feared they’d lose business to casinos.
I never saw proof of any of that and it never made any sense to me since DiMasi was against casinos for a long time.
If you have some “facts,” toss em out there. Otherwise, I’d call it ill-informed speculation from someone who is only willing to post anonymously.
Happy to have a transparent debate if you’d like to step out from the shadows but, either way, thanks for reading and for the comments.
Dave
So you are telling me that DeLeo, faced with the prospect of having a resort casino IN his district, voted against the bill because it didn’t allow slots at racetracks? That’s just silliness, I’m sorry.
Were there a couple of reps who could possibly be bought off with slots because their tracks were not going to get a resort? Maybe. But the bill got crushed.
The simple truth is that the House leadership simply does not lose. Ever. When has it ever happened? Look at the sales tax vote this past year.
“Ed”
“Ed”
I can’t speak for DeLeo, you’d have to call my friend Seth. But those who representing track towns told me at the time that the track owners really wanted slots. Yes, Suffolk and Wonderland were both thinking of bidding for a casino, but I think, all things being equal, they’d prefer to be first out of the gate with slots. And, again, all I said was he would have had a far easier time in the House if he’d done slots with casinos.
As for leadership losing, you certainly have a point there. They are usually smart enough to hold a bill or rewrite it so it has enough votes before it hits the floor. One notable exception I can think of off the top of my head was the in-state tuition bill, which went down despite House leadership support. But, overall, yes, leadership is smart enough to count votes. And if they don’t have the votes, they don’t bring it to the floor or they rewrite it, they lobby or horse-trade to get support or the let it die. That’s just the reality of a legislative body.
Thanks again for the back and forth, “Ed,” I love this stuff.
dave
I had forgotten about this — http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/20/casinos_proposal_on_brink_of_defeat/. I wonder how Rep. Ross feels now.
i don’t have the facts, dave. neither does the globe, but you know better than anyone they’ve been looking. also, if you wnat to have transparent debate, at least be honest. you’re out of the building now; you can now afford to. the idea that speaker dimasi didn’t twist arms to ensure the casino bill went down to defeat is laughable. as one rep said to me personally after the vote, ‘he didn’t just twist arms, he broke them.’ you’re a smart guy and your opinions can be enlightenting, but only if you choose to stop carrying your former boss’ water.
Seethruit, since you are apparently using a fake email address I’ll have to advise you here. For some reason, your IP address is not anonymous, so Dave and I can see where you are commenting from.
If you are going to challenge Dave to a transparent debate, you probably shouldn’t post anonymously from a competitor agency and use a fake email.
Sure, Seethruit, I’ll have a transparent debate. When and where? Maybe Conor can set up a live blog. You under your name, me under mine. Anyone can throw bombs and make personal attacks, even if they have obvious conflicts, from the comfort of anonymity. I put my name on my opinions and I’ll defend my positions anytime. So, when and where?
you know what? you’re right. repeating rumors is corrosive. the posts were over the line. they should be taken down.
i still agree with ‘vic’ that you have to be light on your feet to balance your loyalty (admirable), with insightful commentary; a challenge for all former staffers. i’d rather see loyalty than the washington trend toward criticizing former bosses for pay or notoriety, but loyalty can limit the ability to offer insightful observations.
All this talk about casino’s…Isn’t it wonderful !!! I just came back from Niagara Falls ( the Canadian side) and I was overwhelmed at how wonderful the casino’s fit into the city…On one side of the street you have beautiful shining, well lit buildings and on the other side of the street you have pawn shops, check cashers and liquor stores. A perfect blend of commercial activity, creating great jobs for the locale. I am sure that the urban planners of the region are thrilled with how things are working out for the local small businessmen. I urge all of you to take the trip , and go to Atlantic City as well..oh..oh..don’t forget Harrahs in New Orleans too……..walk a couple of blocks into the neighborhoods ( if you dare)
So you guys keep up the gossip regarding he said /she said on who’s going to vote and why and hopefully Bishop/Cardinal O’Malley will focus on why not to have casino’s in our urban neighborhoods….My money is on him…..and the financial backers from Foxwoods and Mohegan….