House Budget Chair signals new openness to casinos

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON (FEB. 11, 2010) House budget chief Charles Murphy appeared to begin laying political cover Thursday for lawmakers to switch their votes in favor of expanded gambling, signaling his own shift as the Legislature prepares to tackle casino and slot machine legislation.

Murphy, named House budget chief last year by Speaker Robert DeLeo after holding lower profile posts under previous speakers, showed new enthusiasm for expanded gambling, a reversal of his March 2008 stance, when the House followed then-Speaker Salvatore DiMasi in shooting down Gov. Deval Patrick’s three-casino bill.

“[T]he House looks forward to a vigorous debate over the future of destination gaming in Massachusetts,” Murphy wrote in a column published in the Burlington Union, one of his local newspapers. “While suffering a slow-down like other sectors, our tourism industry is already the envy of the region and continues to help drive our economy. Destination gaming could prove yet another premium attraction to those already drawn to Massachusetts’ unique history, and its many cultural and entertainment offerings.”

“In addition to providing much needed revenue for the state, destination gaming proponents tout the potential for thousands of good-paying, permanent jobs in construction, lodging, transportation, and food service, among other industries,” said Murphy, who also voted in 2003 to snuff a legislative effort to sanction slot machines at the state’s four racetracks. “Particularly in the hardest hit regions of the commonwealth, destination gaming holds out the potential for both short and long term economic opportunity.”

Murphy’s policy movement comes as House leaders who voted with DiMasi in the 108-44 vote vanquishing Patrick’s proposal and returned to or rose to senior positions under DeLeo have privately admitted sheepishness over the likelihood that they will alter their votes when a gambling bill comes to the floor, likely in March or April.

Seven members of DeLeo’s nine-person senior leadership team, including the speaker, and at least 34 current committee chairs helped defeat Patrick’s bill. Of the senior leadership squad, only division chair Garrett Bradley, a Hingham Democrat, backed Patrick, who made job creation and revenue production claims similar to the ones that proponents are making this year. Division chair Kathi-Anne Reinstein did not vote.

The opposition to expanded gambling two years ago railed against what DiMasi termed the advent of a “casino culture” and prevailed after highlighting the likelihood that gambling addictions, personal bankruptcies and family problems related to gambling would increase with more legalized venues.

The same arguments are being made this year but the debate is also unfolding against a different fiscal and economic backdrop, as state revenues have tanked, prompting significant spending cuts and massive tax hikes, and a gambling market that has also seen steep declines in business.

Patrick himself has adopted a less enthusiastic stance on gambling.

“I would suggest we live in a much different world since that vote, economically speaking,” Murphy told the News Service Thursday afternoon when asked about his evolution. “I think the prospect of thousands of good-paying jobs is an important factor to any analysis or discussion of gaming. I think that will be an overriding factor to a lot of us in the building, and it was certainly an important factor to me.”

The state’s unemployment rate has more than doubled since March 2008, from 4.4 percent then to 9.4 percent, according to the most recent figures.

Asked whether he feared paying a political price for what could be perceived as a flip-flop, Murphy replied, “That’s always a concern, but when one takes a vote on any issue, I’m not sure it’s set in stone forever.”

“If people want to call that a flip-flop so be it, the fact is, it’s something we have to consider,” he added.

Among other House leaders, including top deputies, committee chairs, and the two budget panel vice chairs, the following voted against casinos in 2008, according to the roll call in the House journal:

Rules Committee chair John Binienda; Bonding Committee chair Antonio Cabral; Labor co-chair Cheryl Coakley-Rivera; Public Safety co-chair Michael Costello; Economic Development co-chair Brian Dempsey, whose committee is charged with drafting the bill; Municipalities co-chair Paul Donato; Telecommunications co-chair Barry Finegold; Community Development co-chair Linda Dorcena Forry; second assistant Majority Leader Patricia Haddad; Housing co-chair Kevin Honan; Steering chair Louis Kafka; Revenue co-chair Jay Kaufman; Tourism co-chair John Keenan; Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities co-chair Kay Khan; Ways and Means assistant vice-chair Stephen Kulik; Financial Services co-chair Peter Koutoujian; Ethics co-chair Peter Kocot; Ways and Means vice-chair Barbara L’Italien; Federal Stimulus Oversight chair David Linsky; Election Laws co-chair Michael Moran; assistant Majority Leader Ronald Mariano; Mental Health and Substance Abuse co-chair Elizabeth Malia; Judiciary chair Eugene O’Flaherty, Bills in Third Reading chair Vincent Pedone; Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas Petrolati; division chair Byron Rushing; Public Health co-chair Jeffrey Sanchez; Global Warming chair Frank Smizik; Consumer Protection co-chair Theodore Speliotis, Public Safety co-chair Robert Spellane; Health Care Financing co-chair Harriett Stanley; division chair Ellen Story; Environment co-chair William Straus, Majority Leader James Vallee, Transportation chair Joseph Wagner; State Administration co-chair Steven Walsh, Education co-chair Marty Walz; and Elder Affairs co-chair Alice Wolf.

To be sure, many of the lawmakers on that list will likely stick with their 2008 vote, either personally opposed to expanded gambling, or in consideration to the sentiments of their districts. Balser and Malia, for two, said they still planned to vote against casinos, but were reluctant to criticize any potential vote-switching by colleagues.

“I think the chances of doing legislation this year and reaching any agreement are pretty thin,” Malia said. “But I could just be naïve.”

Others, whose constituents are on the whole more ambivalent toward casinos and slots, voted in 2008 under leadership pressure, a common occurrence in an institution where top-down pressure wields tremendous influence.

DeLeo appears to have demonstrated less propensity for punitive actions against dissidents than some of his predecessors, including DiMasi and former Speaker Thomas Finneran. But gambling bills are a district matter for DeLeo, whose Winthrop hometown is close to both the Wonderland and Suffolk Downs tracks, and one of his top priorities. DeLeo is pushing this year for racetrack slots, an idea that both Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray have said they are reluctant to endorse.

Asked whether a gambling plan would pass the House, Mariano said, “To be honest with you, I have no idea. I have no idea. I think that’s a great question. If you had the answer, you’d make my life a lot easier. I think it’s not a slam dunk. But I don’t know, for sure. My sense is there’s opposition, there’s serious opposition, and this will be a huge debate.”

“We voted against the plan of the governor. That’s what we were voting against. It wasn’t so much the philosophical issue,” Mariano told the News Service Thursday.

“It wasn’t a moral issue for me, when I voted against the governor’s plan,” the Quincy Democrat said. “It was three casinos, without much thought given to how they were going to be allocated, without any infrastructure set up, without any discussion of the impact on the racetracks. Whatever’s in front of us this time is going to be a lot more comprehensive than what we had two years ago.”

“We hopefully can have a mix of some immediate revenue enhancements [in the form of slot machines] along with a thought-out, comprehensive plan to put destination resort casinos in the Commonwealth,” Mariano said.