Mere Politics

Unbridled Greed: The developing story of how casino money is distorting Kentucky politics

The Beshear administration came to office on the wings of a promise that it was going to avoid what it considered the ethical lapses of the previous administration.  Does it seem strange to anyone that, in the wake this exalted rhetoric, his first act as governor has been to ally himself with an industry far-famed for corruption?

Of course, Beshear never hid his intention of pushing for casino gambling during his campaign for the state's highest office.  But what he didn't say was how it was going to be done.

Beshear and other casino advocates say that opening the floodgates to casino interests will benefit average Kentuckians.  But if this is true, then why is it not average Kentuckians, but big gambling interests, who are now in the process of doing what they do best: maximizing their profits by minimizing good government?

Before elected leaders turned away the gambling industry two years ago, a pro-casino group attempted to influence a special State Senate election by pouring tens of thousands of dollars into the campaign of the pro-casino candidate.  The candidate won, but the strategy thankfully backfired when attention to the potentially harmful impact of big gambling money on state government was exposed.

This year, the gambling industry has turned on the financial spigots once again.  According the Lexington Herald-Leader, gambling interests poured almost half a million dollars into a little-known Democratic campaign fund with the obvious intent of buying influence in the debate over inviting casinos into the state.  "Nearly 40 people connected with those interests," said the report, "accounted for about 28 percent of the money raised by the Kentucky Victory 2007 Committee."

It is a strange historical irony that attempts by gambling interests to influence government should be directed at changing constitutional language that was placed there for the very purpose of preventing attempts to influence government by gambling interests.

Kentucky's constitution prohibits casino gambling for a very good reason: because it can distort and disfigure the political landscape of a state. Anti-gambling language was included in Kentucky's constitution in 1891 because of numerous scandals involving corruption and influence peddling by the gambling industry.

Yes, that was a long time ago. But gambling-related scandals haven’t ceased in recent times, as the public familiarity with names like Edwin Edwards and Jack Abramoff testify.

The casino industry will argue that it isn't like it used to be.  They will say that, unlike their institutional forbears, they are not bribing public officials for their votes.  No, they're not.  No one is putting a wad of cash into anyone's pocket: that's the old way of doing things, and it's illegal.  Instead, they are putting a wad of cash into political campaign funds: that's the new way of doing things, and it's perfectly legal.

But the fact that the gambling industry is now legally peddling influence on a large scale, and not illegally doing it on a small scale, will come as cold comfort to Kentuckians concerned about the potential for political corruption in the Commonwealth.

The arguments offered by the casino industry are not themselves very compelling.  But the casino industry does not need logic to further its cause.  Unlike the rest of us, the casino industry is not limited by the strength of its case.  It is limited only by the size of its bank accounts. Arguments are not its greatest asset: assets are its greatest asset.

Why try to convince policymakers, when you can simply purchase them?

And there is another irony.  Relatively speaking, Kentucky is a poor state.  It is also a state that has a history of allowing itself to be exploited.  Its land, its people, and its institutions have all been victimized in various ways of those who care too little for the state's common good, and too much for their own personal benefit.

Kentucky, of all states, can ill afford for its leaders to open it up once again to those who are interested in little more than taking the "common" out of Commonwealth.

Douglas Wilson on Ron Paul (and the Ken Doll Republicans)

I think I agree with every point in this piece by Douglas Wilson.

Anti-trivial trivialities in the presidential election

In yesterday's presidential debate, the Republican presidential candidates were asked for a show of hands to indicate whether they believed that global warming was a significant threat caused by man. Fred Thompson rebelled against the format and asked if he could give a minute long answer.

No way, said the moderator.

Thirty seconds?

Nope.

Thompson refused to play along, an act that is now being compared to Ronald Reagan refusing to give up the microphone in the 1980 New Hampshire debate. Some are speculating that this trivial little incident could light a fire for the campaign.

Now think about this suggestion--that one mildly entertaining little comment could change the course of the presidential race. Thompson was rebelling against the format of the debate because it trivialized the process, and now that trivial little act could spark a renewed public interest in the campaign?

What is the hope for Huckabee?

If you want a good illustration of the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition, look at John Podhoretz's article over at Contentions on why Mike Huckabee is not a shoe-in for the Republican nomination for president. Here is the essence of Podhoretz's argument:

The Christian base of the Republican party is unquestionably important. It may make up as much as 35 percent of the primary vote. If Huckabee wins a landslide majority of evangelical votes nationwide, say 65 percent, he will have in his pocket one-fifth of the Republicans participating in the primaries. That’s a very significant number in a populous and divided field.

 

...The problem Huckabee faces as he moves into the first tier is that, aside from his very pleasing demeanor, he is not giving any other kind of Republican — a national-security Republican, a small-government Republican, a low-taxes Republican — any reason whatever to vote for him. Everyone understands you can’t win without the base. But the obsession with winning the base can blind some people to this basic fact: A man cannot win by base alone.

In other words, winning the base is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for winning the nomination.

This is a persuasive argument, but there are so many intangible factors in politics, such as the force of sheer momentum--and the smell of a winner.  Huckabee's economic views may not be conservative (which is why I'm for Thompson), but they are populist.  And a win in Iowa gives him the glow not only of success, but the appearance of political velocity: he is elevated from a 2nd tier to a 1st tier candidate, and is on his way up.

CNN Shenanigans

Did anyone notice that the only one of the Youtube questioners in Wednesday night's presidential debate who got the opportunity to speak at the debate itself was the gay gentleman?  He was handed the mike and proceeded to expound his position to the nation.

Is CNN going to give the floor over to someone from the religious right during the next Democratic debate?

Why Beshear will fail to get casinos in Kentucky

Some people seem to think there is a good chance that the issue of casino gambling will make it on to next year's ballot.

They're wrong.

In an article in yesterday's Courier-Journal Tom Loftus and Stephanie Steitzer discussed the chances of a gambling measure passing in next year's General Assembly.  Although the article did not postulate what chances such a bill might have, it did give the impression that it has a much better chance than, in fact, it actually has.

Here is why such a bill stands little chance of ever making it through the 2008 legislative session:

First, most senators don't really want to vote on this issue. In the CJ article, the focus was put on how many people would vote for it if it made it to the floor.  But that's not the question.  The question is whether it will ever make it to the floor.

Most of the Republican senators quoted as being on the fence might very well have to vote "yes" if it gets a vote, but it won't get a vote because those same senators don't want to vote at all.  With one or two exceptions the Republican senators who are uncommitted will be telling Senate Republican leadership behind the scenes not to let the bill out. 

Think about it: either way they vote, they lose.  Most of them don't want the bill, but are in districts in which voting "no" would be costly.  In fact, in many cases, it would be costly whichever way they voted.  There is no benefit to them of voting either way.

Senate President David Williams, the leader of the Republican caucus, is not going to put so many of his members in such a difficult position.  That's one of the reasons Williams has become such a popular leader of the Republicans in the Senate: he protects his members.  His caucus will be made up mostly of members who oppose the bill--and those who don't oppose it still, in large part, don't want to vote on it.

If the bill does come out of the House, watch for Senate leadership to put the bill in the Licensing and Occupations Committee, chaired by anti-casino Sen. Gary Tapp.  Tapp will be more than happy to sit on the bill until the clock runs out.  Licensing and Occupations is the natural committee for a casino bill to land, so nobody will be able to say it was sent to the wrong committee.

Second, it is in David William's political interest to kill any casino bill. Many observers think David Williams has gubernatorial aspirations, and it won't do him any good if he gets pushed around by the new Democratic governor--and that's exactly what it will look like if Beshear is able to push a casino bill through the Senate.

If Williams is going to distinguish himself as the heir apparent for the Republican nomination for governor in 2011, he has to show that he can successfully stand up to Beshear.  If he doesn't, there is a passel of other aspirants ready to take his place.

Third, it is not a forgone conclusion that the House will pass a bill. The primary reason for not passing a bill in previous sessions has been that House leaders did not want to have their members cast a politically risky vote if the Senate was not going to hear the bill in the first place.  But it should be clear by February that that situation has not changed. 

Besides, if House leaders are smart (and that is also not a forgone conclusion), they're going to be asking themselves if it is in their best interests to put what amounts to a controversial social issue on the ballot.  They well remember what happened in 2004 when the churches were emptied and they lost seven seats.  They have to be looking at polls taken after Fletcher's anti-casino commercials which show a majority of Kentuckians voting against such a measure and asking themselves whether they want to clean out the churches again and lose seats.

Add these factors to the continuing dilemma pro-casino forces face--either putting casinos on tracks, in which case they lose the support of legislators in areas that do not have tracks since there is nothing in it for them, or allowing them outside of tracks, in which case they lost the crucial support of the tracks--and you have a hard row to hoe for casino interests.

In any case, it is an easy decision for David Williams. He can continue to consolidate his control over his caucus by doing what his members really want him to do: kill the bill.  And he can establish himself as the top Republican gubernatorial contender by showing he can beat Beshear.

It all comes down to what David Williams does, and there's no reason to think he will let a bill out--and every reason to think he won't.