Where they stand on special interest gaming legislation? Let’s do a roll call.

We now know what Deval Patrick, Therese Murray and the gaming lobbyists want – special interests’ carve outs for slot machine companies and foreign backed Indian casino campaign contributors.    No matter what line of B.S. Greg Bialecki or Stan McGee claim about the inevitability of Indian casinos in the Commonwealth, their arguments for dedicating Southeastern Massachusetts to the Mashpee Wampanoag and ONLY the Mashpee’s simply don’t hold water.   Their addendum to the gaming legislation for this single, small and questionable special interest group at the expense of state revenue, jobs and community control reeks of political corruption, plain and simple.

But what will matter now is where our legislators stand on this issue.  It’s pretty simple. 

1.      You are either for preferential treatment of tax-exempt, foreign-financed Indian casinos which give huge returns to slot machine companies but lower returns to the state coupled with loss of state and local community jurisdiction, or

2.      You are for competitively bid casinos which will create jobs quickly,  maximize revenues to the state without loss of state or local community controls

So, where do they stand?  Most Bay State legislators have been silent on this special treatment legislative carve out for lobbyist Bill Delahunt’s band of POAID- (person of ancient Indian descent) led Mashpee Wampanoag and their Malaysian gambling syndicate financed “reservation casino complex.”  We know where the members of the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies stand – they sent the Governor’s special interest bill to the House and Senate “without dissent.”  Now, most of these Joint Committee members, like the Governor and Murray, are big recipients of casino lobbyist campaign cash – tens of thousands in contributions apparently goes a long way toward legislators selling out their constituents’ best interests.  We know where Therese Murray’s “point man” Senator Stanley Rosenberg stands as he is whipping the votes to pass this bill without scrutiny or debate over the special interest carve-out.  Stan conveniently is another top casino lobbyist campaign cash recipient.  But let’s start taking a roll call for the rest – ask your state senators and representatives where they stand and help us fill in the list BEFORE it’s too late for a real debate and evaluation of what’s best for Massachusetts.

Let’s start the roll with our senators – sadly, Therese Murray really delivered the “Ca-Ching” to her senate colleagues as all but one took casino campaign cash, but that doesn’t mean they are bought.  So click on the link to their name and ask them and post their responses to the comment section.  I’ve asked them all, but nobody’s talking to me.

Remember, it is simple, they are either:

·        For preferential treatment of tax-exempt Indian casinos backed by overseas syndicates

Or

·        For retained local community control, rapid job creation and maximized state revenues from competitive, no special interest gaming

                 Senator                                Special Interests    - or -   Commonwealth

Therese Murray		For		Against		Tens of thousands in campaign contributions from slot machine and Indian lobbysts.
Bruce E. Tarr		?		?
Baddour, Steven		?		?
Berry, Frederick		?		?
Brewer, Stephen		?		?
Candaras, Gale		?		?
Chandler, Harriette		?		?
Chang-Diaz, Sonia		?		?		Opposes gaming, but unknown if she'll also fight against the special interest components of the bill.
Clark, Katherine		?		?
Creem, Cynthia		?		?
DiDomenico, Sal		?		?
Donnelly, Kenneth		?		?
Donoghue, Eileen		For		Against		Member of Joint Committee which sent special interest inclusive bill without dissent to the legislature.
Downing, Benjamin		?		?
Eldridge, James		?		?		Opposes gaming, but unknown if he'll also fight against the special interest components of the bill.
Fargo, Susan		?		?		Opposes gaming, but unknown if she'll also fight against the special interest components of the bill.
Finegold, Barry		?		?
Flanagan, Jennifer		?		?
Hart, John		?		?
Hedlund, Robert		?		?
Jehlen, Patricia		?		?
Joyce, Brian		For		Against		Member of Joint Committee which sent special interest inclusive bill without dissent to the legislature.
Keenan, John		?		?
Kennedy, Thomas		?		?
Knapik, Michael		?		?
McGee, Thomas		?		?
Montigny, Mark		?		?
Moore, Michael		?		?
Moore, Richard		For		Against		Member of Joint Committee which sent special interest inclusive bill without dissent to the legislature.
Pacheco, Marc		?		?
Petruccelli, Anthony		?		?
Rodrigues, Michael		?		?
Rosenberg, Stanley		For		Against		Therese Murray "point man" in charge of lining up votes.  Top recipient of lobbyist cash.
Ross, Richard		For		Against		Member of Joint Committee which sent special interest inclusive bill without dissent to the legislature.
Rush, Michael		For		Against		Member of Joint Committee which sent special interest inclusive bill without dissent to the legislature.
Spilka, Karen		For		Against		Chair of Joint Committee which sent special interest inclusive bill without dissent to the legislature.
Timilty, James		?		?
Tolman, Steven		?		?
Welch, James		?		?
Wolf, Daniel		?		?