Editorial: Gaming fund ban a bad idea

Thursday, May 20, 1999 | 12:25 p.m.

The National Gambling Impact Study Commission finished most of its business on Tuesday, but it still is undecided on one recommendation that could have a profound impact on politics in Nevada. Before it completes its investigation on June 18, the commission will meet June 2-3 in San Francisco and will consider a proposal that would ban casinos from making contributions to political candidates.

The commission has endorsed some poorly thought-out proposals -- such as banning all betting on college sports -- and prohibiting political contributions by a legal industry certainly belongs to the category of bad ideas. Supporters of a ban use as a model the state of New Jersey, which bans casino companies and employees from making donations to candidates for state office or political action committees.

Commissioner Richard Leone, the former New Jersey state treasurer, proposed the prohibition. Leone said the gaming industry should "bend over backwards to appear not to be buying their way into the business or into licenses." An unlikely ally is Commissioner Terry Lanni, the chairman of MGM Grand, who said he believes casino executives should be prevented from making contributions in local and state races.

While Lanni may not have a problem with such a ban, prohibiting a legal business from enjoying the same political right of expression as any other business is unfair. Nevada casinos certainly sometimes throw their weight around on issues before the Legislature or local government, but that happens everywhere in this nation where an industry dominates a state or city.

Interestingly enough Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., the author of the legislation that created the Impact Study Commission, in May 1998 asked the chairmen of the Republican and Democratic national committees to stop accepting donations from the gaming industry. After both parties ignored the request, Wolf then tried to get Congress to ban the gaming industry's so-called "soft money" contributions to the political parties. Wolf's maneuver in Congress, singling out one industry for retribution, didn't work either.

The problem with "soft money" donations, or an inordinate influence exerted by a large industry on the political process, isn't confined to the gaming industry. You can find big businesses everywhere in the United States getting their way on public policies important to them. Should the auto industry, then, be stopped from making political contributions to Detroit candidates? What about oil companies in Alaska? Should Hollywood executives and movie stars be told they can't contribute to the campaigns of California candidates?

Some members of the commission are treating the gaming industry as if it is still outlawed. Campaign finance reform certainly is needed, but our laws should apply equally to all businesses. The commission should reject this proposal, which would effectively disenfranchise the political rights of a legal business.