New conditions weren’t enough with same Senate for gambling bill

John Hanna

Sunday, May 7, 2000 | 2:19 a.m.

TOPEKA, Kan. - The owners thought they stood a good chance of persuading legislators to permit slot machines at their dog and horse tracks.

The state was short of money. Supporters thought they had honed their arguments. Outside groups were helping. The tracks offered what they thought was a better bill.

But supporters didn't even get a recorded vote on their proposal.

The bill, to permit slot machines and other electronic gambling devices at three locations, died in the Senate, just as similar proposals have in the past.

Legislators and lobbyists have a long list of reasons why supporters weren't any more successful this year than in previous ones. They agree that while conditions appeared to have changed significantly, the Senate did not.

"With the makeup of the Senate, it wouldn't make any difference," said Sen. Ben Vidricksen, R-Salina, a supporter of the bill. "Philosophically, a majority is just opposed to gambling."

The bill would have permitted the gambling machines at Wichita Greyhound Park, The Woodlands in Kansas City, Kan., and Camptown Greyhound Park, north of Pittsburg. Voters in each of those home counties would have to approve the new gambling first, however.

The Senate rejected a similar bill last year, 13-27. But throughout the session this year, supporters said they remained optimistic.

For one thing, the state needed money. It finished its 1999 fiscal year with $73.4 million less than expected in revenues. Supporters said the bill would provide the state with $52 million for education programs.

The bill gave the state 20 percent of revenues from the new machines, which supporters said would be $260 million. Last year's bill would have given the state 14 percent and required it to take regulatory expenses out of those funds.

Supporters described the bill as a way to recapture revenues going to casinos in Missouri and the four Indian reservations in northeast Kansas. They even came up with their best guess for how much: $300 million a year.

"I thought, of all the years they had a possibility, this was it," said Rep. Mike O'Neal, R-Hutchinson, an opponent. "I thought they had the best argument in a long time for picking off people who are marginal on the gambling issue."

But despite support from both the Kansas AFL-CIO and the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Industry, opposition was strong, even if most of it was behind the scenes.

The Indian tribes had concerns about the bill and believed it could hurt their businesses, but they didn't take a public stance on it. Owners of taverns and private clubs wanted the new gambling for their establishments.

In public, the job of trying to defeat the bill appeared to have been left mostly to groups and legislators who oppose more gambling.

"We have this odd confluence of opponents," said Brad Smoot, a lobbyist for Kansas Racing, the company that operates The Woodlands. "You put them all together, and it really makes it difficult to get the logic of this proposal through."

Smoot said a vote would have been relatively close in the Senate, with supporters only "about two votes short."

He contends Kansans support slot machines at race tracks. Vidricksen agrees and says that if Kansans voted on it, the proposal would pass overwhelmingly.

But many other legislators disagree. They note that a 1988 federal law allowed Indian casinos, and they question whether voters had thought two years earlier that approving a state-run lottery eventually would permit casinos, as it did.

"Kansans really don't want slot machines in the state," said House Federal and State Affairs Chairman Tony Powell, R-Wichita, an ardent opponent of the bill.

He added: "They don't want full-fledged casino gambling. Personally, I don't think they even want the tribes to have casinos."

Senate Federal and State Affairs Chairwoman Lana Oleen said senators worry about a progression toward more gambling.

"They feel like first it's going to be the tracks and then someone else is going to want them," said Oleen, R-Manhattan. "We don't want slots jingling across Kansas."

Smoot insists the bill could have won House approval, but Oleen scoffed at the notion. Supporters would have needed to get around Powell, whose committee normally would handle gambling legislation.

"We certainly will never know, at least not this year," Powell said. "I had said a bill would come out of committee over my dead body."