Most gaming execs favor Bush

David Strow

Friday, Nov. 3, 2000 | 11:19 a.m.

It's often said that Vice President Al Gore is the "pro-gaming" presidential candidate.

If that's the case, many gaming industry executives aren't buying it. Through Oct. 1, gaming executives gave more than three times as much to Gore's rival, Texas Gov. George W. Bush -- $118,200 for Bush, $36,000 for Gore.

Bush's donors included some of the most powerful names in the Nevada gaming industry, including Mandalay Resort Group Chairman and Chief Executive Michael Ensign, MGM MIRAGE Chairman Terry Lanni, International Game Technology Chairman and CEO Charles Mathewson and Desert Inn owner Steve Wynn.

On the surface, that support may seem somewhat surprising, given Bush's steadfast opposition to gaming in Texas.

Former Nevada Gov. Bob Miller, honorary chairman of Gore's campaign in Nevada, believes the casino executives backing Bush are making a grave error.

"I think maybe some of them have personal relationships they think will counterbalance (an anti-gaming bent) in the long run, but frankly, I think they're making a big mistake," Miller said. "We should be mindful that what he's saying in Texas ... is likely to be more reflective of his position on gaming than what he's said in Nevada."

Bush backers say that's nonsense.

"He's not anti-gaming, he just doesn't think it should be on every street corner in America," said Sig Rogich, finance chairman for Bush's Nevada campaign and friend of the Bush family. "He did not want it in Texas ... but instead told everyone the place they should go to enjoy it would be Las Vegas.

"The fact is that he's never done anything but support our gaming industry ... he just didn't want it in Texas. (The argument that Bush is anti-gaming) is just last-minute nonsense. It's another typical scare tactic (Gore backers) use."

Many of Bush's backers choose the Texas governor for a broader slate of reasons rather than just gaming. Lanni, for example, likes the governor's "hands-off" approach to business and his calls for a stronger military.

"I really believe his approach to less government, allowing us to make more decisions on our own, is right for this country," Lanni said. "That's my personal belief, and I just don't agree with Vice President Gore's position.

"They're both qualified to be president. I just think the direction of the country and the economy would be far better under George Bush."

But if Bush wins, the question remains as to which Bush belief will rise to the top -- his personal opposition to gaming in Texas, or the belief that states have the right to set their own course without interference from the government.

"(Gaming executives') hope is that if (Bush) gets in, by contributing to him, they'll get his ear, and he'll be more sympathetic," said Shannon Bybee, executive director of UNLV's International Gaming Institute. "They like his other politics generally. They see him as being more pro-business, and better for the economy in general.

"By giving him money, they hope he will act favorably on gaming matters. They prefer him politically, and hope by supporting him, he will not be openly antagonistic."

Gambling criticized

As the governor of Texas, Bush has been quite clear -- gaming isn't welcome.

In March 1999 a Texas task force released a report covering the spread of illegal gambling throughout the state. In this report, Bush ripped "casino-style gambling," saying "casino gambling is not OK."

"To allow casino-style gambling to continue and spread in places where children play not only offends Texans who have not approved casino-style gambling in our state, but it also sends a terrible message to our children that gambling is OK," Bush said. "Casino gambling is not OK. It has ruined the lives of too many adults, and it can do the same thing to our children."

Two years before, in announcing an effort to stop the spread of illegal slot machines, Bush said that "Texans do not want our neighborhood shopping centers to resemble Las Vegas casinos."

Bush has also resisted efforts to establish a lottery in Texas, and has waged legal battles against Indian tribes trying to launch casinos in that state. And during the Republican primary in South Carolina, Bush used Sen. John McCain's warm ties to the casino industry as a weapon against him.

Compare that position to Gore, who has stated his belief that gaming is a state's rights issue, and has shown support for lotteries and Indian gaming. Gore also has close ties to a number of prominent Nevadans, including Sen. Harry Reid and the late Arthur Goldberg, who was chief executive officer of Park Place Entertainment Corp.

Gore's allies in the state, at least as measured by campaign donations, include Boyd Gaming Chairman William Boyd, Coast Resorts Chairman Michael Gaughan, Harrah's Entertainment Chairman Phil Satre and Aladdin resort developer Jack Sommer.

Gore's pro-gaming positions haven't gone unnoticed by enemies of the gaming industry.

"(Those positions) make me tremendously apprehensive about Al Gore being elected president," said Tom Grey, executive director of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling. "Bush's record stands up better to the type of battle we've been fighting."

But how should voters translate Bush's comments? Rogich argues that there isn't inconsistency in what Bush has told Texans and Nevadans, since both views come from Bush's belief that states have the right to choose their own approach.

"I know the governor's position is to allow states to (determine) their own needs," Rogich said. "He's said Nevada is quite capable of running its own business life, and is the standard-bearer for what a perfect gaming model should aspire to be. He's the biggest fan of our state for gaming activities."

Rogich also said Nevada has a bridge to Bush through his father, former President George Bush, a close friend of Wynn.

Frank Fahrenkopf, chief executive of the American Gaming Association, echoed Rogich's views. The AGA is officially neutral on the presidential race.

"Both of them (Bush and Gore) fundamentally start from the proposition that the nature and scope of gambling in a particular state is up to the people of that state," Fahrenkopf said. "They're both state's righters in that regard."

Miller views the Bush position on gaming as little more than a chameleon-like attempt to curry Nevada votes.

"He'll say anything, but his record doesn't back it up," Miller said. "I don't think there's any question that a George Bush presidency would pose a great risk to our main industry, based on his own words."

But Bill Thompson, professor of public administration at UNLV, said Gore isn't entirely free of concerns for the gaming industry. It was the Clinton administration, Thompson said, that unsuccessfully pushed an effort in 1994 to impose a federal tax on gaming -- "the shakedown of the casino industry," as Thompson puts it.

"As a result of that shakedown, the industry became political, and the American Gaming Association was formed," Thompson said.

Miller, however, argues that it was Gore that helped derail that effort.

"Gore helped intervene to stop it dead in its tracks," Miller said.

On gaming issues, Thompson said Gore should be considered the more pro-gaming candidate. But Thompson said the support Bush has in the gaming industry goes beyond gaming issues.

"If people have lower tax rates, they have more expendable money for Las Vegas vacations," Thompson said. "The one thing going for Bush is the tax decrease, because that means more money in gamblers' hands."

Gore has also proposed tax cuts, but his are targeted at middle-class families. An across-the-board cut, as proposed by Bush, would mean cuts for even the richest Americans -- and that would be good news for Las Vegas, Thompson said.

"It's important that the (wealthiest) 1 percent gets the money too, when we talk about the gaming industry," Thompson said. "They're the high-rollers."

NCAA bill at stake

The one gaming issue the new president could be asked to decide early is the NCAA-backed bill that would ban Nevada sports books from taking bets on college games. Gore has hinted he would veto it; Bush has taken no position.

The House version of the bill was introduced by Republican Rep. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, but support for the bill remains very bipartisan, with co-sponsors breaking evenly between Republicans and Democrats.

The same can't be said for the Senate version -- all but six of the 21 senators co-sponsoring Sen. Sam Brownback's bill are Republicans. Co-sponsors include some of the most powerful GOP senators including Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms, Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

With support for the bill coming from such powerful Republicans, some observers are fearful Bush would not stop it.

"I don't see how Bush would veto it," Thompson said. "I fear Bush would sign the bill. With Gore, there's a chance for a veto, and with Clinton, a veto for sure."

Lanni, however, believes Bush could be convinced to oppose the bill "if he'd take the time to hear the reasonable arguments against this subject."

Of course, Lanni adds, if more members of Congress did that, "there would never be a bill sent for consideration."

One name, however, sticks out on the Senate bill's co-sponsor list more than any other -- Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Gore's running mate on the Democratic ticket.

During a recent visit to Nevada, Lieberman said Gore disagrees with him on the matter, and that Gore's position would set the position of the administration. Thompson believes that will be the case.

"Lieberman has let the world know he's not his own man," Thompson said. "I don't think Lieberman will be persuasive if Gore sees casino money."

Still, Fahrenkopf believes the NCAA bill may not even make it to the president's desk in 2001, despite seemingly overwhelming support in 2000.

One of the co-sponsors of the Senate bill, Fahrenkopf said, told him privately that he agreed with Nevada's position that the bill would not stop the problem of illegal bookmaking.

"But he was up for re-election this year, had received calls from university presidents in his state, and well-known coaches," Fahrenkopf said. "In an election year, he wasn't going to get in a fight to defend Nevada, even though he thought we were right.

"Immediately after the election, everything changes. (Support now) doesn't necessarily reflect where we're going to be in the next session."

archive