Monday, Sept. 26, 2005 | 9:56 a.m.
BOSTON -- The gambling debate is scheduled to return to Beacon Hill this fall, but this time around, Gov. Mitt Romney is clear where he stands: He is opposed to expanding it in Massachusetts.
That is a shift from his stance in 2003, and anti-gambling forces in Iowa and New Hampshire -- two early presidential voting states -- are claiming some credit for the turnabout.
They say that Romney, who coincidentally will announce whether he is seeking re-election this fall, perhaps opening the door for a White House bid, has been swayed by social conservatives. They represent a highly courted voting bloc in Republican presidential primaries.
"Having casinos and slot machines in neighborhoods wrecks families," said Jim Rubens, chairman of the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling. "It is a central, core issue that has slid up the importance scale and has become a question social conservatives ask of presidential candidates."
Romney denies being pressured. He says his change in position is directly linked to the state's improved financial condition.
"The last time the Legislature seriously considered an expansion of gaming in Massachusetts, we were facing a $3 billion budget deficit," the governor said in a recent newspaper letter to the editor, which his office says reflects his current thinking on the issue. "I am not proposing or even considering an expansion of gaming. If someone were to bring forward a proposal, it is not something I would support given our economic circumstances and the social costs associated with gaming."
Massachusetts already has the nation's leading lottery system, but it has wrestled for decades with the question of whether to expand gaming. Support waxes and wanes with economic conditions.
In 2003, his first year as governor, Romney initially tried to halt any expansion with a novel proposal. He suggested seeking "blocking" payments from gambling outlets in neighboring states to both protect their franchise and to provide some of the revenue the state expected to receive if gambling were allowed in Massachusetts.
The operators of Connecticut's two casinos and Rhode Island's two slot parlors quickly branded the proposed payments as extortion and Romney abandoned the plan.
In April 2003, his commerce chief, Robert Pozen, offered an alternative. He proposed an experiment with slot parlors, "limited in time, such as five years, limited in scope, meaning slots only, and limited in number, such as three facilities," as he testified before a legislative panel.
At the time, Massachusetts faced a $3 billion budget deficit and the administration saw expanded gambling as a new source of revenue. "Our primary objective must be to generate tax revenue to help meet the commonwealth's budget gap," Pozen told the panel.
Then, as now, gambling opponents said there was no such thing as a trial gambling proposal. "Once you open that door, there's no closing it," said Sen. Michael Morrissey, D-Quincy, who was co-chairman of the 2003 committee.
Now there is talk of a renewed push for slot machines emanating from the state Senate. The issue may come up for debate this fall, but this time around, Romney has come out firmly against it.
That is significant because any legislative vote is expected to be close. If slot machines are approved, Romney can veto the bill and it cannot be overridden without a more substantial vote of two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate.
Rubens, the New Hampshire anti-gambling coalition leader, said his group worked to dissuade Romney with well-placed words from prominent Republican political activists. The state's Republican Party platform expressly opposes expanded gambling.
And out in Iowa, anti-gambling activist Stacey Cargill said she weighed in indirectly. She told a Boston newspaper reporter she would be seeking a clear statement of his position before recommending whether people should attend an Oct. 29 steak fry in Dallas County, Iowa, at which the governor is to be the keynote speaker.
The county, stretching west from Des Moines, is home to an active group of social conservatives. Romney not only made his position clear in the resulting newspaper story, but his follow-up letter to the editor.
"We just basically let him know that coming here on Oct. 29, if he had not stated his position publicly, he would have had a smaller turnout and it would have been a waste of time," Cargill said.
archive
