SEARCH NEWS:

 

Gamers OK with Election, See No Mandate Against Industry

LAS VEGAS, Nevada – Nov. 8, 2000 -- Much of the nation still views Tuesday's elections as inconclusive. But that's just fine with the gaming industry, which had faced a national campaign to roll back its expansion.

Though voters in New Mexico, West Virginia, and Arkansas voted against new casinos in their states, efforts to roll back gaming in states like South Dakota and Massachusetts failed.

In perhaps the most important development for gaming, the son of one of Nevada's top gaming executives, Republican John Ensign, picked up a seat in the U.S. Senate. That ultimately could help Nevada's fight against a bill to ban betting on college sports, a bill that's expected to re-emerge next year.

"The way everything is shaking out, I think gaming is better off today than it was yesterday," said Andy Abboud, director of government relations for the Venetian resort on the Las Vegas Strip. "The overall message should be, everything's O.K."

"I think we're holding even," said Jan Jones, Harrah's Entertainment Inc.'s senior vice president of government relations. "I don't think gaming lost anything. (The election) tells you that the public is pretty happy with the status quo."

Ensign is generally seen as a key pick-up for gaming in a closely divided Senate. While Ensign's predecessor, Sen. Richard Bryan, is a strong proponent of gaming issues, Ensign will have something Bryan does not -- sway in Republican leadership circles.

Frank Fahrenkopf, chief executive for the American Gaming Association, believes that will be a key advantage for Nevada as it tries to stop the betting ban bill.

"(Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.) remarked that the reason he was pushing so hard for the NCAA bill was that he knew his former roommate John Ensign would be the new senator from Nevada," Fahrenkopf said. "Having Sen. Ensign there, having Sen. Harry Reid as the Democratic party whip, is a strong thing for Nevada."

Still, Fahrenkopf made it clear that Ensign and Reid will still face a tough battle to stop the bill in the next session.

"This bill affects only Nevada, so it's still very difficult (to stop)," Fahrenkopf said. "(Ensign) is someone who understands the business ... but what we have to do, as leaders of our industry, is sit down and really lay out a strategy, and how to meet it."

Even less clear is what will happen with efforts to ban Internet wagering, an effort backed by Bryan.

"I think we have to figure out what we (the gaming industry) want with the Internet," said Bill Thompson, professor of public administration at UNLV. "We're speaking with many tongues."

Across the country, voters also faced a panoply of gaming initiatives. Two of the biggest came in South Dakota, where voters were asked to ban video lottery terminals, and in South Carolina, where voters were asked to permit a lottery.

The National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling and its executive director, Tom Grey, threw muscle behind both efforts. But South Dakota voted to keep its machines, and South Carolina voters approved a change to their state's constitution that permits a lottery.

"That's a blow to Tom Grey," Thompson said. "It shows, even in the smaller states, that there's a strong feeling that if we have gambling money, we'd better not give it back.

"It's not a big pro-gaming vote, but it slows Tom Grey and his anti-gambling effort down. He had momentum ... that momentum is now over."

Grey points out that it wasn't entirely a lost night for his cause. Voters in several communities, including Gallup, N.M., Greenbrier, W.Va., and La Crosse County, Wisc., voted against the introduction of casinos, while Arkansas voted against the introduction of a state lottery and six casinos.

"(The new casino votes) means that casinos can no longer assume that they will be accepted in the communities of America," Grey said.

Still, Grey acknowledged that South Dakota and South Carolina hurt. With those wins, Grey believes pro-gaming forces will push for lotteries in Tennessee and North Carolina, and try again in Arkansas.

"If we're going to go into a battle, and the governors are either bringing it in or are addicted to it (gaming tax dollars), then it will be very difficult for us as citizens to win that battle," Grey said. "We're alive and kicking, but we would have loved to have take them down in South Dakota.

"If I was in the World Championship of Poker, I just bet the pot. I'm still in the game, but I didn't get the pot."

But the biggest race of them all -- the race for the presidency of the United States -- remained unresolved this morning. Texas Gov. George W. Bush -- the favorite of many gaming executives -- remained deadlocked with his challenger, Democratic Vice President Al Gore.

But in the grand scheme of things, gaming executives from both parties believe it just doesn't matter who takes the White House, as far as gaming is concerned.

"Vice President Gore has been more vocally supportive of the industry," said Jones, a Democrat. "However, Gov. Bush has made it clear that it's a state's rights issue, that he's not going to interfere. With Gov. (Kenny) Guinn and the election of John Ensign ... if there's a Bush administration, they'd have the president's ear."

Gore is generally viewed as an ally of the industry. There have been questions about Bush, who has made anti-gaming comments as governor of Texas -- but if Bush wins the presidency, he'll probably do so while losing the popular vote. That makes it difficult, in the minds of most observers, for him to undertake a sweeping initiative to roll back gaming from the federal level. That task is made even more difficult by a House and Senate split almost 50-50 between the two parties.

"It's going to be difficult, if Gov. Bush is named president, for him to have a mandate to do anything, particularly by losing the popular vote," Jones said. "If you don't have a mandate, you don't look to make radical changes."

Agreeing with that assessment this morning was MGM MIRAGE Chairman Terry Lanni, a staunch Republican and backer of Bush.

"(These results) call for moderation," Lanni said. "It's not a mandate by anyone's interpretation. I would speculate that it would be very difficult for anything of a controversial nature to be presented."

Lanni believes both men are capable of holding the White House, and both should be generally friendly to gaming. But one issue that may loom large for Bush, Lanni said, is Nevada's four electoral votes. These votes went to Bush -- and without them, it's likely Bush would have lost the election.

"If he's elected without a majority of the popular vote, and he intends on running for another term, I think he's going to have to take great interest in some of these smaller states, because they were what propelled him to a victory," Lanni said. "That may well have additional benefits for Nevada, when it comes to issues like nuclear waste and gaming.

"We don't have a mandate for anyone, and that bodes well for everyone. A little gridlock never hurts anyone."

< Gaming News