SEARCH NEWS:

 

Pennsylvania Senator Announces Gaming Act

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania – (PRESS RELEASE) -- The following was issued today by Pennsylvania Senator Robert M. Tomlinson:

Pennsylvania's new Gaming Act is good news for everyone who cares about lowering property taxes, stimulating economic development, spurring the construction industry and creating permanent, good-paying jobs.

And Pennsylvanians can be proud that our Gaming Act, of which I was a lead sponsor, is one of the toughest gaming enforcement and licensing laws in the nation.

Enacting gaming in Pennsylvania has been a 10-year struggle. And every year, while politicians argued, millions of gaming dollars flowed out of Pennsylvania to our neighboring states. And the crushing burden of property taxes continued to build.

My original goal was to authorize slot machines at eight racetracks and dedicate the money to education. It was a proposal endorsed by the Inquirer and many newspaper editors. However, it was not sufficient to satisfy the majority of the necessary votes for passage from legislators from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh who sought a greater expansion of gaming. Act 71 represents what all good legislation should be - a negotiated consensus of the majority of legislators.

There are those who would have been happy to continue the debate indefinitely, without regard for the taxpayers. I, a majority of my colleagues in both the House and Senate, and Governor Rendell, were determined to bring the decade of delay to an end.

Now that the Pennsylvania Gaming Act has become law, I want to correct the misconception in the minds of decent people about what the gaming bill contains.

It was done in the spotlight of ten years of legislative effort and multiple public hearings and votes. Most recently, a similar bill passed both chambers of the General Assembly twice in the span of a year. We knew a majority of legislators favored gaming. And there was no question that the public overwhelmingly supported gaming. Poll after independent poll told us so.

Nor is this a partisan issue. The Gaming Act passed with the support of legislators from all across the Commonwealth, moderate Republicans from the west and the southeast and Democrats alike who could work with a Democratic Governor toward a common purpose of bringing revenue back to the Commonwealth and doing good things with that money. These legislators are being criticized for doing what they were elected to do - represent their district.

Of course, enactment of the statute has not silenced opponents of gambling. I would not expect it to. For many, their opposition is rooted in deeply held moral and religious beliefs, which must be respected.

But I am personally offended by those who, to advance their crusade against gambling, stoop to implying that legislators who supported gaming did so in hopes of profiting personally. For the record, I do not own or intend to own any financial interest related to the operation of gaming or its licensees, whether a racetrack or a supplier. To my knowledge, no Senator or House member presently owns or intends to own any financial interest in any aspect of this new enterprise.

Unfortunately people believe the propaganda of opponents that a provision was snuck into the bill to grant 1% of the gaming proceeds to public officials. Let me be clear. We are not getting a check in our mailbox. The Gaming law provides that no public official may own or have financial interest in more than 1% of any gaming interest.

I never believed that a public official would be in a position to invest millions of dollars which is required in this type of venture. I never thought that a public official would be foolish enough to expose himself to that type of criticism. I am in agreement that the law needs to be changed to correct this oversight - but it must be carefully drawn.

The bills that passed the Pennsylvania House and Senate last year contained a 2 percent ceiling - and no one raised an objection. But in an effort to make the final bill even better, we lowered the ceiling to just 1 percent.

So why not simply pass a limit of zero? Because some provision must be made to ensure that legislators do not inadvertently run afoul of the law if their pension fund or a mutual fund happens to invest some money in gaming companies.

There may well be a way to address that concern while prohibiting any direct investment whatsoever. I am prepared to revisit that issue when we return to session. But the amendments that were offered just prior to final passage would not have solved the problem and, frankly, were not intended to. The purpose of those amendments, as was clear to everyone, was to drag out the debate and prevent the enactment of gaming legislation.

We succeeded in breaking what amounted to a filibuster; we succeeded in ending a decade of delay, we succeeded in giving taxpayers the non-tax revenue source, and tax relief, that they have been demanding.

But we are not finished. We have time to fine-tune the legislation, and we should. It will take several years before gaming parlors are in operation. I am prepared to use that time to work with anyone, from either party, who is sincerely interested in making our law even better, even stronger, even tougher than it already is.

Sincerely

Robert M. Tomlinson

State Senator, 6th District

< Gaming News