Document Actions
Mon.: Stop me if you've heard this one before
posted at 2010-06-21 23:57 | Last modified 2010-06-22 00:01
The Senate voted 47 to 1 tonight to ban video gambling - again - in North Carolina. Henderson Republican Tom Apodaca didn't mince words in urging his fellow senators to ban video gambling.
This is something we really don't need. I mean, this is just a scourge, and I'll happily vote to ban this.
It's not the first time Apodaca's said that. North Carolina has been trying for years to get rid of video gambling. Its critics say it's addictive, it breeds crime and corruption, and it preys on low-income and minority populations. And yet, it's more popular than ever among those who say it's harmless entertainment.
For a long time, a form of gambling was legal in North Carolina. But it was restricted - no cash payouts, no more than $10 in prizes per player per day, and only four machines allowed at any location. Those restrictions weren't really enforceable much of the time, but it wasn't a big problem until about ten years ago. Bob Hall is Executive Director of Democracy NC.
In about 2000, when SC banned video poker, a large number of machines moved across the border, and that just escalated the problem in NC.
As the gambling industry pushed to loosen the laws in NC, officials tried to crack down on them, but they were stymied by one legal loophole after another. Meantime, the industry's political clout was growing. By 2004, Hall and other critics warned that video poker had become a front for organized crime. The allegation turned out to be true. Operators were bribing local officials to look the other way, and pumping money into campaign coffers to make friends in Raleigh. Federal investigators sent about half a dozen people to prison - sheriffs, industry figures, and eventually, former House Speaker Jim Black. Hall says that was the last straw for state lawmakers.
The revelations of how embedded he was in the industry's protection operation made lawmakers realize that "We need to demonstrate that we're not a part of this, and we reject the legacy of Jim Black, we reject the power of that kind of corrupting money."
The legislature banned video poker in 2006. But before the law even took effect, the gambling industry came back with a new type of game, hosted on an online server. It's called Internet Sweepstakes.
It works like this: you go into one of these cafes, and you buy minutes of internet time. Your purchase gets you a certain number of free sweepstakes entries. Then you use the computer time you just bought to see if you've won. The screen that shows you your results looks and acts like a slot machine. But the result is predetermined.
In 2008, legislators passed yet another ban, this time targeting the sweepstakes games. But the industry sued, arguing that sweepstakes are legal under state law. Consultant Brad Crone is an industry spokesman.
Video sweepstakes is just one more extension of the state's sweepstakes law. there is a predetermined set of winners. The odds have a ratio. And that's how the games are played. whether it's the publishers clearinghouse, whether it's McDonald's Monopoly game, or Pepsi-Cola or Coca-Cola or other cap games.
Two North Carolina judges agreed, putting the 2008 law on hold. In the meantime, more than 900 internet sweepstakes parlors have sprung up all over the state. Crone says instead of banning them, the state should regulate and tax them, which he says could bring in half a billion dollars a year.
If you do that you generate a whole mainstream of revenue from the state of North Carolina without raising taxes, that will help you from having to make absolutely drastic cuts to education funding and the state of North Carolina.
That was the same argument made tonight by Wilmington Democrat Julia Boseman, the only Senator voting against the ban. Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight admits taxing the parlors would raise revenue.
But where does that money come from? It comes from those who can least afford to pay - and then we have to take care of their families and their needs.
The measure outlaws the "entertaining display" of a sweepstakes prize, and specifically prohibits any attempt to get around the law through "subterfuge or pretense. " Senate Majority Leader Martin Nesbitt says he doesn't know if this will be the ban that sticks.
But I want to tell you this - we're gonna keep trying. If we stop this and they find another ingenuous way to do it, we'll stop that too. And we'll stop the next one, and the next one, and the next one. We simply cannot allow this stuff to go on in any kind of form.
That's welcome news to Democracy NC's Bob Hall. He sees it as a good government issue.
It's an industry that breeds corruption basically, and it hasn't really changed - a number of the players are still the same. So the fear is, if you allow it to spread, the corruption problem will escalate.
The measure's next stop is the state House, where Democratic caucus leaders say they haven't yet discussed it. But House Speaker Joe Hackney says he personally supports it, and he expects it to get a full hearing.
Tomorrow, I'll take you on a tour of the Internet sweepstakes parlors in my Garner neighborhood. Let's just say I have a wide selection. Stay tuned.
Comments? Drop me a line.
