Buckeye RINO

I’m pleased to say that the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the people of Ohio may hold a referendum on Gov. Ted Strickland’s lottery expansion plan that would have introduced Video Lottery Terminals to Ohio’s horsetracks.

Here’s a report on the story from Cleveland’s Plain Dealer.

Had the decision gone the other way, the checks and balances that the people have, to hold the state accountable for how it raises revenue, would have been . . . obliterated!

I’m glad somebody besides me is starting to connect the dots, even though the proposed remedy is garbage.

Please read this article about a proposal from state senator Keith Faber (R-Celina) from The Daily Briefing section of The Columbus Dispatch.

There is finally an acknowledgment that the various gambling cartels (lottery vendors, casino tycoons, race track owners, off-track betting parlor operators, etc.) routinely buy up politicians.  It doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat, Republican, or even Libertarian, campaign money donated by gambling interests is shaping your political party and shaping Ohio’s elections.  For the most part, those politicians that are the most ethically-challenged are the ones that are able to retain office thanks to gambling contributions to political coffers.

So, if you, voters, would like to “clean house” of the corrupt rascals that reside in the halls of government, you’d do well to size up how politicians have aligned themselves on the issue of gambling.

Faber’s bill would limit contributions to candidates for state offices from the gambling industry to just $500.  This is well-intentioned, and shows, like I said, that someone besides me is connecting the dots, but this “remedy” would be a huge flop, much like McCain-Feingold in the federal campaign finance arena.  Just as there are gaping loopholes in McCain-Feingold that you can drive a truck through, Faber’s bill would be just as flimsy.

The Issue 3 crowd has the Fraternal Order of Police stumping for it.  Even if candidates could only accept $500 from the gambling industry, the FOP could leverage considerable influence in election races on behalf of the gambling industry.

So many officeholders of both major political parties favor one gambling faction or another (completely out of proportion to the allegiances of Ohio voters who’ve rejected the past four gambling issues that appeared on statewide ballots) that one ought to question whether the gambling industry already picks and chooses the frontrunners in primary contests.

Don’t believe me?  Please read this Mark Naymik article from the Plain Dealer (read the WHOLE THING), and ask yourself, what’s Bob Bennett doing, calling Republican operatives all over the state asking for support for Issue 3?  Are you starting to get the picture?  Is it dawning on you yet?  And what would Faber’s bill do to the flow of donations from the gambling industry to political parties?  It would increase it, since the direct flow to candidates, themselves, would be restricted.  This adds to the gambling industry’s leverage of party insiders who anoint and appoint.

But, like I said, this isn’t just a Republican Party phenomenon.  Read this article about interim Ohio Treasurer Kevin Boyce’s campaign from the Dayton Daily News.  The gambling industry, under Faber’s bill, would only be able to contribute $500 to the Boyce campaign, but Charlie Luken, former Democrat mayor of Cincinnati and current lobbyist for Key Bank who hosts fundraisers for Boyce, also happens to be a chairperson for the Issue 3 campaign.  Faber’s bill does nothing to address this.

Do you see the many tentacles extended just by one gambling faction, the cartel that is pushing Issue 3?

What if I started showing how far the tentacles of MTR, a rival gambling faction, stretched?  The spouse of Democrat Party chair Chris Redfern purportedly lobbies on behalf of MTR.  Strickland’s betrayal of his campaign pledges stand to benefit MTR as the vendor of the VLT slot machines that would be installed at racetracks on behalf of the Ohio Lottery.

Sandy Theis works as a spokesperson for both TruthPAC (mostly funded by MTR) and Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.  When it came time to choose the pro and con arguments of Issue 3 that would be presented to Ohio voters, TruthPAC got the nod for the con side, while Ohio Roundtable, a truly anti-gambling organization, was shut out of the debate by Brunner.

MTR owns one of the Ohio horse tracks, and the horse track industry, in addition to it’s Democrat supporters, named above, has, in the past, also been backed by Republican heavy hitters like former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder.  The bio of state representative Terry Blair (R-38) clearly places him in the horse track camp.

Let’s not forget past gambling issues, and who was involved in supporting those efforts, too.  Prominent Cuyahoga County Republican Jim Trakas was a backer for last year’s failed Issue 6.  In 2006, Ohio Chancellor and prominent Cuyahoga County Democrat Eric Fingerhut was ushering another Issue 3, “Ohio Learn and Earn,” to the ballot.

A complete and exhaustive list of which Ohio politicians are bankrolled by which gambling factions would be difficult to compile due to length (and also due to the fact that some politicians play their cards close to the vest, hiding the gambling allegiances they have).

Do you see how wide the gambling industry has spread their nets to reel in politicians?  Or do I have to keep connecting dots?

All of this leads to the question:  What is inherently wrong about government favoring gambling? This is a question Libertarians are prone to ask, but many Republicans and Democrats ask the same question.

Some long answers to that question, from the perspective that gambling shrinks the economy, can be found here, here, here, and here.

The short answer is that the ethically-challenged politicians charged with the task of being gambling’s gatekeepers are able to consolidate their power through gambling’s redistribution of wealth.  I’ll let this sign from the 9/12 rally in DC spell it out for you:

Remember that the gambling industry produces nothing. It exists just to plunder and redistribute wealth. The wealth is redistributed to help entrench the political status quo.

Also remember that just as we can’t tax our society into prosperity, we also can’t gamble our society into prosperity. Tax proceeds and gambling proceeds are used by elites for the same purposes: To consolidate, hold, and wield power and to subjugate the people.

Final question:  What do we do about it if Faber’s proposal won’t work?

We vote against Issue 3, we get a referendum for Strickland’s VLT plan on the ballot and vote that down.

We clamor for full transparency of political finances.  We inform voters.  We identify which politicians back gambling.  We recruit and support candidates who oppose gambling to challenge the candidates that back gambling.

Ideally, the state stops propping up the horsetracks and OTB parlors, allowing them to fail if they can’t remain profitable, and, finally, we put the Ohio Lottery, itself, back on the ballot for reconsideration, and urge voters to repeal it.

If we do these things, we will have empowered the people, toppled the status quo, improved the state’s economy, and put a huge dent in political corruption.

Collecting My Thoughts, a right-of-center blog appearing in my blogroll under the State of Ohio Blogger Alliance heading, has posted an excerpt of an email discussion about Issue 3, the casino issue that Ohioans will see on the November ballot.  The right-of-center bloggers of Ohio are not of one mind on the gambling issue, and the excerpt shown was an attempt, on my part, to advocate against this and other gambling issues.

Another fairly recent blog entry against Issue 3 appeared at Writes Like She Talks, wherein JMZ points out that this year’s Issue 3 contains many of the same shortfalls as the Issue 3 (Learn and Earn) of 2006.

Madrigal Maniac has also fairly recently posted an entry against Issue 3, highlighting friction between proposed casinos and charitable organizations that raise funds via bingo.

Glass City Jungle has posted multiple Issue 3 entries.  Blog author Lisa Renee Ward has made a conscious effort to report the issue fairly, and her posts are generally quite newsy.  The charitable bingo angle is covered at GCJ, too.  The pro-casino lobby likes to recycle FOP endorsements, but mixed in with that coverage is opposition from Catholics and opposition from a rival gambling organization that calls itself TruthPAC.  Among the GCJ entries that struck a nerve with readers was one that noted a former supporter of the issue is now an opponent.

Kyle Sisk’s blog has also contained entries that have attempted to allow both sides to have their say (three installments to date.)  Also making an appearance on the blog was a guest post by yours truly, pointing out that gambling is akin to piracy.

My own blog, has a history of opposing gambling, and my most-viewed blog entry of all time dates back to last year’s failed Issue 6 casino issue, examining the shortfalls in terms of the microeconomics principles of opportunity cost and multiplier effect.  Prior Buckeye RINO coverage of this year’s Issue 3 includes  a post consisting of my email communications with casino spokespersons, a post showing the Issue 3 proposal is far inferior to the principles that led to the founding of the famous Monte Carlo casino, a post that points out the special rights that would be granted by the Ohio Constitution to special people who are not Ohioans, a post containing a rebuttal from casino proponents with my reply, a repeat of the post that appeared on Kyle Sisk’s blog, and a post questioning the massive amount of fraudulent signatures appearing on the petitions that the casino proponents filed.

Oral arguments were made before the Ohio Supreme Court over whether the voters will have any say on the matter of Video Lottery Terminals at racetracks.

The Ohio Channel has a video clip of the oral arguments.

The lottery slots proponents argue that the people do not have the right to a referendum in the matter because appropriations are immune from referendum, and that the slots proposal is an appropriation because the money provided by slots has already been spent on education.  Furthermore, the slots proponents argue that under Ohio’s Constitution, the lottery commission has always possessed the authority to implement the slots plan.

Referendum backers argue that the slots proposal is not an appropriation.  It is a mechanism for raising revenue, and thus is not immune from referendum.  The referendum backers deny that the Ohio Constitution, alone, grants the authority to implement the slots plan, and the evidence cited is that the authority is only granted by way of HB1, the biennial budget, thus, without explicit legislation granting that authority, the lottery commission does NOT possess the authority.  Appropriations laws are temporary, because they expend money only for a biennium.  The portion of HB1’s legislation that authorizes the slots, however, is a permanent change, not a change that lasts only for two years, highlighting the point that the slots proposal is not an appropriation, and is therefore not immune from referendum.

I was particularly struck by an exchange between Justice Judith Lanzinger and slots attorney Benjamin C. Mizer that occurred 32 minutes and 5 seconds into the oral arguments, wherein Justice Lanzinger suggested that Mizer was adding language to the Ohio Constitution for the sake of advancing his argument about appropriations.  What struck me is how the referendum rights of the people of Ohio are limited pertaining to appropriations.  At 33:18, Mizer said that Constitutional limitations on referendum power were enacted because:

” . . . we didn’t want the power of the purse to be infringed by the referendum power, and, specifically, above all, the people did not want the referendum power to be used to create fiscal instability and fiscal crisis and to tie up appropriations.”

And Mizer reiterates at the 34-minute mark the danger of allowing a referendum:

” . . . what would happen in this case is the gumming up of the works of the budget bill and tying up a 2.3 billion-dollar appropriation.”

Oh horrors!  We can’t have the people stop government spending!  Why, uh, . . . that could lead to  . . . fiscal instability!  Crisis!  Mass hysteria!  The Apocalypse!  The extinction of humanity!  The end of the world as we know it!  Annihilation of the Universe!

So, we, the people, under Ohio’s Constitution, already have the deck stacked against us when it comes to checking and balancing the legislature’s fiscal policies.

The attorney for the referendum backers, Michael A. Carvin, warns that if the court accepts the argument that the slots provisions are an appropriation because the money has already been spent on education and is therefore immune to referendum, then going forward, any money-raising mechanism that the legislature can imaginatively devise can be rendered immune to referendum by spending the money on a specific line item before the money is even collected.

If that were to happen, I would find that an extremely dangerous precedent to set, as the people would have no check or balance whatsoever on whatever money the legislature chooses to confiscate from the people by whatever method.

I sincerely hope that LetOhioVote.org, the plaintiff represented by Mr. Carvin, prevails in this case.

From other blogs on this issue, for, against, and indifferent:

Madrigal Maniac

Southeastern Ohio Conservative Thoughts

The Pullins Report

Ohio Daily Blog

Glass City Jungle

NOTE:  This entry has been cross-posted at Kyle Sisk’s blog, www.kylesisk.typepad.com.  You’ll also find his blog listed in my blogroll sidebar under the State of Ohio Blogger Alliance heading.  This is not my first post about how gambling hurts the economy, as I’ve written about the lost opportunity cost and diminished multiplier effect during last year’s Issue 6 campaign.  I’ve previously posted 4 other blog entries about this year’s casino ballot issue, which you can read by clicking here, here, here, and here.

The casino backers who seek an amendment to the Ohio Constitution to let out-of-state entities operate 4 casinos on Ohio soil have chosen to call themselves “Ohio Jobs and Growth Plan.”  From the name of it, you’d think it was an advocacy group that would lobby state government with a comprehensive plan for bringing jobs to Ohio and lowering our unemployment rate.  But if you think that, you’d be wrong.  “Ohio Jobs and Growth Plan” exists solely for the purpose of introducing casino gambling, nothing else.  The only connection between “Ohio Jobs and Growth Plan” and real Ohio jobs is that the casinos plan to hire a few individuals if the constitution is amended.  They don’t plan to hire 34,000 employees, however, no matter how much they repeat that ridiculously bloated figure.  I don’t think they even plan to hire one-tenth of that amount for 4 casinos.

Do casinos grow an economy and grow jobs?  Think about it.  Then think about these questions:

Does piracy grow the economy and jobs in Somalia?

Thinking?  Ready for the next question?

Do internet scams grow the economy and jobs in Nigeria?

Ready for the next question?

Do intellectual property thieves (who infringe on copyrights, trademarks, and patents) grow the economy and jobs in China?

What do casinos, Somali pirates, Nigerian internet scammers, and Chinese intellectual property thieves have in common?

Let’s answer the last question first.  What these entities have in common is that they create nothing.  They produce nothing.  Any wealth these entities have was plundered from someone else.  The Somali pirates seize aquatic vessels by force.  Nigerian internet scammers acquire funds through trickery and deceit.  Chinese intellectual property thieves copy work done by others, and sell the knock-offs.  Casinos have their own bag of dirty tricks for plundering gamblers, but they are not unlike Nigerian internet scammers.

So, does piracy create jobs and economic growth for Somalia?  Yes.  Somalia is a failed state that has no education system, thus Somalis are not equipped to produce anything of value to trade in the global marketplace.  Therefore, they confiscate the property of those who did produce something of value, ransom it, and the proceeds can provide an influx of wealth to Somalia that wouldn’t be realized otherwise.

But what does Somali piracy do to the global economy?  It introduces inefficiencies into the global marketplace.  Costs rise as ransoms are paid, as security is beefed up, as time is lost, as vessels, cargo, and crew are forfeited.  If the higher costs make the producer’s enterprise unprofitable, they shut down.  If the producer doesn’t wish to increase investment to cover the higher costs, they drop out of the marketplace.  Inefficiencies cause the economy to contract.  Commerce shrinks.  Jobs are lost.

About one-fifth of Nigeria’s economy comes from scamming.  Yes, there is a boost to Nigeria’s economy, but what does it do to the global economy?  Like Somali piracy, it causes it to shrink.

Chinese intellectual property pirates?  Companies that actually do the creating of products have to compete against the knockoffs.  Some can’t.  Companies that continue to compete against the knockoffs have higher costs as they sue in court for infringement, or they tighten security against industrial espionage, or they add features to the product to make it easy to detect the counterfeits.  Some people in China make money off these knockoffs, but globally, knockoffs kill jobs, which is why the U.S.A. and its investors have lobbied China hard to go after these intellectual property pirates.

Somali pirates are not enriched from plundering Somali sources of wealth.

Nigerian scammers are not enriched by plundering Nigerian sources of wealth.

Chinese intellectual property pirates are not enriched by plundering Chinese sources of wealth.

That’s why the economy shrinkage they cause is compartmentalized so that it isn’t experienced domestically.

Casinos, however, plunder victims in close proximity.  Nevada, with the most casinos in the USA, has a higher unemployment rate than Ohio.  It has a higher home foreclosure rate, too.  In fact, Nevada leads the nation in foreclosures.

Of course, sub-prime mortgage scams played a huge role in the rising foreclosure rate and the rising unemployment rate.  The difference between sub-prime mortgage scammers and casino operators is that the sub-prime mortgage scammers produce a paper trail that shows us exactly how the wealth they plundered has evaporated.  The casinos don’t produce such a paper trail.  They are much less transparent.  Casinos are every bit as much of a scam, plundering wealth that they didn’t create, and making our economy less efficient, thereby causing economic shrinkage.

So the jobs that casinos create come at the expense of jobs lost elsewhere in the economy.  Thus, the moniker of “Ohio Jobs and Growth Plan” is an attempt to deceive.  The 34,000 jobs?  That’s an attempt to deceive, too.  Nigerian internet scammers like to lure victims with numbers so big, like, “We have identified you as the next of kin to inherit $20,000,000,” in order to coax people into divulging bank account information.  The rule of thumb?  Invent a number so big that it causes you to take a risk.  All of the numbers provided by “Ohio Jobs and Growth Plan” follow this rule of thumb, and they parade those numbers every chance they get.  Even Donald Trump, gambling tycoon, admits to using this trick in his personal life, as he’s admitted to exaggerating his net wealth to obtain a myriad of objectives.

Overall, the economy of Nevada suffers because of gambling.  Overall, the economy of Detroit suffers because of gambling.  Overall, the economy of West Virginia suffers because of gambling.  I could go on and on.  The opulence of the casinos are meant to deceive you into thinking that wealth is being created, when it’s really just being plundered.

Today I received an e-mail from Justin Higgins, a former blog author of  Right on the Right, which can be found in my blogroll sidebar under the heading of State of Ohio Blogger Alliance.   Mr.Higgins is also a contributor to Shots on the House.  Mr. Higgins is involved in internet outreach for the casino proponents, who call themselves “Ohio Jobs and Growth Plan” (a misnomer if I ever heard one, over-the-top propagandistic, but that’s a topic for a blog entry for some other day).

The State of Ohio Blogger Alliance is comprised of blogs that consider themselves politically right-of-center.  Buckeye RINO, this very blog, is also part of the State of Ohio Blogger Alliance.  As you can tell already, from the intro to this blog entry, there are differing opinions within the Alliance, and gambling is one of the issues that the SOB Alliance is divided on.  Most of those within the Alliance who favor casinos describe themselves as somewhat Libertarian in their social views.  The others on the right who favor casinos are more moderate.  I think there are valid reasons why, even from a Libertarian viewpoint, Ohio’s casino issues don’t pass muster (here’s an example from last year’s Issue 6).  As one can read in my right-hand sidebar, I’m neither Libertarian nor moderate.  I consider myself to be a conservative Republican, even though a few people label me as a RINO (don’t be fooled by this graph).  At any rate, I’ve been catching flak from some on my own side of the aisle for my opposition to gambling.  They don’t usually leave comments here on the blog, for all to see.  They usually just let me know of their disapproval through e-mail.  Mr. Higgins, though, intended this email to be part of the public discourse, so here it is:

_______________________________________

From: Justin Higgins <jhiggins@ohiojobsandgrowth.org>
To: williamsonworks@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 10:35:23 AM
Subject: Touching Base from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

Daniel,

I contacted you back in the spring and since then you’ve spoken to a couple folks from the Jobs & Growth Plan, including our spokesman. I just wanted to let you know that I’m going to be talking to bloggers and providing information from now until November and I’m available as a resource for information. We’re glad you’re writing about the issue and I wanted to contact you to provide some facts and thoughts that might answer some questions and stand contrary to a few of your arguments.

1)      First, in response to the notion that this is another deal that only benefits out-of-state gambling operators: Dan Gilbert employs Ohioans, contributes immensely to the Cleveland area, and has contributed immensely to Ohio’s economy. He employs over 2,000 Ohioans through a Quicken Loans web center in downtown Cleveland, a Fathead distribution center in Columbus, and his other Ohio ventures. He is a significant investor in the state.

2)      Also, in a similar manner, you wrote about the Monte Carlo scenario being different because outside money was flowing into Monaco. I think the missing piece of the puzzle that makes our proposal beneficial is that Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and even Canada are Ohio’s “Monte Carlo’s”. They are the ones siphoning wealth and prospering while Ohio refuses to fight for the market share that is already being spent out of state and will be spent whether Ohio has casinos or not. It is estimated through the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan that $1 billion in Ohio gambling dollars that are currently leaving the state will be repatriated.

3)      Also on the issue of “money leaving Ohio”, it’s not just about the management and companies owning the casino, but it is about the jobs and peripheral benefit the casinos will have on area businesses such as hotels and restaurants. The amendment requires the facilities to be $250 million investments at the minimum, so they will be first-class establishments.

4)      In response to your final argument about a free market for gambling in Ohio, it is a frustrating case of reality setting in. As Bob said, it is “impractical” to have 50 casinos operating in Ohio right now, not only from the business perspective but from the political perspective.

I am sure you will cover this issue more going forward, and I am available to answer your questions or provide you information by phone or e-mail.

Justin Higgins

The Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

Jhiggins@ohiojobsandgrowth.org

614-563-5730

___________________________________________

I do have to concede one point to Mr. Higgins.  I thought I’d included all prior correspondence with Ohio Jobs and Growth in this post.  I took a look through my email inbox and found I’d overlooked a prior message from Mr. Higgins.  Here it is:

---

From: Justin Higgins <Jhiggins@ohiojobsandgrowth.org>
To: Daniel Williamson <williamsonworks@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:56:08 AM
Subject: Introduction to Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

Daniel,

First off, I want to introduce myself. My name is Justin Higgins and like you, I’m a blogger in Ohio. Recently however I’ve taken on a new role and I’m doing some internet outreach for the Ohio Jobs & Growth plan. I am not a spokesman, I’m just here to get you guys (good bloggers) in touch with folks and give you info on our proposal. Feel free to ask me any questions but treat anything I send as off-the-record unless noted otherwise (or unless a link to a story or official statement). Basically, I wanted to share some info about the plan. This plan will bring in 4 casinos and create roughly 20,000 jobs. It will generate the state over $650 million in tax revenues every year. I recall you writing that Ohioans oppose gambling, and while that’s true in the past, new polling data shows a shift. I’d direct you to the Vindicator for this- http://www.vindy.com/news/2009/may/09/ohio-poll-60-favor-casino-gambling/?newswatch

/A total of 60 percent of respondents said they favored making casino-style gambling legal in Ohio. /

/That result is comparable to past Ohio Polls but does not mean voters will back specific casino issues on the ballot, said Eric Rademacher, co-director of the institute./

/According to a release, “While the Ohio Poll has found in the past that a majority of Ohio adults approve of casino gambling in major cities near their home, the poll has also found election day voters unwilling to approve ballot issues that would lead to the legalization of gambling in the state. This has been reflected in election day outcomes over the past decade.”/

We believe a considerable amount of opposition to past proposals has more to do with the strength of those proposals. We believe this plan is the right plan at the right time for Ohio. Feel free to contact me with any questions or requests.

— Justin Higgins
Online Communications Specialist
Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan
Jhiggins@ohiojobsandgrowth.org
330-501-4466

___________________________________________________

OK.  I’m finished with concessions.  Now, onto my counterpoints to Mr. Higgins rebuttal.

To Mr. Higgins point number one:  There are many, many people who invest in Ohio, who employ people in Ohio, and who, themselves are Ohioans.  Mr. Gilbert is not an Ohioan, but he would get special rights under this proposed constitutional amendment that resident Ohio investors/employers would not be granted.

To Mr. Higgins point number two:   As for the casinos that exist in neighboring states, they cannibalize the assets of the populations of their own states more than they do Ohio’s.  This differs from Monte Carlo, because that casino was off-limits to Monaco’s citizenry.  Monaco was only gaining money from the casino.  They weren’t simultaneously losing money to the casino.  So there was an economic net gain from Monte Carlo.  The surrounding states don’t receive a net gain, and this post during last year’s issue 6 campaign explains some of the reasons why, from a microeconomics point of view (and I’ll be building on that theme in the near future).  I can’t help that those other states have casinos, as I’ve not been registered to vote in those states.  I CAN, however, strive to make a difference in Ohio, so that we don’t make the same mistakes that surrounding states have made (and casinos are mistakes, in my book).

To Mr. Higgins point number three:  Ohio gets the table scraps, while the out-of-state casino owners/operators pump their profits out of Ohio.  Ohioans might as well continue gambling at the out-of-state casinos.  Opening the casinos here only increases the cannibalization of Ohio’s population while sending the profits out to some of the exact same entities that own the out-of-state casinos.  If Ohio were to approve casinos, I’d rather that the casino owners making the profits were Ohioans, and if Dan Gilbert wants to get in on the action, he can work as a peon blackjack dealer and earn a fraction of those table scraps.  How’s that for turning your idea on it’s head?

To Mr. Higgins point number 4:  Thanks for pointing out that libertarians, who champion free enterprise, should not support the casino industry, where much marketplace intervention is required to keep the industry artificially sustained.  Also, thanks for pointing out that there are business realities and political realities, for casinos aren’t the utopias they are made out to be.  Among the political realities are the fact that we rely on government officials to be the gatekeepers of casino gambling, and that, since Ohio has had a recent history of corruption in government, politicians can’t be trusted as gatekeepers.  The pro-gambling lobby provides great temptations for ethically-challenged government officials.  Libertarians clamour for transparency and accountability.  Conversely, the gambling industry corrodes both transparency and accountability.   I’ll have much more to say about all of these points in the near future.