Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts strives to educate the public and citizens of Massachusetts on subjects useful and beneficial to the community, in order to create a more diverse, educated, economically competitive, and environmentally sustainable Commonwealth. These aims are furthered through presenting topics in a full and fair manner to a wide audience in order that the public may form independent opinions and conclusions, by making available the results of nonpartisan analysis, study, or research on legislative issues, by performing advocacy and, to a significantly lesser degree, by engaging in grassroots lobbying.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

CSM Report: Top 10 Problems with Gambling Bill, Legislative Conflicts of Interest

The past 24-hours have seen a major upheaval in the debate over casinos and expanded gambling. After an actual debate broke out on the Senate floor, Senators went behind closed doors to hash out an agreement on a one-year ‘cooling off’ period before legislators could take jobs at casinos. This debate exposes one in a litany of problems in this casino bill, one of 10 highlighted by Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts on the eve of the Senate debate.

What issue will Senators ‘discover’ next? More problems affecting local arts groups? We have several recommendations of badly-needed fixes before this bill proceeds.

“We urge everyone to take a good, hard look at this list of just 10 fatal flaws with this wrong-headed boondoggle disguised as a jobs and revenue plan for the Commonwealth,” said Scott Harshbarger, president of Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts. “We’re thrilled people are starting to awaken to the follies in this bill and commend Senate leadership for encouraging true debate. Now’s the time where that promise meets reality and Senators need to act to fix – or reject – this bill.”

Click here for a link to the CSM Report.


The Boston Globe has also picked up and reported on the watering-down of the cooling off period from five years to one. Click here to read an article explaining the legislature's doublespeak rationalization of the reduction: "that a strong prohibition would only feed the public’s perception that lawmakers cannot be trusted." And click here to read a Globe editorial criticizing the same.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)