Clinton Camp Slams Obama's Concerns About Gambling

Gambling is good, the Clinton campaign argued Friday in a conference call meant to draw attention to Barack Obama's past concerns about using gambling as an economic development tool in poor communities.

"What we have found in every instance, when you create an economic engine that drives job creation, encourages capital investment ... you have an industry that builds community ... and provides livelihood," Harrah's Entertainment Inc. executive Jan Jones said on a conference call to reporters. Jones is a former Las Vegas mayor and co-chair of the Clinton campaign's National Women's Business Council.

/snip/

Jones and Clinton's Nevada Chairman Rory Reid suggested the Illinois senator was a gambling industry opponent and a threat to union member's jobs.

They pointed to remarks Obama made in May 2003 when then Illinois Gov. Rod Blogojevich said he would reject calls to expand gambling as a way to make up for a budget deficit.

"I think it's a good decision. It is irresponsible to use gambling as our principle source of revenue," Obama said in May 2003 Chicago Defender article. "I think the moral and social cost of gambling, particularly in low-income communities could be devastating."

Asked in February about his views, Obama told The Associated Press that Nevada should be proud of how it's used gambling as a "very successful economic model."

"The concerns that I had in Illinois related to the way in which those who own these (gambling river) boats had a very exclusive monopoly, were making enormous contributions to the state Legislature and were having a disproportionate influence on the legislation," Obama said.

Obama also was a critic of lawmakers accepting political contributions from gambling interests that were seeking permits from the Illinois Legislature.

The senator said he continued to believe there is "certainly a potential moral and social cost to gambling, if it's not properly regulated, if children have access to it. It's something I continue to be concerned about."

Nevadans also have similar concerns. Children are banned from the casino floor and companies have been fined for violating the restriction.

http://lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=7614241

Or at least, the local communities should get to decide for themselves if they wish to have gambling--and I think it can be a positive thing, as long as it's taxed and regulated.

Personal responsibility. We should not design government policies around the notion that some people are so gullible and stupid that they might be "seduced" (in this case by gambling).

the state decided, and the local community is fighting the casino tooth and nail.

The local community will lose, I can guarantee it.

Hmmm.

Seriously. Should communities have a say? Should states push poor people to buy lottery tickets say? Here in Vermont, we're pretty strongly anti-gambling. The state ads for the lottery have to have this little blurb about gambling responsibly. Now our repuke gov wants to farm out our lottery to a a private corporation- and because of how we feel here about it, he has a big fight on his hands.

I am not pro-gambling. I believe it should be closely regulated and no way do I want to see ANYTHING but the lottery in my state.

.

I've seen how much destruction it can cause.

It should be strongly regulated, and should never be dismissed.

They are the concerns I would have if casinos were coming to my town.

The Las Vegas model of gambling has not been repeated anywhere else, to my knowledge. It hasn't been quite so beneficial elsewhere.

Trying to scare Casino people into thinking Obama is against them.

...as well as those tactics are just one of the reasons why I'll be supporting Obama and not *them*. Fortunately, I think that gambling is pretty entrenched and safe in Nevada. It is my hope that the BS in this will be sniffed out easily.

These tactics will start to backfire. Have faith in that.

Sometimes I think the country looks like Pottersville, with casinos, bars, strip clubs, on every corner. I don't oppose any of it, particularly, but I don't think it's a good economic base. A lot of studies show the casinos don't put as much money into a community through jobs as it takes out in services.

Drive in to Aurora, IL for example... You can't begin to count the check cashing places that line the streets, the alcohol & tobacco stores, shelters, way houses, and more. Aurora (also known as the city of lights) was once an incredible place to live. Short of a few protected areas within the main city, what remains are the crumbling houses, low rent dwellings, and fast food marts. It's home to one of the largest hispanic populations in the west suburbs, where their educational options are substandard, crime is extremely high, as is violent crime/death rates.

The casino is a primary employer, and the city eats up the tax revenue. Sadly, it isn't going where it needs to go, and the town has gone downhill fast.

not as a major source of revenue for the state and local governments. Gambling produces nothing, and it harvests what must be earned. In other words you had best look for the ways and means that create the earned money, before you set about 'harvesting' it.

:shrug:

I'm kind of torn on the issue of gambling as a revenue stream for government, so I can see both the Clinton side and the Obama side on this, but to use the word slam makes it seem like the criticism is unduly harsh. I guess it's more of the media trying to make this a battle so they can sell more papers.

He made this statement while working for the Illinois Senate serving the people of Illinois, but the Clinton camp is using his position here to apply to Las Vegas, and I dont think thats fair.

:eyes:

Clinton comments are either a.) being a dunce or b.) just pandering.

Either way, Gambling is a promise of "easy money" for gamblers, Native American Tribes, Goverments, and service jobs. However, by proportion to the effort no real wealth is created and it just creates a shift of flow of money from one place to another. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I think this is a nice issue where Obama can be seeing as thoughtful on the matter and Clinton taking her typical "wet finger in the breeze to see which way the wind blows" approach.

p.s. the culture of "easy money" is a huge weakness of the U.S. right now and is like cancer throughout our entire economy, not just gambling.

The consensus is if you pull people from outside your region, it tends to be good. The outside people bring in money and spend it on Gambling and other things in the community.

On the other hand, if the draw is only from the local area, then you are NOT seeing an extra inflow of cash into the local economy AND you have to sue local revenues to address the problems tied in with gambling (gambling addiction, high Crime rate and a general LOSS of local revenue).

Thus in Los Vegas, which draws from the whole country, Gambling is good for the city, but it most other cities it is bad. Atlantic City has had gambling, but draw from the whole east coast and thus gambling has been a good source of revenue. Unlike Los Vegas which is still booming, Atlantic City has continue to decline for most of its visitors are day trippers, rarely staying in town. As a whole Atlantic City Gambling is viewed as a loss for the city as a whole (The City Government has made money, but the people of the City, except if directly tied in with the Casino, has seen a general DECLINE). Part of the problem of Atlantic City is that it was in decline BEFORE gambling, but Gambling seems NOT to have reverse or even slow down the decline and that has been the general observation on Gambling, unless you draw from outside your area gambling is a net loss for any city.

I haven't been in AC for many years, but I thought at the time that if it was bound and determined to be a gambling mecca, the casino industry should at least have been required to pay the freight to upgrade the civilian neighborhoods as a cost of doing business there. It could have been done and paid for a hundred times over by now with a small portion of the wealth the industry has accumulated.

The President has no impact on industry-specific issues. Obama is not against state-regulated gaming; that's all they need to hear.