"Tings are OK"
That's House Speaker Michael Madigan using his best Chicago accent to jokingly gauge the progress of leaders’ meeting with Gov. Rod Blagojevich Tuesday in Springfield to discuss the expansion of gaming for new revenue. Turning on the serious tone, Madigan said, “We had a good meeting, and it appears that we’re making progress. Not everything is resolved. There are differences, which I’m not going to get into.”
The four leaders of both parties met with Blagojevich in the Statehouse Tuesday afternoon and all reported progress, although they wouldn’t talk specifics. And it may take more than the seven to 10 days originally said to be the timeline for agreeing on how much to expand gaming and how to pay for Chicago mass transit, statewide construction projects and education.
The proposals on the table but not quite agreed upon include:
- A land-based casino owned by the city of Chicago, although they have to nail down a way to share the revenue between the city and the state
- One riverboat elsewhere in the state, although there’s no indication where that second boat would go
- Slots at horseracing tracks, although they aren’t releasing a number of new positions that would be allowed
- An independent gaming board, desired by House Speaker Michael Madigan, House Minority Leader Tom Cross and Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, although it has some opposition or concerns about who would appoint the new gaming board members
- A 70-30 split of the revenue — 70 percent of the new gaming revenue would pay for road and school construction, while 30 percent would provide new education funding per Senate President Emil Jones Jr.’s desire, although the leaders haven’t yet agreed on how much revenue would be generated in the first place
Regarding the split of money, Watson said, “The bigger the capital bill, the better, as far as I’m concerned, but I’m not opposed to the 30 percent that’s being allocated to education.”
He also said he could vote for slots at the tracks, but added, “I’m not sure I’ve got members who can. That’s the biggest problem.”
And the revised timeline, per Watson, is that seven to 10 days may have been the original goal, but “I think we’re talking more time than that.”
The leaders scheduled a telephone conference for Thursday.
2 comments:
In all the controversy surrounding the "gaming" expansion for casinos and slot machines, and where they might go, a little noticed provision in the proposed legislation will legalize a form of internet gambling in Illinois, bringing the opportunity to gamble legally right into people's homes. ie.
(230 ILCS 5/3.12) (from Ch. 8, par. 37-3.12)
Sec. 3.12. Pari-mutuel system of wagering. "Pari-mutuel system of wagering" means a form of wagering on the outcome of horse races in which wagers are made in various denominations on a horse or horses and all wagers for each race are pooled and held by a licensee for distribution in a manner approved by the Board.
"Wagers may be placed via any method or at any location authorized under this Act."
(230 ILCS 5/3.22)
Sec. 3.22. Wagering facility. "Wagering facility" means any location at which a licensee, other than an advance deposit
wagering licensee, may accept or receive pari-mutuel wagers under this Act.
(Source: P.A. 89-16, eff. 5-30-95.)
(230 ILCS 5/3.23)
Sec. 3.23. Wagering. "Wagering" means, collectively, the
pari-mutuel system of wagering, inter-track wagering, and
simulcast wagering, and advance deposit wagering.
(Source: P.A. 89-16, eff. 5-30-95.)
(230 ILCS 5/3.28 new)
Sec. 3.28. Advance deposit wagering licensee. "Advance
deposit wagering licensee" means a person licensed by the Board to conduct advance deposit wagering.
An advance deposit wagering licensee shall be an organization licensee or a person or third party who contracts with an organization licensee in order to conduct advance deposit wagering.
(Source: P.A. 89-16, eff. 5-30-95.)
(230 ILCS 5/3.29 new)
Sec. 3.29. Advance deposit wagering. "Advance deposit
wagering" means a method of pari-mutuel wagering in which an individual may establish an account, deposit money into the
account, and use the account balance to pay for pari-mutuel wagering authorized by this Act.
An advance deposit wager may be placed in person at a wagering facility or from any other location via a telephone-type device or any other electronic means.
Any person who accepts an advance deposit wager who is not licensed by the Board as an advance deposit wagering licensee shall be considered in violation of this Act and the Criminal Code of 1961.
Any advance deposit wager placed in person at a wagering facility shall be deemed to have been placed at that wagering facility.
(230 ILCS 5/9) (from Ch. 8, par. 37-9)
I am sure it comes as no surprise that one such company providing this service is owned by Churchill Downs and Mr. D
www.twinspires.com
Many might be surprised to learn however that another such company (Youbet.com) has a former Illinois Governor; and another Illinois insider on its Board of Directors, and has retained the former Chairperson of the Illinois Racing Board as its registered lobbyist.
They tried internet based sales for the Illinois Lottery, where the state would keep all of the proceeds but coud not get that through. The fact that this is buried deep in the minutiae of complex and controversial legislation, and yet has this kind of muscle behind probably increases the likelihood of its continued inclusion, un-noticed, and without debate specific to this one provision.
People are all concerned about the prospect of "organized crime" infiltrating a casino in places like Rosemont, or Chicago. Little attention is paid to the integrity of internet based operations such as these which can be used for money laundering and a wide range of other nefarious domestic and "off shore" activities.
One of the providers of this service mentioned here had one of its international subsidiaries account records seized just recently by the federal government, and they have also seized $3 million in account deposits as well, as part of an ongoing federal investigation.
There are also a wide range of public policy issues that come into play with this one; aside from the issue of gambling.
One issue is the fact that the "parimutuel tax", which is now not much different than a retail sales tax, would be one of the few to be collected on a transactional basis on-line.
Another is; where wagering was previously done anonymously at the track, it now requires disclosure of identity, even if you decide not to participate in their rewards program. As a result, these records are subject to dicovery through subpeonea, certainly by the government in a criminal matter, but also perhaps by a disgruntled spouse in a civil matter such as divorce.
Participation in this activity on this basis also lends itself to becoming prey to target marketing, which comes right to your desktop each day, and precludes your ability to to toss all the coupons which ome in the mail into the trash in bulk.
There is much to play out yet with this "gaming" bill, but this aspect of the legislation will probably not get much play when the headlines instead can flash about a "Chicago Casino' which is far more controversial, and has more sex appeal to sell papers, and attract viewership.
We've just been parodied on McSweeneys, so tings are pretty good....
Post a Comment