|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
(Memo on Senate Democratic Appropriations Committee Stationary) TO: Capitol Correspondents FROM: Gary Tuma SUBJ: Gambling Amendment DATE: October 7, 2004 Attached is a summary of one of the amendments that Senator Vincent Fumo intended to offer on the floor last night if the Republican leadership had not broken their word -- given earlier in the day both in private and in public at a Rules Committee meeting -- that Democrats would have an opportunity to do so. Senator Fumo promises that because of the importance of the amendment, he intends to offer it on the floor of the Senate at every future opportunity, to any suitable piece of legislation. "We are going to make sure that the legislature confronts the issue of personal enrichment of their family members through gaming. We are determined to nip corruption in the bud. We will not be silenced by members on the other side of the aisle who fear, perhaps justifiably, that they would be embarrassed by our amendment," Fumo said. # Summary of Drafted Amendment No. A3856, SB 1209, Printer’s No. 1862 Prohibit Gaming Interest and Income by Members of the General Assembly and their Families This amendment would prohibit members of the General Assembly, as well as their family members, from holding an ownership interest in a gambling license, from accepting income from a licensee, from accepting employment with a licensee, and accepting any fees from a licensee. It is unlike the original Act 71 provision and the changes contained in SB 1209 in three main respects: Act 71 restricted ownership by members of the
General Assembly and their family to one percent of a slot parlor license.
(It would be banned completely under SB 1209.) This amendment, by contrast,
would apply to any type of gambling-related enterprise, not just ownership
of a slot parlor. For example, it would ban ownership of a distributorship,
or ownership of real estate that is rented by a slot parlor. This amendment would apply not just to ownership, but to any type of income. For example, a legislator or family member could not derive income through a lobbying contract, consulting contract, or any other type of arrangement that produces fees or income from a gambling-related enterprise – be it a slot parlor, supplier, machine manufacturer, or applicant for a license.
|
