When something fails to get done on time in Harrisburg, most people usually point to "politics" as the culprit. That’s been the conventional wisdom this year concerning the slot machine gambling legislation, which the General Assembly has yet to approve.

This time, however, that’s a misconception. What has halted the gambling bill so far, and has cast its future into doubt, is greed.

The House and the Senate have both passed different versions of bills that would legalize slot machines at a limited number of venues, and both did so with bipartisan cooperation. So "politics" in the usual sense is not the problem.

Instead, a frenzy of unbridled business speculation that was unleashed upon the state when a slots bill was introduced has overwhelmed the legislative process. The alleged purposes of legalizing slot machines in Pennsylvania – to rescue the horse racing industry and to raise money for residential property tax cuts – has been lost amid the lobbying of track owners. Their gold rush mentality has prevented adoption of a system of gambling that protects the public interest.

We would have a slot machine gambling law on the books already in Pennsylvania if track owners had agreed to some of the same fundamental regulatory safeguards that are already in place in other states where gambling is legal.

Rather than accept the principle of strong state regulatory control and anti-corruption measures, track owners have spent the spring and summer tirelessly trying to weaken or eliminate public safeguards. We find that unacceptable. We would rather not pass any slot machine legislation than produce a bad bill.

Foes and proponents may debate whether or not slot machines have a corrosive effect on society, but we would hope that everyone would agree that if we are going to legalize gambling, strong state regulatory control is vital to ensure its integrity, and to provide proper return of revenue to the Commonwealth.

West Virginia, Delaware and New Jersey serve as good examples of responsible state oversight. At a minimum, necessary public safeguards are: a prohibition against the sale or transfer of gaming license without state approval; thorough character and financial background checks of slot license applicants; a prohibition against public officials having a financial interest in a slot operation; prevention of a "revolving door" of gaming regulators immediately going to work for the gaming industry; daily transmission of machine revenue to the state; a central control system that permits remote disabling of slot machines if a problem arises; and a ban on political campaign contributions from slot operators.

We insisted on those provisions in the Senate. Unfortunately, the bill changed by the time it emerged from the House of Representatives.

Each and every one of those basic public protections has been adopted in other states and has been upheld in courts. Despite most track owners operating under these regulatory controls in other jurisdictions, they are now attempting to remove these protections and create loopholes in Pennsylvania.

Problems can and do occur with gambling. As recently as last year, Michigan fined a slot machine operator for software defects on machines. Illinois had to shut down 1,600 machines when it was discovered players could receive free credits by jamming the intake system.

Whether these were unintentional flaws or purposeful corruption, weak state regulation can only be a tempting invitation to bigger problems.

While the original notion behind the introduction of slots legislation was to boost Pennsylvania’s existing horse racing tracks, many have lost sight of the simple fact that there are currently only four operating horse tracks in the state. Once it appeared to speculators that a slots bill might be considered, there was a stampede of people seeking to gain new horse track licenses for the sole purpose of being eligible to receive a slot license. There had not been a single new horse track application filed in Pennsylvania in at least the previous 20 years.

This sudden interest in track licenses clearly has little to do with improving horse racing and everything to do with slot operations, and would in fact be detrimental to racing.

If nine horse tracks were permitted to operate in the state, Pennsylvania might have a horse-track-to-population ratio greater than any place in the world. Nine tracks would require an estimated 13,000 different race-quality horses – adversely impacting the supply and quality of race horses in the Mid-Atlantic region.

The expansion of venues for slot operations should only be done in a manner that maximizes revenue for property tax relief. Not only is the random placement of slot parlors, determined by horse racing commissions, contrary to the public’s financial interest, but it expands horse racing beyond what is sustainable. If we are to increase the number of slot venues to raise money for property tax reduction, then they should be placed where they are most likely to generate this revenue, not allocated to horse tracks not yet existing.

Although we favor legalizing a limited number of slot parlors and would like to see the proceeds used to reduce property taxes, we are not so desperate for slots revenue that we will support a bill that lacks public safeguards and could potentially hurt rather than help the horse racing industry. While no one likes raising taxes, a modest increase in the sales or personal income tax could provide the level of property tax cuts that Gov. Rendell has promised the people of Pennsylvania.

Until all track owners end their efforts to weaken the regulatory authority of the Commonwealth over slot operations and support important safeguards, and there is a unified commitment by all of the stakeholders to work in the best interest of the public, the slots bill will continue to languish.

And that is not a bad thing.

The following story appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News, April 21, 2003: