LWVMA 

Where We Stand 

Content:

Introduction

Program in Brief

Government

Natural Resources

Social Policy

LWVMA 

WHERE WE STAND

Social Policy: Legalize Casino Gambling

Goal:
Opposition to establishment of legalized casino gambling in Massachusetts. (1982)

If casino gambling became legal, the League would support:

• limited locations causing the least detrimental social and environmental impact, with acceptable road access and public transportation, and as part of a resort hotel complex sited with both local town and regional support
• rigid standards set by the state, possibly including hours of operation, dress codes, age limits for employment and participation, licensing of employees, relationships of gaming industry to public officials, credit and junket restrictions, and liquor regulations
• allowing stricter local regulations; requiring that the establishment comply with local zoning bylaws, building codes and public safety requirements
• especially created gaming commission (separate from Lottery Commission) to issue gaming licenses with approval by local town governing bodies; commission members not all coterminous with governor, and a separation of the bodies granting licenses and those responsible for oversight and audit
• all costs for license investigation and supervision paid from monies collected in non-refundable filing and licensing fees
• percent of taxation on industry winnings more than 7 percent and as much as 20 percent
• all revenue collected by the state, a portion returned to the communities impacted and demonstrating need, remaining monies returned to the state's general fund

League action

Since 1983 the League has presented testimony to oppose the legalization of casino gambling and has worked with organizations that share this goal. LWVM will continue to work to defeat any bills that would provide for the legalization of casino gambling in Massachusetts.

Background

• 1981: Convention delegates voted a one-year study of legalized casino gambling.
• 1982: LWVM position was adopted. Members opposed the legalization of casino gambling, weighing the stimulus to increased employment, tourism and tax revenue against the demands for social and municipal services, police protection and the establishment of a state regulating body.