ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, January 31, 1997 TAG: 9701310042
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
GAMBLING IS a loser as a means to pay for public services. But an amendment to the state constitution should not be needed to keep lawmakers from shilling for big-money, big-gambling interests and playing their constituents for suckers.
Virginia statutes control what is and is not legal. Lawmakers do not have to pass any measure to legalize any form of gambling. They certainly should not extend the state's sanction beyond the lottery and horse racing.
Further, if the law gives the Virginia Lottery independent authority to add casino-style games, such as keno, to boost state revenues (and residents' losses), that, too, can - and should - be remedied legislatively. The current lottery director has said she would not introduce keno without the support of the General Assembly and governor, but the option should not exist.
Responsibility and accountability for any further dependence by state government on gambling revenue should rest with its elected officials, lest they be overcome with temptation, one day, to quietly let the lottery expand without voting for it. filling state coffers at no potential political cost.
Fear of future temptation, of course, is what's driving Republican Sen. Mark Earley of Chesapeake to push for an amendment that would ban slot machines, keno and other casino-style gambling in Virginia. His concern is understandable.
The state's ardor for legalized gambling has cooled since Virginia was swept up in the lottery craze. But, amendment advocates argue, a recession could entice lawmakers at some future time to run back to the arms of Lady Luck and try to balance the budget with the state's take at the craps table. An amendment would bar them.
Lawmakers, however, need no such constraints to do what is right for Virginia. For starters, this session they could pass Del. Lacey Putney's bill to ban keno. That would send a clear message to the half-trillion-dollar-a-year gambling industry to drag its moneybags on out of Virginia and look for some other legislature to buy.
Earley and his supporters also should consider a long-shot possibility if, as the constitution requires, his amendment were to pass in the General Assembly two years running (with an election in between) and then were put before voters in a referendum. Suppose the referendum fails?
Would that give money-addicted lawmakers an excuse to allow more gambling, on the assumption that voters crave it?
Or would it mean that voters simply agree that cluttering the constitution with another amendment is the wrong way to address a legislative issue?
Or that much of the public was less than fully engaged by the issue, leaving the outcome to be determined by gambling interests with truckloads of money - ill-gotten money - to spend on a campaign to frame the debate, win friends and influence people?
Why roll the dice? Lawmakers need only avoid the temptation of easy money. There's no such thing, and they know it.
LENGTH: Medium: 57 lines KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1997by CNB