Senator Paul Sanford to propose new gambling bill; “move the bingo debate in a new, honest direction”
Sanford’s press release is below. I’ll offer up some thoughts later, but I like what I see so far. It sounds like a bill I would support and an amendment I would vote for.
(MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA)—Senator Paul Sanford (R-Huntsville) had been working with both sides of the electronic bingo issue (SB380) to try and clean up the bill before it came up for debate in the state senate. After a few attempts to reconcile the differences of both sides, Sen. Sanford’s desired concessions were not met. Within the next day or two he will be releasing a new bill drafted by the Legislative Reference Service that will shrink the size of the constitutional amendment and simplify the issue to a basic up or down vote of the people in November.
“I desire nothing more than to move the ‘bingo’ debate in a new, honest direction – one that is more simplistic, straight-forward, and transparent. It has bogged down the Legislature for years, and it is time to put this issue to rest and move on with the other pressing business in Alabama, like getting our economy back on track,” Senator Sanford said. “We all realize this subject has been a ‘grey’ area of the law, but it’s time for the voters to turn grey into either black or white with a bill that is not dripping in special interest tinkering,” he continued.
Senator Sanford said the original Senate Bill 380 and subsequent substitutions, none of which were released for official debate, were too “stuck in the mud” with unfair special treatment for a select few. His bill, which will be released on his websites (senatorsanford.com and sanfordforsenate.com), pairs down the debate to a straight up or down vote of the people. The bill will also at least do the following:
- Refer to the current machines in use as “slot machines” instead of “bingo”;
- Legalize, tax and regulate slot machine casinos in a few pages instead of the current 48-page constitutional amendment full of fine print that nobody reads or understands;
- Place casino licenses up for bid so the taxpayers, instead of casino bosses, get the best deal
- Add prohibitions of campaign contributions from the gambling interest to those who appoint the Gaming Commission and to the Legislature ; and
- Establish a minimum tax rate of 50% to make sure we’re not “giving away the store”
“I ask that all current supporters of SB380 join me in support of my new bill, because, its is, in its simplest form, accomplishing the same basic tenet of placing this issue before the people for a vote,” said Sen. Sanford. “That is the argument that supporters of the current bill are using in their PR campaign, paid advertising, and discussions with undecided legislators. So why would anyone who supports SB380 not join me in my more basic and straight-forward bill that meets the same goal?” he continued.
Senator Sanford said his tracking of correspondence from constituents is running eighty percent to twenty percent in favor of putting the issue to a vote of the people so long as the bill is not putting the power in the hands of a few monopolies.
“One thing I have learned from the arrogance of the U.S. Congress related to ‘healthcare reform’ is that elected officials better listen to the folks back home, and that’s what I’m doing but I just couldn’t support a non-competitive bill that didn’t have the best interest of the State at heart. I was elected as a ‘citizen lawmaker,’ and if the people of my district want to be able to vote on this issue, that’s what I’m going to give them the opportunity to do,” Sen. Sanford stated. “If this does make its way to the ballot box in November, I ask that voters do their due diligence on the issue and not make a decision based on any slick advertising campaign but on the true facts and information,” he finished.
Print This Post
I’m glad he won. This is the kind of thing I hope we see more of in Montgomery.
Way to go Paul!
Wow, I think that Sen. Sanford may have gotten his wires crossed on this one… While 80% of the calls that he’s been getting may have been in favor of, 4 out of 5 does not a concensus make! From what I hear, the gambling interests have known that Paul is soft on gambling and may be behind the 4 calls to Paul’s office supporting.
I think that Paul should remember that the good conservatives who elected him into office won’t appreciate him being the GOPer who bucks his party on what could be the most critical partisan issue facing the legislature this year. Especially, given a contender in the midst.
If in fact Paul is against gambling and his goal is an “Up-or-Down” vote to essentially kill the gambling bill once and for all, then he should consider the law of unintended consequences… and that the most sure-fire way to defeat BAD legislation is to do it IN the legislature, not to put it to a vote of the people which could go either way. Yes, it sounds UnAmerican, and definitely is UnDemocratic, but the end-goal of defeating gambling is what we’re after, not providing one more avenue to take from the poor, the needy, the unintelligent, the addict while at the same time adding all of the social ills that are proven to come along with legalized gambling.
This is BAD Paul, and there is still time to correct your mistake.
Well, Mr. “AgainstGambling” I have a decidedly different view. This is neither bad, nor a slight towards “good conservatives” that got him elected. Maybe I’m not a “good conservative,” but I did my part to get him elected and I support his idea. By the look of it Paul is crafting a “clean”, unobjectionable bill. If the people support it then so be it. I don’t think being a “good conservative” includes opposing letting voters voice their opinion about a well conceived constitutional amendment.
“I don’t think being a “good conservative” includes opposing letting voters voice their opinion about a well conceived constitutional amendment.”
Well, in this case. I do. This may sound a bit “rough”, because it is… Once an issue like this goes to the people for a vote, it’s uncontrollable, and VERY LIKELY TO PASS… Does a simple majority of the people make it right? Some people would say so, but I do not.
If a simple majority of people decided that crack cocaine should be legalized, or carrying a concealed weapon inside a school building, or sex with your sister, would that make it right?
I’ll be surprised if Paul or anyone can create an “unobjectionable bill” pertaining to gamble in Alabama.
Daniel, you really need to quit pointing out where I am imprecise with my language! You are correct, short of having magical powers I doubt anyone could create an “unobjectionable” gambling bill. How about “less objectionable?” (Still a subjective claim, but not as outlandish)
It worked with Amendment One a few years back. The tax hike went to the people and we voted it down. I assume that you were happy about that since you are a conservative.
@Statsman – comparing gambling to incest does not help your case
whose sister is he referring to and what does she look like?
Thank you Mr. Sanford !
AgainstGambling – > try less caffine….
Also, what are you so afraid of? If the bill is as bad as you claim – just soooo horrible… then surely it will be voted down by the people of Alabama., no ? However, if the bill brings business, revenue, jobs, economic growth, education funding, income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, permit taxes and it is appropriately monitored and administrated and is a net postive for the people….then the people will vote, intelligently, the affirmative. At the end of the day – the important point is that the PEOPLE of Alabama vote. (no, we do not need or want Mommy and Daddy in the legislature to make all of our decisions for us…)
To sooth your fears…. if the people ever vote in ’sex with your sister’ -> I’ll foot the bill for you a dinner for two at an Indian casion….
If the endgame is good policy, pragmatism always beats partisanship.
Sanford’s bill proves the point.