Sen. Day’s decision evokes “revolving-door” controversy

Today is Monday December 14^th and it is negative 9 degrees Fahrenheit outside right now; ugh. At some point last night or this morning snow fell as I was awaken this morning by the beeps of a bobcat. A lot took place over the weekend: the Vikings put it to the Bengals, Tiger lost a major sponsor, Sen. Liebermann switches stance on health care reform away from the Democrats, the Senate passed a $1.2T budget filled with pork, and President Obama gave himself a B+ rating. Really a B+? Anyway, that is entirely different topic than I'd like to discuss today. Last week Sen. Dick Day (R-Owatonna) was be lambasted for his decision to leave the State Legislature of Minnesota to lobby for a group, Racino Now, wanting a Racino in Minnesota. While Day will not officially leave office until the first part of January, many suspect he is already working as a consultant for the group looking to lobby Minnesota Legislatures during the upcoming session.

Minnesota does not have any laws that require a "cooling off" period for Legislators to become lobbyist or take other private industry jobs that may benefit from their connections. In a statement released last week by Sen. Day he defended his actions by saying, "Anyone who knows me knows that a Racino at Canterbury Park has been one of my top legislative priorities for 12 years, since 1997 when I first proposed the idea to fund a new Twins ballpark…Now I have the opportunity to work full time toward this end, and I look forward to traveling throughout the state to talk to Minnesotans about the many ways we will all gain from these two Racinos" (http://twincities.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2009/12/07/daily22.html). The other Racino location that Sen. Day refers to is Running Aces Harness Park located in Columbus Township.

While the laws of disclosure are rather limited or non-existent for Minnesota Legislatures, there is a ban on gifts that lobbyist can give a Legislator but that does not include campaign donations or hiring the Legislator as a consultant. I can see where a potential conflict of interest can exist but Sen. Day has never hidden his belief that Minnesota can benefit from adding a Racino to the business district; potentially adding $250M to the state confers. Should Minnesota add more disclosure laws to ensure our state politicians act ethically? Rep. Karla Bigham (DFL-Cottage Grove) and Sen. John Marty (DFL-Roseville) are two members of Minnesota's Legislator that plan to introduce "revolving-door" legislation that would "require legislators who retire or lose election to wait two years before they could accept a lobbying position" (http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/12/09/14123/days_move_puts_focus_on_legislatures_weak_lobbying_rules).

Is two years to much? Is two years too little? Should a lifetime ban be put in place? Keep in mind that elected officials in the Legislator is really a part-time job which many view it as just that. I know from personal experience that the only time I hear or see my State Senator is when it is politically convenient for her. Despite your view on a Racino, how should Minnesota react to lack of a "revolving-door" policy? Or should the focus be on the full disclosure of activities?

Gaming Expansion: Win Win for all in Minnesota

Marge Anderson chief executive of the Millie Lacs Band of Ojibwe wrote a counterpoint in the Star Tribune today on the issue of adding slots to Canterbury Park and Running Aces horse tracks. The counterpoints were given in response to an article, Time for the state to look seriously at slot machines?, written by Neal St. Anthony that raised issue of Sen. Dick Day’s annual attempt of adding slot machines at Canterbury Park and Running Aces to help increase revenue for the state. Over 20 years ago the State entered into a gaming compact with Minnesota Tribes that gave them a virtual monopoly on gaming in Minnesota. The compact does not collect corporate taxes from any of the Minnesota Tribes.

The DFL and Marge Anderson make an argument that expanding gambling will harm Minnesotans and not raise the revenue it touts it will. Expansion of gambling goes on in the tribal casinos. While I worked at one of the local tribal casinos, the expansion of gambling took place. New slot machines popped up in every nook and cranny and remodeling was done to make more room as well.

Marge Anderson fears that adding slot machines to both horse tracks will automatically translate to a huge reduction of 2,900 people employed at Grand Casino locations in Minnesota. Anderson raised objection to the claim that horse tracks are “private operators who hire people and pay taxes” as that is what Grand Casino does as well. The claim is true, Grand Casino does pay employee payroll tax and makes the claim of paying property taxes as well. Meanwhile not one tribal casino pays corporate income tax, the tribal casino is a tax haven in that respect.

I also worked for one of the two horse tracks and understand the reasoning why many made the switch from tribal casino to non-tribal casino; respect. Tribal casinos do not observe, at least when I worked there, the equal employment act that other companies in the United States must do. If slot machines were added to Canterbury Park and Running Aces, the concern by Marge Anderson that employment would fall may be due to the employment practices of the tribal casino.

Las Vegas, although is impacted by recession, has done well with a competitive landscape of multiple casino options. Competition is better for the consumer. Marge Anderson asks at the end of her counterpoint, “How could opening the door to gaming expansion be right for Minnesota when it hurts so many Minnesotans?”

Simply put, it will improve the service level by increasing the competition. The service level will have to be elevated by all involved in the casino industry. The employee will benefit as well as the consumer. It is time to end the monopoly and increase revenue by adding full gaming options to Canterbury Park and Running Aces.