Khazei continues to rip casino gambling proposal.

Alan Khazei seems to have found his key campaign issue, even if it's one he will never cast a vote on in the U.S. Senate (more on this in a second).

Building on the media attention generated by his remarks on casino gambling at the Chamber's candidate's forum Monday, Khazei has continued to rip the notion of expanded gaming in Massachusetts.

He submitted written testimony today to the Joint Committee on Economic Development & Emerging Technologies, which is holding hearing on a number of gaming bills. According to a statement released by the campaign, Khazei "strongly opposes casino gambling in Massachusetts because it will fundamentally change the fabric and culture of our great state."

Khazei has countered the argument that the state needs the jobs provided by casinos, emphasizing his plan to create good, high-paying jobs in clean technology and energy, to support small businesses by providing tax breaks and incentives to grow, and to focus attention on health care, bio-tech, and education where Massachusetts has good opportunities and is positioned to do especially well.

“I will be a jobs Senator because I know that people are hurting,” Khazei said.  “They've lost their jobs, their homes, their retirement savings, and their children’s dreams of a college education.  What some see in casinos is a quick fix, but they’re not. They pay low wages. We need a sense of urgency for good jobs and we need a second stimulus package that focuses on job creation.”

“Gambling in general - slot machines in particular - prey on those who are struggling the most in this economy," Khazei added.  "The computerized slot machines draw players in for extended periods of time, mesmerizing them the way video games mesmerize young people. So, while we try to raise revenue for the state by bringing casinos to Massachusetts, we will also bring loss and hardship to the citizens we are sworn to protect. If we make this decision, there will be no turning back and the storied history of Massachusetts will be forever changed for the worse. There is a better way."

I have no problem with this argument, but I still take umbrage with Khazei's attempt to make his mark on an issue that will be decided by lawmakers in Massachusetts, not by the U.S. Senate. I noted the other day that one of my biggest pet peeves with campaigns on any level is when candidates attempt to focus their message around issues they will never impact.

Khazei attempted to justify his involvement in this issue in an interview with Jim Braude last night, saying that within his first 30 days in office as a U.S. Senator he would file legislation to create a national regulatory body for casinos, thus making casino gaming a federal issue.



More than anything he has done to this point, I think this comment speaks to Khazei's naivety about elected office.  To think a bill that would a) impose federal regulation on what has always been a state regulated industry, and b) do so in an industry dominated by a state that is represented in the Senate by the Democratic Majority Leader, would ever go anywhere is silly.

In addition, when confronted by Braude with the poll results that say Massachusetts residents favor casinos 52%-35%, Khazei responded that he does not "accept that." In both the press release and the Braude interview, Khazei refers to "an extraordinary citizen hero," Kathleen Norbut, who has organized an opposition group, United to Stop Slots in Mass.

I'm not sure what makes her a hero, but I guess it's her opposition to a proposal that the majority of Massachusetts residents support? How is that different from the special interests that Khazei pledges to shut out in favor of citizens. How does Khazei make the distinction between Ms. Norbut (who is soliciting donations for her group, which sounds very similar to a political action committee - PAC), and the majority who support expanded gaming in Massachusetts?