Public Access News

November 12, 1996

Casino Contribution Study Nearly Ready

A blockbuster study of the campaign contributions of Illinois' casino gambling industry is now just a few days from publication. Previous studies tracked only contributions by the casino corporations and their principal shareholders. Public Access' more comprehensive study also tracks contributions made by the casinos' corporate officers, directors, attorneys, lobbyists, smaller stockholders, concessionaires and associated businesses.

Now that the Illinois legislature is about to resume its session, the publication of the casino industry contribution study is particularly timely. Since the November 5 election returns the House majority to Democrats in January, speculation abounds that the outgoing Republican House majority will attempt initiatives for which it would not have the votes in next year's session. While initiatives passed in this fall's session require a 2/3's vote of each house, post-election veto sessions are heavily populated by "lame duck" members who are both less predictable and less subject to discipline by their constituents or political party.

Rumored subjects of potential veto session initiatives include the expansion of casino gaming to Cook County and casino concessions for horseracing licensees. The horseracing industry has long claimed to have been badly harmed by two decades of steady expansion of legalized gambling from bingo, to charitable Las Vegas nights, to the State Lottery, to off track betting, to riverboat casinos. The Public Access reports on campaign contributions by both horseracing and casino interests thus would provide context to such legislative deliberations.

The primary role of Public Access is to publish or increase the public accessibility of public records which have been hidden or obscure. The Project will not normally perform extensive analyses of the data it publishes and it assiduously avoids pronouncing value judgments on the findings of its studies.

Because the campaign contribution database is our first publication and a large and relatively unwieldy set of data, we have undertaken a more extensive analysis as a demonstration of its usefulness and capability to produce new and important insights into governmental behavior.

The publication of government data is not without controversy, as choices of what is published and how it is presented may imply a bias or inference. Public Access analyses of campaign contributions of the horseracing and casino gaming industries include the personal contributions of industry employees and associated personnel; those who have an economic interest in legislation and other governmental action favorable to their industry. To the extent that this inclusion implies our belief that people, in their private lives, do not act contrary to their personal business interests, we plead guilty.

For example: it is unknown, specifically, why the Grand Victoria Casino - Elgin Riverboat Resort (reputedly controlled by Chicago's Pritzker family) made $58,000 in state campaign contributions (Jan.1, 1995 - June 30, 1996) most of which donations were directed from the Pritzker family law offices. It is also unknown, specifically, why J. B. Pritzker donated $10,000 to newly-elected State Representative Larry McKeon (12% of McKeon's total receipts) during the period covered by the database.

However, it is well-known that Mr. Pritzker has aspirations to the Congressional seat in Rep. McKeon's area and that McKeon is a very influential member of the Congressional District's sizable gay community. Perhaps then Pritzker's contributions had nothing whatever to do with casino gaming and their inclusion as gaming-related is unfair or inaccurate. However, were Mr. Pritzker to call Rep. McKeon intending to discuss a casino gaming issue, the odds are very high that Rep. McKeon would take the call! Since this donor's personal contributions assure him access to the governmental official for whatever he wishes to say, this donor's inclusion in the industry list is at least fair comment.

Public Access and Advocacy Associates, a Springfield-based "good government" lobbying firm, published the complete January 1, 1995 - June 30, 1996 state campaign finance disclosure data on Advocacy's Web site two weeks ago. The Public Access study on the campaigns of the Illinois horseracing industry was published a week ago. Both the horseracing study and the entire database can be can be accessed through Public Access' Web site: http://members.aol.com/paccess593.

What Do the Campaign Contributions Mean?

Public Access intends to ascribe no sinister motives to either campaign contributors or recipients. Without campaign contributions, none but the most personally wealthy candidates would be elected.

Elective office is almost always won by paid staff, paid advertising and costly direct mail. Candidates with the best ideas and skills only win when they can effectively persuade the voters that they need to come out to vote for them. That takes money.

Campaign contributions can reward devoted, even-handed public service and support its continuation, can purchase a platform, enable public discussion, and result in governmental implementation of a beneficial policy.

Contributions can also purchase the loyalty and votes of those whose votes are for sale, and purchase the fairness of those whose fairness is for sale. Thus some contributors feel compelled (or are extorted) to engage in a matching contest with competing interests; if they can not purchase advantage, they must at least purchase fairness.

So, candidates ask for money from those who agree with them and those who seek to influence them, saying "My vote is not for sale."

Virtually every honest candidate admits that when he looks at a stack of telephone messages and there are too many to answer personally, he answers "the people he knows" who are very often "the people he owes." Thus at least, campaign contributors purchase access to the chance to persuade. One of the jobs of the Public Access Project is to identify who has this private, special access to the governmental decision-making process; to identify what their interests are and how much access they may have.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -