Saturday, October 29, 2005

When It Comes to Gaming, Competing Theories Abound

May have speculated on potential rationales behind Bradley's gaming legislation, which passed the House but is not expected to see action in the Senate. Was it a token gesture aimed at proving the "wallflower's" mensch to the governor? Why, then, did Speaker Mike vote for it, unless relations between him and Blago have detiorated? Was it (gasp!) election year posturing? Deadpanned Leader Cross,"I think this is a guy who's trying to gain coverage locally. It's a move that's purely for politics, and it borders on being irresponsible."

Wrote the Joliet Herald Tribune:
He said even the bill's supporters know it will never pass the Senate, but they pushed it through the House to mollify gambling opponents. "It's like shooting blanks," Cross said.

Wrote Aaron Chambers in the RR Star:
" In perhaps the greatest possible irony, gambling interests might drastically increase their contributions to political campaigns if they fear that the abolition measure might advance."
He added that it may have been an attempt on the Speaker's part to mitigate the Rosemont situation for the AG, or as a pawn with the more pro-gaming Jones.


Post a Comment

<< Home