“We’re up in arms against the drug industry, and people in the drug industry would shrug their shoulders and say, ‘Why pick on me? I’m doing exactly what the casinos are doing. I’m bringing employment to the community,’” Gottheil says. “Well, that’s not the kind of employment we want, and that’s what it boils down to – what do we want?” Rev. Shaughneysy Small, who retired about 10 years ago from Capital City Church of God, says Sangamon County voters have already told lawmakers what they want – a voice in the matter. In 1994, Small chaired the group Citizens for Voter Choice, which successfully pushed for a ballot referendum asking voters if they wanted the power to decide if the county would expand gambling. At the time, developers were eyeing the Sangamon River as a possible location for a casino if the Illinois legislature approved gambling expansion. About 90 percent of Sangamon County voters said they did want the final say.
The referendum “had no teeth” and wasn’t a vote on whether to expand gambling – just whether voters should have a say. But Small says it was still worthwhile. “That 90 percent came out, and that was a good thing for the city to see.”
Rep. Lang says the time to debate the morality of gambling has long since passed. “If we had no gaming in Illinois, then I would say … ‘Let’s have that debate.’ But we’ve had gambling in Illinois for many, many years.” He adds that the measure calls for $10 million in social programming to combat any gambling addiction issues.
But Bedell is quick to note that the sum is “subject to appropriation,” meaning the money doesn’t automatically go to those programs – lawmakers must have the will to specifically designate the funds year after year.
Quinn’s call
Lang says he’s had a lengthy meeting with the governor since the legislation passed the General Assembly in May but that Quinn gave no indication of what he would do. Lang says the meeting was “mostly a factfinding session.”
Whatever Quinn does decide to do, Lang says any changes would be tricky.
“I do not believe that you will ever get legislators from a community that has been given gaming in this bill to vote for anything that would take it away from them,” Lang says. “I think it would be very difficult to make changes in this bill and have votes sufficient to pass it.”
As of a week ago, Gov. Quinn’s office had received more than 8,200 calls, emails and letters in favor of the proposed gambling expansion and about 2,500 calls opposed. His office has also seen 3,455 petition signatures against the legislation versus 32 in support.
Spokesperson for the governor, Annie Thompson, says Quinn is still undecided on what to do with the measure, but it could be months before Quinn actually gets to officially weigh in on the legislation. The legislature is holding off sending the measure to the governor’s office as lawmakers, lobbyists and the public meet with Quinn to discuss the bill, which calls for expanded gambling far beyond the Springfield fairgrounds.
In the meantime, those on either side of the debate are eagerly awaiting the final outcome.
“We’ve taken a gamble thinking we would get this up to this point,” Ken Walker says, noting the $100,000 he’s expecting to lose this year to keep his horse farm running if the measure doesn’t pass. “You can only do that for so long before you have to change the name of the game.”
Bedell, on the other hand, is hoping Quinn will veto the entire measure. “This will be his legacy if he signs this. They won’t remember anything else he does, but he will be the gambling governor,” she says. “That will be his legacy.”
Contact Rachel Wells at [email protected].
