http://66.225.205.104/LL20100622.mp3
The state Senate voted last night to ban video gambling in North Carolina. It's their latest attempt to shut down a persistent and thriving industry. Henderson Republican Tom Apodaca didn't mince words in urging his fellow senators to ban video gambling. "This is something we really don't need. I mean, this is just a scourge, and I'll happily vote to ban this," Apodaca says. It's not the first time he's said that. North Carolina has been trying for years to get rid of video gambling. Its critics say it's addictive, it breeds crime and corruption, and it preys on low-income and minority populations. And yet, it's more popular than ever among those who say it's harmless entertainment. For a long time, a form of video poker was legal in North Carolina. But it was restricted. There were no cash payouts. There were no more than $10 in prizes per player per day, and only four machines allowed at any location. Those restrictions weren't really enforceable much of the time, but it wasn't a big problem until about ten years ago. Bob Hall is executive director of Democracy NC. "In about 2000, when South Carolina banned video poker, a large number of machines moved across the border, and that just escalated the problem in North Carolina," Hall says. As the gambling industry pushed to loosen the laws, officials tried to crack down on them, but they were stymied by one legal loophole after another. Meantime, the industry's political clout was growing. By 2004, Hall and other critics warned that video poker had become a front for organized crime. The allegation turned out to be true. Operators were bribing local officials to look the other way, and pumping money into campaign coffers to make friends in Raleigh. Federal investigators sent about half a dozen people to prison - sheriffs, industry figures, and eventually, former House Speaker Jim Black. Hall says that was the last straw for state lawmakers. "The revelations of how embedded he was in the industry's protection operation made lawmakers realize that "We need to demonstrate that we're not a part of this, and we reject the legacy of Jim Black, we reject the power of that kind of corrupting money." The Legislature banned video poker in 2006. But before the law even took effect, the gambling industry came back with a new type of game, hosted on an online server. It's called internet sweepstakes. It works like this: you go into one of these cafes, and you buy minutes of internet time. Your purchase gets you a certain number of free sweepstakes entries. Then you use the computer time you just bought to see if you've won. The screen that shows your results looks and acts like a slot machine. But the result is predetermined. In 2008, legislators passed yet another ban, this time targeting the sweepstakes games. But the industry sued, arguing that sweepstakes are legal under state law. Consultant Brad Crone is an industry spokesman. "Video sweepstakes is just one more extension of the state's sweepstakes law. There is a predetermined set of winners," Crone says. "The odds have a ratio. And that's how the games are played. Whether it's the Publishers Cearing House, whether it's McDonald's Monopoly game, or Pepsi-Cola or Coca-Cola or other cap games." Two North Carolina judges agreed, putting the 2008 law on hold. In the meantime, more than 900 internet sweepstakes parlors have sprung up all over the state. Crone says instead of banning them, the state should regulate and tax them, which he says could bring in half a billion dollars a year. "If you do that you generate a whole mainstream of revenue from the state of North Carolina without raising taxes, that will help you from having to make absolutely drastic cuts to education funding and the state of North Carolina," Crone says. That was the same argument made Mondayt night by Wilmington Democrat Julia Boseman. She was the only Senator to vote against the ban. Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight admits taxing the parlors would raise revenue. "But where does that money come from? It comes from those who can least afford to pay - and then we have to take care of their families and their needs," Basnight says. The measure outlaws the quote "entertaining display" of a sweepstakes prize, and specifically prohibits any attempt to get around the law through subterfuge or pretense. Senate majority leader Martin Nesbitt says he doesn't know if this will be the ban that sticks. "But I want to tell you this - we're gonna keep trying. If we stop this and they find another ingenuous way to do it, we'll stop that too." The measure's next stop is the state House, where Democratic caucus leaders say they haven't yet discussed it. But Speaker Joe Hackney expects it will get a full hearing.