http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20080412_Obama_s_ties_to_city_casino_questioned.html
Obama's ties to city casino questioned
In '03, he questioned gambling's social cost. A SugarHouse owner is a campaign donor.
By Tom Infield
Inquirer Staff Writer
As an Illinois legislator in 2003, Barack Obama voiced strong reservations about the expansion of legalized gambling as a means for states to cover budget gaps.
"I think the moral and social cost of gambling, particularly in low-income communities, could be devastating," he told the Chicago Defender newspaper.
Now, as he runs for president, Obama has accepted substantial financial help from the principal owner of the SugarHouse casino proposed for a site on the Delaware River in Philadelphia.
The Obama campaign said yesterday it saw nothing inconsistent in the senator's accepting support from Neil G. Bluhm, a Chicago-based real estate developer. According to the Washington Post, Bluhm has bundled together $78,000 in contributions from himself and his family.
Sean Smith, an Obama spokesman in Pennsylvania, said yesterday it would be wrong to call Obama an opponent of casino gambling.
'Important tool'
"He has said that he is concerned about the moral implications of gaming that is improperly regulated," Smith said, "but he believes that some states have managed to effectively regulate gambling and use it as an important tool for economic development."
Bluhm personally has given Obama the legal maximum of $4,600 for both the primary and general elections, according to federal records. He did not respond to two requests for comment from The Inquirer left yesterday with his office at his firm, Walton St. Capital.
SugarHouse is among 14 slots-parlor casinos open or planned for Pennsylvania. Gov. Rendell and the legislature approved them as a means of raising tax revenue that could help offset some local property or wage taxes.
Gambling does not, in most instances, involve the federal government. Casinos are licensed and governed at the state and local levels.
'Made me wonder'
Daniel Hunter, spokesman for a group that opposes the SugarHouse casino, said Obama's acceptance of Bluhm's money raised questions for him about where Obama really stands.
"It has made me wonder where his position on casinos is - and whether that shifts based on how people do or do not give money," he said.
The issue of where the Democratic presidential candidates stand on legalized campaign was raised at the time of the Nevada primary.
Clinton, who strongly favors gambling as a tool for community development, sought to paint Obama as a gambling foe.
Obama told the Associated Press: "The concerns that I had in Illinois related to the way in which those who own these [gambling river] boats had a very exclusive monopoly, were making enormous contributions to the state legislature and were having a disproportionate influence on the legislation."
Obama's ties to city casino questioned
In '03, he questioned gambling's social cost. A SugarHouse owner is a campaign donor.
By Tom Infield
Inquirer Staff Writer
As an Illinois legislator in 2003, Barack Obama voiced strong reservations about the expansion of legalized gambling as a means for states to cover budget gaps.
"I think the moral and social cost of gambling, particularly in low-income communities, could be devastating," he told the Chicago Defender newspaper.
Now, as he runs for president, Obama has accepted substantial financial help from the principal owner of the SugarHouse casino proposed for a site on the Delaware River in Philadelphia.
The Obama campaign said yesterday it saw nothing inconsistent in the senator's accepting support from Neil G. Bluhm, a Chicago-based real estate developer. According to the Washington Post, Bluhm has bundled together $78,000 in contributions from himself and his family.
Sean Smith, an Obama spokesman in Pennsylvania, said yesterday it would be wrong to call Obama an opponent of casino gambling.
'Important tool'
"He has said that he is concerned about the moral implications of gaming that is improperly regulated," Smith said, "but he believes that some states have managed to effectively regulate gambling and use it as an important tool for economic development."
Bluhm personally has given Obama the legal maximum of $4,600 for both the primary and general elections, according to federal records. He did not respond to two requests for comment from The Inquirer left yesterday with his office at his firm, Walton St. Capital.
SugarHouse is among 14 slots-parlor casinos open or planned for Pennsylvania. Gov. Rendell and the legislature approved them as a means of raising tax revenue that could help offset some local property or wage taxes.
Gambling does not, in most instances, involve the federal government. Casinos are licensed and governed at the state and local levels.
'Made me wonder'
Daniel Hunter, spokesman for a group that opposes the SugarHouse casino, said Obama's acceptance of Bluhm's money raised questions for him about where Obama really stands.
"It has made me wonder where his position on casinos is - and whether that shifts based on how people do or do not give money," he said.
The issue of where the Democratic presidential candidates stand on legalized campaign was raised at the time of the Nevada primary.
Clinton, who strongly favors gambling as a tool for community development, sought to paint Obama as a gambling foe.
Obama told the Associated Press: "The concerns that I had in Illinois related to the way in which those who own these [gambling river] boats had a very exclusive monopoly, were making enormous contributions to the state legislature and were having a disproportionate influence on the legislation."
