I am opposed to gambling. We know that gambling harms families and creates serious social problems. The costs of gambling include damage to the moral, social, economic and spiritual life of the community. The expansion of gambling as a means to provide revenue for state government is misguided and is destructive to good government.
I was unhappy to find out that Rep. Rod Hamilton voted for Rep. Buesgen's amendment to the Omnibus State Finance Bill to allow a constitutional amendment authorizing a state run casino at Canterbury Park in Shakopee. In fact I know of at least three votes Hamilton cast on the issue of gambling. all on April 18, 2006. Hamilton voted for. Buesgen's amendment allowing a "racino." with the state receiving 40 percent of the net proceeds. He voted against a similar amendment offered by Rep. Hortman that required the state receive 80 percent of the net proceeds. Evidently, the morality of the state meeting its bills by running gaming halls was not the determining factor in Hamilton's vote. Perhaps he found it less disagreeable as long as the state's cut was not too large. To further confuse the matter, Hamilton voted that same day for Rep. Emmer's amendment to prohibit all forms of gambling in Minnesota, including charitable gambling at the local Legion hall.
Now, as I have said. I am no fan of gambling; however, I can not understand taking a hard stand against the relatively small impact of charitable gambling, while voting for a state-run casino. I can not make sense of Hamilton's "both sides of the issue" votes on this important matter.
