Video Gambling and H.B. 5313
House Bill 5313 (H.B. 5313) is one of three bills, that I know of, that have been introduced into the Illinois House of Representatives this session to alter an originally passed law—H.B. 255. H.B. 255, which was passed last year in violation of the Illinois Constitution, allows video gambling within communities (unincorporated areas of a county) under prescribed circumstances and also allows communities (counties) to opt out or ban video gambling within the community (unincorporated areas of a county) if so desired. First, I’m posting three short items in relation to H.B. 5313 and then giving my take on this particular bill.
1) From http://www.ilcaaap.org/ (Illinois Church Action on Alcohol & Addiction Problems)
“February 9, 2010
Gambling Action Alert
Legislation aimed at keeping communities from banning video gambling
Top mobsters have been caught on secret FBI recordings welcoming the legalization of video poker machines (Is this a surprise? Gambling in this nation has always been a revenue source for immoral individuals and criminal elements—it preys upon the vices and weaknesses of individuals. What is relatively new is that governments have joined the procession and are also trying to benefit financially from this evil. GANGSTER GOVERNMENTS!—my addition), a business they have dominated over the years, according to the Southtown Star.
The legislative intent of the Video Gaming Act (HB 255) was to allow municipalities and counties to decide for themselves if they wanted to legalize video gambling in their jurisdictions. The law included two ways for communities to ‘opt out’—by local ordinance or citizen referendum.
HB 5313 imposes a monthly surcharge on communities that ban video gambling machines to replace lost revenue. HB 5313 contains the same language as SB 2816, introduced by Sen. Mike Jacobs.
“1) Contact your State Representative and ask him/her to vote NO on HB 5313 (S.B. 2816).
2) If your community has already banned video gambling, ask your local officials to contact State Legislators to OPPOSE HB 5313 (S.B. 2816).
3) Share this alert with your faith community.
4) Forward to 10 others.”
2) A Chicago Tribune editorial contained the following information concerning H.B. 5313. [As far as I can tell, the synopsis wording for the Senate bill (S.B. 2816) is exactly the same as H.B. 5313 and so I will not post the wording for the Senate bill. The quote is actually about the Senate version but obviously also applies to the House version—my addition.]
“An even goofier bill offered by state Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-Moline [The goofier part has to do with the House bill discussed previously which requires that a community (county) not receive any funds from video gambling revenue if video gambling is banned in its jurisdiction—my addition.], would force communities that opt out of video gambling to pay a monthly penalty to Springfield. Follow closely: That penalty, euphemistically called a surcharge, would equal the estimated revenue that the maximum allowable number of machines in each community would be generating for the state—if the locale hadn’t banned video gambling. Think of this one as a twist on Illinois’ heritage of pay-to-play: You would pay-for-not-playing. Saviano and Reitz are pushing a House version. Again, we find no similar smack down elsewhere in state law.
Proponents are trying to frighten communities that have opted out of video gambling into reversing their votes. At least three legislators have warned Hollie Lindgren, who chairs the Kane County Board’s legislative committee, that her county may lose state funding for capital projects unless it overrides its December vote to opt out. The scare tactic might work: The County Board will discuss a possible reversal at its Feb. 23 meeting.”
3) The H.B. 5313 synopsis:
“H.B. 5313
by Rep. Angelo Saviano - Dan Reitz
SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:
30 ILCS 115/2 from Ch. 85, par. 612
230 ILCS 40/72 new
30 ILCS 805/8.34 new
Amends the Video Gaming Act. Provides that, if a municipality or county prohibits video gaming pursuant to the Act, then the Board, with the cooperation of the Department of Revenue, shall impose a monthly surcharge in an amount determined by the Board that the municipality or county would have been contributing under the Act (Some bureaucrat(s) will determine how much the local jurisdiction has to pay for doing what the law allows!—my addition) had the municipality or county not prohibited video gaming, which shall be based on the maximum amount of machines that may be located within the municipality or county (According to one of our Village Board members during discuss, the estimate is that 3 machines per establishment would actually be in play rather than the five permitted. Yet, the “surcharge” would be based upon five per establishment. Talk about punitive!—my addition) Provides that, if a municipality or county fails to remit the surcharge, then the amount of the monthly surcharge shall be deducted from any amounts certified to be allocated to the municipality or county from the Local Government Distributive Fund in the next consecutive monthly allocation. Makes conforming changes in the State Revenue Sharing Act. Amends the State Mandates Act to require implementation without reimbursement. Effective immediately.”
As a reminder, the capital building program is to be funded from several sources including increased taxes on selected products and the tax on video gambling. Video gambling is suppose to provide about 30% of the funds for these projects.
Is this proposed bill a joke? Are some of our legislators so vindictive that they even conceive such nonsense? Clearly, this bill as proposed is an ex post facto law which is prohibited by the Illinois Constitution. Article I—Bill of Rights, Section 16 declares “No ex post facto law … shall be passed.” An ex post facto law is a law that restricts some entity for doing something that was legal in the past.
A tax for not doing an activity! I don’t think I have ever even heard of a similar proposal until this year. Now, we have a federal government who wants to tax people for not having health insurance. And to not be outdone, State legislators want to tax local governments for not doing something. By the way, even though it is a tax, it can’t be called a tax because one government technically is not suppose to tax another government.
What are these people smoking? More importantly, what are these people reading? It certainly isn’t any Constitution that I have read?
The original law (H.B. 255) allows communities to ban video gambling and places NO restrictions on that action. To now, after the fact, place any restriction on that action is obviously unconstitutional. OBVIOUSLY! (Well, maybe not to legislators.) Can you say LAW SUIT!!!
House Bill 5313 (H.B. 5313) is one of three bills, that I know of, that have been introduced into the Illinois House of Representatives this session to alter an originally passed law—H.B. 255. H.B. 255, which was passed last year in violation of the Illinois Constitution, allows video gambling within communities (unincorporated areas of a county) under prescribed circumstances and also allows communities (counties) to opt out or ban video gambling within the community (unincorporated areas of a county) if so desired. First, I’m posting three short items in relation to H.B. 5313 and then giving my take on this particular bill.
1) From http://www.ilcaaap.org/ (Illinois Church Action on Alcohol & Addiction Problems)
“February 9, 2010
Gambling Action Alert
Legislation aimed at keeping communities from banning video gambling
Top mobsters have been caught on secret FBI recordings welcoming the legalization of video poker machines (Is this a surprise? Gambling in this nation has always been a revenue source for immoral individuals and criminal elements—it preys upon the vices and weaknesses of individuals. What is relatively new is that governments have joined the procession and are also trying to benefit financially from this evil. GANGSTER GOVERNMENTS!—my addition), a business they have dominated over the years, according to the Southtown Star.
The legislative intent of the Video Gaming Act (HB 255) was to allow municipalities and counties to decide for themselves if they wanted to legalize video gambling in their jurisdictions. The law included two ways for communities to ‘opt out’—by local ordinance or citizen referendum.
HB 5313 imposes a monthly surcharge on communities that ban video gambling machines to replace lost revenue. HB 5313 contains the same language as SB 2816, introduced by Sen. Mike Jacobs.
“1) Contact your State Representative and ask him/her to vote NO on HB 5313 (S.B. 2816).
2) If your community has already banned video gambling, ask your local officials to contact State Legislators to OPPOSE HB 5313 (S.B. 2816).
3) Share this alert with your faith community.
4) Forward to 10 others.”
2) A Chicago Tribune editorial contained the following information concerning H.B. 5313. [As far as I can tell, the synopsis wording for the Senate bill (S.B. 2816) is exactly the same as H.B. 5313 and so I will not post the wording for the Senate bill. The quote is actually about the Senate version but obviously also applies to the House version—my addition.]
“An even goofier bill offered by state Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-Moline [The goofier part has to do with the House bill discussed previously which requires that a community (county) not receive any funds from video gambling revenue if video gambling is banned in its jurisdiction—my addition.], would force communities that opt out of video gambling to pay a monthly penalty to Springfield. Follow closely: That penalty, euphemistically called a surcharge, would equal the estimated revenue that the maximum allowable number of machines in each community would be generating for the state—if the locale hadn’t banned video gambling. Think of this one as a twist on Illinois’ heritage of pay-to-play: You would pay-for-not-playing. Saviano and Reitz are pushing a House version. Again, we find no similar smack down elsewhere in state law.
Proponents are trying to frighten communities that have opted out of video gambling into reversing their votes. At least three legislators have warned Hollie Lindgren, who chairs the Kane County Board’s legislative committee, that her county may lose state funding for capital projects unless it overrides its December vote to opt out. The scare tactic might work: The County Board will discuss a possible reversal at its Feb. 23 meeting.”
3) The H.B. 5313 synopsis:
“H.B. 5313
by Rep. Angelo Saviano - Dan Reitz
SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:
30 ILCS 115/2 from Ch. 85, par. 612
230 ILCS 40/72 new
30 ILCS 805/8.34 new
Amends the Video Gaming Act. Provides that, if a municipality or county prohibits video gaming pursuant to the Act, then the Board, with the cooperation of the Department of Revenue, shall impose a monthly surcharge in an amount determined by the Board that the municipality or county would have been contributing under the Act (Some bureaucrat(s) will determine how much the local jurisdiction has to pay for doing what the law allows!—my addition) had the municipality or county not prohibited video gaming, which shall be based on the maximum amount of machines that may be located within the municipality or county (According to one of our Village Board members during discuss, the estimate is that 3 machines per establishment would actually be in play rather than the five permitted. Yet, the “surcharge” would be based upon five per establishment. Talk about punitive!—my addition) Provides that, if a municipality or county fails to remit the surcharge, then the amount of the monthly surcharge shall be deducted from any amounts certified to be allocated to the municipality or county from the Local Government Distributive Fund in the next consecutive monthly allocation. Makes conforming changes in the State Revenue Sharing Act. Amends the State Mandates Act to require implementation without reimbursement. Effective immediately.”
As a reminder, the capital building program is to be funded from several sources including increased taxes on selected products and the tax on video gambling. Video gambling is suppose to provide about 30% of the funds for these projects.
Is this proposed bill a joke? Are some of our legislators so vindictive that they even conceive such nonsense? Clearly, this bill as proposed is an ex post facto law which is prohibited by the Illinois Constitution. Article I—Bill of Rights, Section 16 declares “No ex post facto law … shall be passed.” An ex post facto law is a law that restricts some entity for doing something that was legal in the past.
A tax for not doing an activity! I don’t think I have ever even heard of a similar proposal until this year. Now, we have a federal government who wants to tax people for not having health insurance. And to not be outdone, State legislators want to tax local governments for not doing something. By the way, even though it is a tax, it can’t be called a tax because one government technically is not suppose to tax another government.
What are these people smoking? More importantly, what are these people reading? It certainly isn’t any Constitution that I have read?
The original law (H.B. 255) allows communities to ban video gambling and places NO restrictions on that action. To now, after the fact, place any restriction on that action is obviously unconstitutional. OBVIOUSLY! (Well, maybe not to legislators.) Can you say LAW SUIT!!!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home