Louisiana Supreme Court hears debate over casino contributions
By The Associated Press
05.14.02
Printer-friendly page
NEW ORLEANS — Louisiana's ban on political donations from gambling interests violated the industry's free-speech rights and likely hurt democracy more than it could ever stem corruption, pro-gambling lawyers told the state Supreme Court yesterday.
State lawyers countered that the 1996 ban was legal because it does not entirely exclude gambling interests from the political process, since they can still buy political advertising and lobby the Legislature.
The Louisiana Supreme Court agreed to hear the case after state district Judge Timothy Kelley overturned the law, agreeing with gambling interests that the ban violated free-speech provisions in the U.S. Constitution.
Kelley ruled that the state also failed to show that allowing casinos to donate to campaigns would bring real harm or lower the risk of corruption.
In 1999, the Supreme Court rejected part of the same law that banned campaign donations from video poker operators in a ruling based primarily on free-speech rights.
But Maris McCrory, a lawyer with the state ethics board, argued that the video poker industry, in which anyone who meets certain standards can get a license, is different from the state's highly regulated casinos.
"The political interest of this select group ... is considerable," she told the justices.
She also argued that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that campaign donations are not direct speech and are not entitled to the same level of protection under the U.S. Constitution.
Technically, gambling is banned by the Louisiana Constitution. The state Legislature got around that by legalizing a specifically defined "gaming" industry consisting of video poker parlors, riverboat casinos and a single land-based casino in New Orleans.
McCrory argued that the ban on campaign contributions was an important part of that carefully crafted exception.
"Plaintiff's argument that gaming is just another industry that should not be singled out for restrictions is simply not supported in law or history," McCrory said.
Several justices, John L. Weimer in particular, challenged gaming lawyers to explain how the ban critically infringes the industry's free-speech rights if it can still lobby or buy advertising.
Cliffe Laborde, a Lafayette-based lawyer for Harrah's, agreed that casinos could still participate in politics if the ban were upheld, but added that the industry is still targeted based on unfair assumptions.
"Making a campaign contribution is not tantamount to corruption," Laborde said.
Rick Stanley, a lawyer for the state's 15 riverboat casino license holders — 14 of which are operating — said the ban is contradictory not only because the industry is legal, but also because casinos receive licenses only after regulators determine the companies have demonstrated the sufficient moral character to get them.
Stanley pointed out that allowing them to give to campaigns might improve democracy since politicians must disclose all such contributions. Anyone can see who accepts gambling industry donations and can make a campaign issue of it if they wish, he said.
"A candidate can say, 'I don't want to associate with gaming, and I refuse to accept their money,' " Stanley said.
That gambling is considered a vice, like drinking liquor, is not sufficient to limit casino executives' free speech, he said, touching on an argument Kelley made in his ruling last year.
The lawsuit challenging the ban on casinos was filed in 2000 by the Casino Association of Louisiana, which includes Boyd Gaming Corp., Pinnacle Entertainment Inc., Isle of Capri Inc., Argosy Gaming Co., Penn National Gaming Inc. and Horseshoe Holding Corp. Harrah's Entertainment Inc. of Las Vegas, which operates the New Orleans land casino but is not an association member, also joined the lawsuit.
The justices did not indicate when they would rule. Justices Pascal Calogero, Jeffrey Victory, Chet Traylor, Catherine Kimball, Bernette Johnson and Weimer were present for yesterday's arguments. Justice Jeannette Theriot Knoll was absent but will listen to a recording of the hearing and take part in the ruling, officials in the clerk's office said.
Update
State high court upholds ban on campaign contributions from casinos
Split decision overturns lower court ruling that Louisiana law violates companies' free-speech rights.
06.24.02
Previous
Louisiana casino-contributions ban overturned
Judge says free-speech rights of riverboat, land casinos were violated by law that barred them from donating to political campaigns.
11.06.01
Related
State asks Louisiana high court to reverse ruling on poker contributions
Justices had found that ban improperly limited free-speech rights of video poker license holders.
11.18.99
Confusion creeps into celebration over lifting of casino ad ban
First Amendment advocates left wondering how far Supreme Court's decision reaches.
06.15.99
