Pennsylvania government partners with mega corporations to promote gambling interests.  To not believe this, ignore the 56 per cent tax the state imposes on casino profits – highest in America.  PA Gaming Control Board can be more interested in preserving the monopoly than insuring patrons get a fair shake.

A rushed-through law this past June 30, designed to crush a threat to casinos in the state is evidence the partnership remains in play.

Last fall, cafes spread from eastern Ohio into western Pennsylvania. Patrons purchase time on the internet or telephone usage cards, qualifying for play in slot machine type games that can win jackpots.  From June 30 to July 17, when a Federal Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), approximately 1,000 employees of the 350 public cafes in PA were jobless.

An unknown number of social clubs in PA also have internet sweepstakes.  County prosecutors show little interest in enforcing the law, upheld or not.  Clubs, however, live or die by the Liquor Control Board which may not abide by the TRO. 

Games follow “loopholes” in gambling laws, paralleling sweepstakes contests conducted by MacDonald’s Restaurants, Publisher’s Clearinghouse and the like.  Games are played on desktop IBM-compatible computers and displayed on flat-screen monitors.

If the states succeed in preventing the games in retail parlors, a version will almost certainly move to the Internet for home play.  Currently more than 30 states permit some form of gambling and extract taxes far in excess of the cost of regulating same.

Attempts at outlawing internet cafes have failed elsewhere.  US District Court for Central PA issued the TRO only one day after requested.

Prompt issuance of the TRO was made possible when PA Attorney General Linda Kelly concurred in the demand by a café operator in Lackawanna County.  Oral arguments are scheduled to make the restraining order permanent August 7.

Café operators contend games are within the constitutional right of free speech and are “legal promotional tools the likes of which (are used) by the largest corporate producers.”  A similar prohibition of internet cafes was adopted by the Maine legislature this week and awaits the Governor’s signature.

In Pennsylvania drafting of HB 1893 began June 24 and was passed by the House and Senate very late on June 30 despite rules requiring a three-day wait period.  Gov. Corbett, who took three years to stop a child molester, signed this bill a few minutes before midnight on the same date.

Original draft of the bill stated the ban was to take place in 60 days.  This was crossed out and the word "immediate" was substituted.  Practice is to allow a 60-90 day implementation period.  Lawmakers in Harrisburg only ask for immediate implementation if the action is of a compelling public need or those writing campaign checks say they want it right now. 

When a PA Gaming Control Board official was asked in November by a journalist to comment on the cafes, he said it was his first knowledge.   He promised their tenure here would be short.  Two weeks later a ban passed the House 196-0, but went nowhere in the Senate.

Some legislators claim Internet Cafes attract Organized Crime, however no evidence has been offered.   Political contributions made direct from casino people to state legislators are prohibited by law.  Lawmakers “recommending” job seekers and vendors to casinos are not forbidden.

About 770 internet cafes operate in Ohio where casinos are just getting underway.  Following headline making stunts by state lawmakers, local prosecutors and town councilors, all reversed by courts, Gov. John Kasich signed a bill prohibiting additional cafes from opening for a year.  The time will be spent establishing a regulatory apparatus and taxes and fees of some sort.

Eleven Republican and eight Democrats were sponsors of PA HR 1893.  The only lawyer among the sponsors privately told colleagues he “doubted the bill would” survive court tests.  No hearings were held nor outside testimony solicited.

Gambling laws in Pennsylvania remain a joke.  Video poker machines are outlawed anywhere but in a licensed casino.  In Pittsburgh and New Castle, therefore, annual amusement license fees for the machines are higher than for a jukebox.  There has been no crackdown on video poker machines anywhere in Pennsylvania for years.

 (Full disclosure:  the writer was owner of a tobacco shop with sweepstakes games in Western Pennsylvania.  He was also a registered lobbyist representing business interests in obtaining a casino license several years ago.  His company also served as the court-appointed Trustee for a vending company with video poker machines.)

Republicans are greatly outnumbered in voter registration in both Pennsylvania and the United States as a whole.  Despite this, the GOP flexes muscle in Harrisburg and Washington.

Republicans are more disciplined and tend to support their Party more.

Votes on the Affordable Care Act establish the baseline for support of this contention.  The Senate voted on the final edition of the most important Federal legislation in a generation on December 24, 2009.  This version of the bill was passed on 60-39 with party breakdown on votes as follows:

The Democrat vote was 58-0 for and the Republicans were 39-0 against.  Two Senators registered Independent voted with the Democrats.  Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning did not vote.

After much shuffling, Democrat House leadership scheduled a vote for March 23, 2010.  Democrats voted 219 to 34 in favor and Republicans cast all their 178 votes unanimously against.  The passage by219-212 set up President Obama’s signature on his signature legislation two days later.

Republicans did all they could to keep private insurance and drug companies in control and at huge profits.  President Obama insisted they be included in negotiations.  Some of the features they pushed were included in final legislation.  These changes weaken the new law and failed to garner a single GOP vote.

Two of the 34 Democrats voting against Affordable Care represent Pennsylvania Districts – Jason Altmire in the 4th and Tim Holden in the 17th.  No vote could be cast by a representative of the 12th District because John Murtha had just died February 8, 2010 and a special election for his successor had not been held.

When the special election was held, the winner was Mark Critz who had spent more than a decade working as a staff member in Murtha’s office.

Due to the 2010 census, Pennsylvania lost two more seats in Congress.  In a reapportionment process the GOP controls, the new boundaries forced Critz to run against Altmire in this past primary.

Both PA Democrats who voted against President Obama’s Affordable Care Act two years ago – Altmire and Holden – lost in the primary.  The Washington Post said Holden, first elected in 1992, “lost to lawyer Matt Cartwright, who had the support of liberal activists upset about Holden’s moderate voting record.”

Altmire first beat an entrenched Republican in 2006.  In the 2012 primary, trying for his fourth term, he lost to Critz, 52 to 48 per cent.

About this primary battle, the Post said Critz “ran as the Democrat more true to his party’s core values, with Altmire’s opposition to the 2010 health-care law a key factor in swaying union support to Critz’s side.”

Critz now heads into the General Election against Republican lawyer Keith Rothfus.  Altmire only beat Rothfus by two percentage points in 2010.   Sen. John McCain carried this new Congressional District with 54 percent in 2008.

Critz employs campaign strategy, not identical to Altmire’s, but certainly similar.

He recently rejected a GOP bill knocking Obama Care, but he also voted for a precedent-setting contempt citation (one of 17 Democrats) against Attorney General Eric Holder.  He also plans to skip the Democrat National Convention in September to put some more space between him and President Obama.

Word is Critz hopes to nullify damage from the National Rifle Association.

If Critz and Obama win in November, can the President count on this second-term Representative?  John Murtha was a Democrat Party leader in Congress.  A decorated military veteran, he only parted with his President and Party over the war in the mid-East.

Is Murtha spinning in his grave?

Some 288 House members and Senators belong to the Republican Party.  None are known to put on Democrat garb around election time.  GOP moderates are moderate the year round.  The Affordable Care Act votes show how they can close ranks, when duty calls.

A large number of voters think legislators should have no say in the process that reapportions the districts they run in.

Lawmakers work the district boundaries to insure their re-election with little concern about geography, voters’ interests and other factors.  Drawing lines to help incumbents is a process known as “gerrymandering.”

A better system, according to the state League of Women Voters, would create a citizens’ commission of 12 members – four Republicans, four Democrats and four nonpartisan voters.  Creating new boundaries would require a super majority of eight votes.

Recently petitions bearing 430,000 signatures were turned in to the secretary of state’s office.  Signers want a referendum on the issue put on the ballot in November.

This movement, however, takes place in Ohio.  Pennsylvanians may hold similar disgust, but the state constitution prohibits such referendums.

Ohio’s constitution permits certain issues to be placed on a ballot with the referendum’s outcome binding.  Ohio school districts and municipalities even have to submit tax increases for voter approval.

A story by Marc Kovac in the Youngstown Vindicator notes a group called “Voters First” is pushing the referendum and hope to get more signatures before the August deadline.  About 385,000 valid voter signatures are required to get the issue on the ballot.

Even with defects, they seem to already have enough signatures.  Some leaders learned last year to use the petition drive as momentum and roll into the election.

In 2011 Ohio voters stuck it to Gov. John Kasich, even though they had just elected him the year before.  Kasich had rammed several new laws through his Republican-controlled legislature.  The legislation drawing voters’ ire sharply reduced collective bargaining rights of public employees.

Known as Senate Bill 5, the action angered labor unions and apparently a good many more Ohioans.  Some 1.3 million voters signed petitions asking for a referendum to repeal SB5.  In November Kasich’s law was soundly rejected 62 per cent to 38 per cent.

In some political circles Ohio is known as a state where the Indians run the reservation, both locally and statewide.  Referendums limit the power of elected officials.

Not so in Pennsylvania.

Voters go to the polls to elect their public officials and that is their only bite at the apple.   Referendums in Pennsylvania may only be put on the ballot when a bill passes both Houses and is signed by the Governor.

Change comes slowly in PA.  A few years ago legislators granted power to voters in local school districts to limit or deny property tax increases.  No similar brake on state legislators’ taxing powers is under consideration.

In fact, very little reform is expected.  Some 25 elected and former members of the House of Representatives and their employees have been convicted or pled guilty of theft of services paid by taxpayers.  This “white collar crime wave” would trigger tighter rules and more accountability in most other states.

The House recently voted to reduce membership in both the House and Senate.  The bill awaits action by the Senate before the end of this two-year session on November 30.  The legislation would then have to be voted through another session of the legislature, probably 2013-14.  Then it would go to the voters for final approval.

The legislature made a midnight pay grab in 2005, and then rescinded it when voters growled.  Later, to mollify the angry electorate, lawmakers adopted some new rules.  No more legislation without hearings, no votes after 11 p.m., no votes until three days after a bill is introduced and the like.

The 2012-13 budget was passed very shortly before midnight June 30.  Companion laws and even legislation that had nothing to do with the budget were pulled from the shelf and rammed through in other late night votes.

Hearings?  Three day waits?  Voting before curfew?

Did Gov. Corbett slow walk the Jerry Sandusky child molestation investigation while Attorney General and -- concurrently -- campaigning for governor in 2010?  Was it obvious then that expanding the probe to include a possible cover-up by top Penn State officials would anger a constituency Corbett needed to win the election?

Popular head football coach Joe Paterno functioned as Sandusky’s supervisor for thirty years, and then allowed the now-convicted child molester to roam freely through the athletic facilities after he retired.  Did Corbett fear that an escalation of the investigation involving the sacred PSU and legendary coach might jeopardize some votes?

Or was it strictly a matter of money?   Board members of the Second Mile, a charity that last employed Sandusky and is now in ruins, together contributed over $200,000 to his campaign.  Add in former directors, friends, family and business associates and the amount swells to over $600,000.

A county district attorney referred the first reported victim of Sandusky’s sordid conduct to Corbett in early 2009.  He was just beginning his second term as attorney general and gearing up to run for governor the following year.  Corbett opened his probe, but only assigned a single investigator.

The investigation remained at that intensity throughout the period when Corbett was responsible.   When his hand-picked successor for AG, Linda Kelly, took over in January, 2011 she immediately cranked up the probe.  Most of the time she used at least seven investigators.  They interviewed victims as they came forward or were named by others.  They hunted for evidence and testimony from supporting witnesses.

Corbett has escaped criticism for his role (or lack of interest) in not getting Sandusky off the street as quick as possible.  At recent press conferences, reporters threw softball questions.

Reporter: “Why did you not put more staff on the case early on?”

Corbett: “Because these cases need time to develop, time for more witnesses to come forward.”

Reporter: “Were you concerned about leaving Sandusky out on the street?”

Corbett: “From experience we were pretty sure that as soon as Sandusky knew we were on to him, he would stop molesting.”

Corbett can be a very strong orator, but these questions were answered just barely above a whisper.

Reporter:  “What about . . .”

Corbett (his voice raising):  “Sorry, it is somebody else’s turn.”

Paterno died in January at age 85, reportedly from lung cancer.  In November. America’s most winning football coach announced he would resign as head coach at the end of that season.  However, close to Thanksgiving, Trustees voted to fire JoePa and long-time president Graham Spanier.

Trustees claimed Paterno did not show leadership when Sandusky allegedly showered with a boy in the football locker room in 2001.  Graduate assistant Mike McQueary testified he had witnessed the incident and told Paterno about it.

Paterno claimed he had passed the report on to athletic director Tim Curley.  ESPN Magazine reported Corbett not only attended the Trustee meeting, but landed at State College the night before.  He joined fellow trustees in a bar.  ESPN claimed Corbett played a leadership role in the dismissal of Paterno.

“It’s about the children,” Corbett was quoted later.

Governors are automatically made members of the PSU Board of Trustees, but seldom attend meetings.

The Paterno family has demanded a complete airing of all the evidence.  They believe someone involved in the investigation is trying to smear the late coach.

Other Paterno supporters believe nothing less than the appointment of a special prosecutor will fully resolve the public’s concern.   Special prosecutors are more common in Federal investigations and in states where leaders give a damn about the public interest.

Elsewhere, special prosecutors could be quickly appointed by the Governor, the legislature or the Attorney General.  Here, the procedure is so rare there may not be rules to follow, powers to bestow or methods to pay.

Gov. Tom Corbett’s budget for 2012-13 “transforms the way government works with county government in the funding of local assistance programs.”  The new budget funds “a Human Services block grant pilot program that will help up to 20 counties provide more personalized services to those in need.”

Those are the Governor’s words in a release minutes after signing the new budget very late Friday night.  Corbett is now two for two in signing a budget by the constitutionally mandated deadline of midnight June 30.

His predecessor, Ed Rendell, was zero for eight.

How Corbett goes about getting his budget through the legislature presents some contrast even though Republican control of both the House and Senate makes it easier.  Rendell had a Democrat House for some years he was governor but always had to deal with a heavily Republican Senate

At least at the end, as Corbett’s budget neared passage over this past weekend, the Governor claimed his version was “only a draft.”  And he did spend time in several sessions with Republican legislative leadership of both houses.

Corbett successively gambled that he would not need Democrat votes in either chamber to pass the budget.  Not even back-door communications between the Parties appeared to be in play.

Legitimate hearings just don’t occur anymore.  Rather, “dog-and-pony’s” are held by both parties.

Corbett was state Attorney General for six years and had to beg to get his budget for that department in acceptable form.  He views interaction with legislators as either necessary or at least unlikely to contact a communicable disease.

Rendell had little direct contact with legislators.  He had no time for people he did not like.  One year when his budget may have been more stalled than others, the former Philadelphia Mayor demonstrated this relationship.  At a news conference he was asked three times if he had either “met with legislators or at least set aside time to meet with them.”  Every time, his answer was “my staff is ready to meet with them anytime, anywhere.”

Corbett appears to be slightly more flexible in his budget demands, spurning Rendell’s “my way or the highway” attitude.

Funding to the counties for social services is an example.   Corbett originally wanted block grants amounting to a ten per cent reduction over last year’s appropriation for all 67 counties.  In addition to having to work with less money, some county commissioners were not keen on taking direct responsibility for allocations to local agencies.

More decisions raise controversy and lower re-elections.

Most county boards of commissioners will opt to split the block grants remarkably similar to the ratio apportioned out by the state.  Easier to defend.

That was always the flaw in the philosophy of first President Bush when he promoted an old fashioned spirit of volunteerism at the street level as a substitute for more tax money.

The spin that we can provide more services with less government money and/or interference resonates with all voters.  This philosophy dovetails with another fallacy.  Decisions are better made at the local level.

Both, of course, are wrong.  Government programs happen because the private sector cannot or will not provide the remedy.  Local decisions are only arrived at after local pressures are applied.

In the meantime, the private sector must plug the gap by increasing donations to the United Ways in each county.  United Way boards are populated by members who are more concerned with the welfare of their communities than getting re-elected.

There is no guarantee this way is better, but as long as Tom Corbett is Governor these are the rules of the game.

(Full disclosure: The writer is a board member of United Way of Mercer County.)